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
1st watched 12/6/2009 - 4 out of 10 (Dir-Walter Lang): Disappointing musical from a character development standpoint, in my opinion, from this much-heralded Rodgers and Hammerstein piece. There a couple of good songs and a decent comical portrayal, at times, of the King of Siam by Yul Brynner -- but the movie doesn't really do a good job of presenting the situation and the settings. I can only blame the screenplay and possibly some of the acting as to why we don't fully understand the character's and their situations. I know it might be a little too much to ask of a musical meant for the enjoyment of the songs and the dancing, but even this part didn't stand out a lot for me. The basic storyline is about an English woman coming to Siam to teach the children about upscale European things. We find out later that the King is actually the biggest pupil. There is a side forbidden romance between the King's newest wife, played by Rita Moreno(a latino as an Arab--come on!!) and a former lover that causes some complications but nothing really mesmerizing added though. Deborah Kerr, as the main female character Annie -- is OK but not that convincing either. The King learns some things because of her presence and then the movie fades away as he does. This is really a miniscule story with some songs and dancing but not that great of an experience for a viewer really.


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


user
I picked this one up because the music was done by Hans Zimmer, a customer of Metasonix modular synths (made by someone dear to me). The jacket art says "the 2003 version".
I give it one point for a strong female, one point for cheezy dialog and one last point for meg foster's light blue eyes, of which there are plenty of shots of.
It was fun seeing David MacCullum casually swimming (the pool has a plexiglass viewing window!), while his lady love was being chased by a psycho in Greece.
The sets were marginally impressive-that is, rich people's houses in L.A. and Mendanassos (sp?), where the castle was. I found myself wondering how they were able to keep up the cleaning with all the dust blowing around. The wind wasn't fierce enough to be believable to me. I kept thinking that the animal pelts on the furniture must be nasty...etc. and realized that the film must be pretty boring if i am wondering these things when the supposed plot was unfolding. I stumbled over things like why did she light a fire, blow out the match, then throw the match into the fire?! Dumb stuff like that. It was clunky at best. Oh well. Robert Morely got to have a bit of fun with his kooky geezer character and a nice vacation out 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 discovered this movie with a retailer selling OOP's. And this one surely is an OOP. One year after The Exorcist she's back in business with this movie but what we all new was that the career of Blair never broke out, she never became a mega star. That's one of the reason's many of her films are OOP. She gives a good performance in this movie. It's about a reject not recognized by her parents and doesn't have any friends. Played at an age of 15 playing a girl of 14, that's funny. The movie is also known for the rape scene in the showers were they stick a broomstick up her virginity. In most editions it's cut out, why, I don't know, no blood is involved, okay, Blair is butt naked but nothing is shown, no T&A so nothing to offend people. But the movie is slow, extremely slow. It doesn't happy normally to me but I almost felt asleep. It's just about that 14 year old becoming a rebel against society but no blood flows, no gore no nothing. Why this is categorized in horror is still a wonder to me. If you're a fan of Blair, buy it if you can find it otherwise leave it as it is.


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


user
Tedious girls-at-reform-school flick, which plays somewhat like a prison movie. Chris (Linda Blair) is stuck in there after running away from her abusive father. Once in the de facto jail, she is gang raped by her fellow female "inmates".
Overlong (even at 98 minutes), with an utterly pointless ending which makes the entire film seem pointless.
15 year old Linda Blair does her best to avoid showing her body when unclothed, but lets a nipple shot slip during a shower scene.
*1/2 out of ****


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


user
The plot was predictable, and fighting with guns gets old, but this is a definate movie to look at if you have a low IQ and don't really care about real movies. I would endulge in true art movies, like 'Clerks', 'Something about Mary', 'El Mariachi', or 'La Taqueria'.


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


user
I actually intended to see this movie in the theatre. It was actually sold out. I actually went to see Solaris instead, which actually was the worst movie to be released in 2002.
Victor Rosa (John Leguizamo), a tough, streetwise 'street pharmacist', freaks out when he sees a kid get shot, so he decides to go clean and invest all of his money with Jack (Peter Sarsgaard). Things seem to be going pretty well until Jack skips town with his girlfriend Trish (Denise Richards). This happened very late in the movie, so had they not revealed this in the preview, it might have been an interesting twist. But they did, so it's not.
In fact, there's not a single interesting thing about this movie; everything is given away in the preview. If you saw even one preview, you saw the whole movie, so you might just want to think really hard to fill in the gaps. Go to the website, download the preview, save yourself $3.99. There is not a single surprise or twist in the entire film, other than how terrible the soundtrack is.
I hope that whoever was in charge of writing the soundtrack was fired. Twice. Most of it is what music would be like if the only songs allowed to be released were Ricky Martin and Gloria Estefan duets, and (I may shatter the fabric of the space-time continuum with a concept as mind-numbing as this) they both had less talent and musical ability.
The acting is at best poor, the script is at best a crime against humanity, and Denise Richards is at best 67% styrofoam and 33% ziploc bag. You know things are bad when John Leguizamo (he was in The Pest!) upstages the rest of the cast with his acting abilities.


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


user
For the first forty minutes, Empire really shapes itself up: it appears to be a strong, confident, and relatively unknown gangster flick. At the time I didn't know why, I thought it was good- but now I do.
One of the main problems with this film is that it is purely and utterly distasteful. I don't mind films with psychos and things, to prove a point- take Jackie Brown, for example- but they're all so terribly shallow in this, but that is obviously thrown in for entertainment. You literally feel a knot pull in your stomach. Another major problem is the protagonist. He is smug, arrogant, yet- ironically enough- not that bad. He doesn't seem tight enough to be a drug-dealing woman killer. The fact is, at the end of the day, this film is completely pretentious. Not slick, not clever, just dull, and meaningless- this colossal mess should be avoided at all costs.
* out of ***** (1 out of 5)


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 actually works from a fairly original idea - I've never seen nymphs that were thrown out of heaven in a horror movie before anyway. However, the way that it executes this idea isn't original in the slightest; we follow a bunch of kids that, for some reason decide to go on a trip into the forest. The fact that the forest is inhabited by these nymphs make it more interesting than merely another forest filled by rednecks/nutcases/zombies etc; but really, the monsters are just a variation on the common horror in the woods theme. Many films of this ilk don't have a single good idea - and it would seem that this one has worn its brain cells out with just that one. The only real asset that the monsters bring to the table is the fact that they're beautiful women that the characters lust for, rather than being hideous grotesques that they want to run away from. This is good up until a point; but it soon gets boring, and the almost complete lack of any back-story surrounding the central monsters ensures that the film is never going get itself out of the 'horror trash' category.
It's been years since The Evil Dead made the woodlands a prime horror location, and in spite of films like The Blair Witch Project; it still makes for an excellent horror setting. This is one of the film's major assets, as the forest presents a good impression of the unknown - the only problem is that Forest of the Damned doesn't ever seem to have much up its sleeve. The death sequences show a distinct lack of imagination, and the fact that all the characters are clichéd in the extreme doesn't help, as you're more likely to be looking forward to seeing them get killed rather than hoping they can get away. The cast is made up of kids mainly, but there is a role here for Tom Savini; who unfortunately doesn't get to have fun in the special effects department. The only real highlight the film has where personnel are concerned comes from the nymphs themselves. The naked ladies tend to look great, and if it wasn't for them, this film would get very boring very quickly. There's nothing to recommend this film for really; but if you want a daft little horror film that harks back to the style of eighties woodland flicks, you might find some enjoyment here.


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 a terrible waste of time. Although it is only an hour and a half long it feels somewhere close to 4. I have never seen a movie move so slowly and so without a purpose. This is also a "horror" film that takes place a lot of the time during daylight. My friend and I laughed an insane amount of times when we were probably supposed to be scared.
The only thing we want to know is why such a terrible movie was released in so many countries. It cannot be that high in demand.
The supermodel Nicole Petty should stick to modeling because although she is beautiful she lost her accent so many times in this movie, half of the time she is British and half the time she is American.


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


user
Angels who got a little icky were banned from heaven and now reside in a British forest where they seduce and chop up teens. Talk about high concept. On the plus side this little mother gives us Tom Savini, but since his acting range is limited to two minutes screen-time, his five minute presence seems a tad long. The angels run around the forest naked for the most part of the movie, but though they might have the body of an angel, their faces sure look like Joan Rivers on a bad day. Mediocre acting and amateurish gore-effects don't help and the night scenes fatally recall Paris Hilton's most famous movie. So bad that it is 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
I've seen a lot of movies and rarely would I ever rate a movie "1" but this movie was beyond terrible.
The acting was terrible, the plot was ridiculous, the effects were unrealistic and the characters were annoying. Usually when I watch scary movies I think it's DUMB when the characters hears a noise in house/forest/school/etc and then yells out "hello is anyone there?" - but at least they're believable when they do it.. This movie couldn't even get that right.
This is a movie that'll make other B-horror movies like Venom and The Fog look like academy award winning masterpieces.
I always have an open mind while watching movies and I can only say that this movie was a complete waste of time and I write this comment so that anyone else who's thinking of watching this movie will think again. IT'S AWFUL!


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


user
Oh boy, where do I go with this one? Herendous acting, weak plot, stupid deaths, pointless nudity...
This isn't entertainment...this is hell.
Hell.
Don't waste your money, time, or life on this pit of evil.
It's just...god damn is this movie awful! Tom Savini, WHY?! Why would you waste your life on this crap? This movie not worth it. I'd rather snort crack and smash my head up against a wall than watch THIS...this sinful act again!
Please take my advice and stay the f#@k away from this elephant turd of a film. No, you know what? I shouldn't even have to call this thing a film! Just stay AWAY!


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


user
Well this is a typical "straight to the toilet" slasher film.
Long story short, a bunch of teenagers/young adults becoming stranded in the middle of creepy woods and get hacked down by naked nymphomaniac demons.
This movie has all the basics for this slasher fromage:
-Naked women, -teens or young adults being marooned in someplace spooky, -gory death scenes, -the last survivor being a well built young woman who will always show off her midriff, but never bra less, -a creepy, crazy man who knows about the evil, -lesbian kiss scene, -sex being a killer, -no plot
Even then for a cheesy slasher film, it was really terrible. The atmosphere is totally dead. Nothing, not even the sexually explicit scenes and nudity, was enough to keep the male and lesbian female audience interested. Watching it felt like it was being watched with a nasty head congestion or a nasty head cold.
Give the demonic ..... 0/10.


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


user
The plot was very thin, although the idea of naked, sexy, man eating sirens is a good one.
The film just seemed to meander from one meaningless scene to another with far too few nuddie/splatter/lesbian mouth licking shots in between.
The characters were wooden and one dimensional.
The ending made no sense.
Considering it had Tom Savini and Shaun Hutson in it, you would have expected a decent plot and decent special effects. Some of the effects were quite good but there were just too few of them.
Brownie points go for occasional flashes of tits and bush, naturally, and of course the lesbian moments. I also thought that the scene with the sirens bathing in the pool under the waterfall could be viewed as an innovative take on the 'shower scene'
The film had many of the elements that go into making a first rate horror film but they were poorly executed or used too sparsely.
If I had been watching this alone and aged 15, i would have really enjoyed it for about 10 minutes (with 1 hand of the remote control), then lost interest suddenly and needed a pizza...


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 was pretty much a waste of an hour and a half of my time. I generally like the cheap horror monster type movies, but this movie was a disappointment. The main flaw being the lack of explaining the creatures. When they entered the house and found the man he could have at lease explained them. He doesn't really say anything about them other than that they killed his parents, and unless i missed something the didn't say how he managed to escape either... Not to mention the fact that it gives no clue or reason why the only survivor stays and essentially feeds the creatures after her own near death experience. It would have seemed that she would have had the opportunity to leave after the "cross incident".


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


user
I rented this flick for one reason Tom Savini, I respect his work but this was a real let down, I had horrible clichés, half of the film was naked women so called "fallen angels" running around trying to act scary, oh and then there was the occasional "Blair Witch" black and white motion sicken camera scenes. Tom's character was really awful, Horrible script. And you got to love these lines they use. "Is anyone there, who is out there, this isn't funny" No but your acting was. I wish I could give this flick a 0! Oh the names of the characters. Judd, Molly, Ally, Emilio, but they did leave out Anthony, The Breakfast Club reunite in the forest of unforgivable acting.


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


user
Note to Horror fans: The only horror here is when you realized you just wasted 95 minutes of your life on a movie that's so worthless it's insulting.
I watched this because:
The premise sounded slightly promising: It's not. It's just an excuse to use the same lame set pieces from other low-budget slasher films that weren't good either.
The promise of naked forest nymphs sounded nice even if the movie turned out to be awful: It's not. It's SO not. The amateur cinematography makes sure the "fallen angels" are about as sexy as the average homeless person.
The name Tom Savini has a long history in the horror genre: He's the king of low-budget special effects and lower-budget acting. Come to think of it, Savini should have been a reason not to watch this movie. It's not that he's bad, but he's almost always in bad movies. His only good role was in From Dusk Till Dawn, and he's been milking that at horror conventions ever since.
But let's focus on the positive: Forest of the Damned is a great example of how NOT to make a movie.
Everything else is a negative. Obviously the writer is allergic to originality. The script is terrible. That's all a given after the first 10 minutes. But the clueless pacing; the way the director treats "plot" and "characterization" as a nuisance he thinks no one cares about anyway; and the excruciatingly long and boring driving, walking, and nature sequences (no doubt added to increase the running time to make the film qualify for distribution) show a complete lack of aptitude for film and storytelling in general.
This is another good example of the number-one way you can tell if a movie is going to be bad: If it's written and directed by the same person, expect garbage.


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


user
oh god where to begin......bad acting....characters you just don't care about... are they American or British... they seem to think they are in America, because where else is this enormous forest in the midlands...
one big fault... they are driving all night through these woods... unless they are going around and around they'd have been in Scotland come the morning.. when the whiny one knocks the poor wandering woman over....
and they're mobiles don't work.. so what do they do... split up of course, make it easier to be picked off... so three go looking for a house that might be there in the middle of nowhere and two stay behind to 'care' for the unconscious woman... so what do they do, rather than make her comfortable, cushion her head, cover her up or even move her off the blooming road they just leave her lying on the hard road while they go and make a fire 100 yrds away....and all the time they have a camper van they could put her in...
and onto the horny angels that are supposed to have desired human kind so much that they were ejected from heaven to live amongst us...so what do they do? embark on sexual relations with any men they encounter?.........no they bite huge chunks out of them and rip their heads off... i think they are missing the point...
these are not gorgeous sexually deprived former angels they are cannabalistic vampires... and as for tom savini saying how breath takingly beautiful they are....well those gals have good bodies but nothing special in the face dept. the lead role was far more pretty than these so called irresistible sirens...
rubbish film waste of £2.30 from my local library...


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


user
Booted out of heaven, a gang of horny naked female angels (with big plastic fangs) have taken up residence in a spooky forest where they feed upon any hapless souls who should wander by. It's not long before a group of friends on a road trip are falling victim to the bloodthirsty babes An independent low budget horror made in the UK, Forest of the Damned takes an interesting premise and flushes it down the pan with some of the worst acting, effects and direction I have seen in a long time.
Director Johannes Roberts shows some occasional flair behind the camera  the scenes in the delapidated house are fairly tense and there are some deftly handled 'shock' moments - but for the most part the film is technically amateurish. Throw in some truly awful performances from horror icons Tom Savini and Shaun Hutson, and you have one real bad movie on your hands.
Some fun may be derived from the film's sheer shoddiness, and there is loads of female nudity for the guys to savour, but most will find this a chore to sit through.


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 the nadir of horror film making had been reached with "Book of Shadows", I was wrong. This film makes that look like "The Magnficiant Ambersons" compared to this piece of shameless, unexpurgated fecal matter that has the audacity to call itself a movie. I'd write more but I'm still to angry that I was idiot enough to spend £3 renting it, bobbins.
And were these people English? and where is the forest> I have lived in the UK two thirds of my life and as far as I know there are no dark uncharted woodlands in the midlands. The whole bally thing looked like a national trust conifer plantation. Those angels looked like anorexic pornstars (turned most of them were, did my research). I did however like the bit when Judd got ripped in pieces.
P.S I love and admire Tom Savini but HE CANNOT ACT


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


user
OK me and a friend rented this a few days ago because we like to keep track of b-movies since we do them ourselves. Anyway, the cover contained blood and weird looking naked girls with fangs and stuff... and Tom Savini! There is just no way this movie can fail! Right? wrong!! It just seems like such a waste! There was really no story, the dialog was terrible (is anyone there? x 1000!!!), the characters were.. well, they really lacked any kind of personality... The effects were terrible.. and whats up with these long artsy shots of scared people running around doing nothing.. with extreme closeups of eyes and stuff? We were sitting the whole movie waiting for something... anything to happen... but no... "oh, here comes the nymphs! great! oh.. they're kissing... again... and now for the violence! OK... nothing really happens... again... oh, now they run around... and the closeups of eyes... again... oh, heres Tom Savini! Oh... he died... right... OK, maybe now something cool or even interesting will happen.. no.. oh! Cool! a severed head! the end... oh crap.." And finally, since i'm so full of myself.. i'll tell you this! Give me a van, six actors, a weird looking house, Tom Savini, a couple of naked girls with fangs and buckets of blood and i could make the coolest movie you've ever seen... I've made movies with zero budget in two days that has better effects, better acting and a better script than this... what is this Johannes guy doing?? Making cool movies is easy!It could have been so great... I'm really upset!!


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 liked "Blair with" you'll like this one. It has the same lousy camera-work and soundtrack, and it has the same non-existent plot and suspenseful moments.
It also has Tom Savini, so if you like Romero's "Dawn of the dead" or Tarantino and Rodriguez' "From Dusk Till Dawn" you're in for a treat. He is an icon and a very good actor as well.
No, seriously. This movie is definitely the lousiest movie I've seen in a long time, and I've seen quite a few movies -- bad ones as well. I can tell you that I find most horror movies entertaining in some respect, but this was just a pure waste of time.
The only reason why I gave this movie 2 instead of 1, was the naked chicks and the hot action with all the sharp-looking plastic teeth... No, I'm just kidding. I must have missed before I hit "submit" on the vote form.
Stay away, even though it has sexy girls with teeth on the cover!


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


user
I couldn't watch more than 14 minutes of it. It's a GREAT combination of really bad acting and really bad directing. The shots used are disgusting, they broke the 180 degrees angle all the time. My head hurts try to watch that load of "you know what". Dirt on the "mystery machine" window make you see light from the lighting on the windows...annoying. What else... it's so badly framed all the time it's just make you want to scream at that lady directing there. I only directed short films, but I'm pretty sure I'd be way better than that directing a feature film.... the story is unbelievable, just the long french kissing scene at the beginning tell you that it's gonna be pretty awful. So pretty much, try to avoid this really bad movies at all cost, it'll save you the 5 bucks or so for the rental, and that 1h30 hour of your life you'll never get back...


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 yesterday.. I rented the DVD from Blockbuster.. In fact, I know one of the actresses from the film.. I won't say who..! (That's kept under wraps..) But I must admit, it wasn't as good as I thought it would be.. Tom Savini? Hats down to this guy.. But it's a shame he wasn't in the film for long.. What lacks the film is the idea, the script, sound, etc.. It may look like a good movie.. but it wasn't that entertaining..
Well, I'm glad my Sister paid £10 for renting 3 DVD's from Blockbuster.. I chose this one.. and I was disappointed. Anyway, thumbs down for me..! Not my cup of tea! 0 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
The movie has several story lines that follow several different characters. The different story lines don't feel like one whole complete piece which makes this comedy a very incoherent one and gets even annoying to watch at times.
It may sound weak and cliché but it's true; You're way better of watching the Crocodile Hunter series on the Discovery channel with Steve and Terri Irwin. It's more fun and even more hilarious than this movie is. I'm sure both cast and crew had lots of fun making this movie but the movie doesn't give us the viewers much pleasure. For a comedy it simply isn't funny enough and Steve and Terri Irwin just aren't good actors, not even when they play themselves! Their antics are simply not good enough to make an entire movie around and their scene's feel long, distracting and unnecessary and even annoying at times.
The movie had quite some potential, I mean Steve Irwin is one character that in a strange way is both intriguing and hilarious to watch, so when I first heard that they were making a movie about 'the crocodile hunter' my first reaction was; brilliant! The movie however heavily suffers from its weak story and the incoherent story lines with uninteresting and unfunny characters. The movie does has a certain entertainment value, at least enough to make this movie watchable for at least once but still, I must certainly wouldn't recommend this movie.
Watching this movie felt like a waste of time. Still this movie might be watchable just once, when it gets on TV, on a rainy afternoon. It does has some good moments but the story lines really completely ruin the movie and its potential.
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
OK, first of all, Steve Irwin, rest in peace. You were loved by many fans. Now...this movie wasn't a movie at all. It was "The Crocodile Hunter" TV program with bad acting, bad scripts, and bad directing in between Steve capturing or teaching us about animals. He was entertaining as an animal seeker/specialist. Millions will miss him. But the whole movie idea was a big mistake. The plot was so broken, it was almost non-existent. Casting was horrible. The acting wasn't even worth elementary school-level actors. The direction must be faulted as well. If you can't get a half-way decent performance out of your actors, no matter how bad the script is, you must not be that good in the first place. I could have written a better script. I wish I had never been to see this movie. Of course, I watched it for $3 ($1.50 for me, $1.50 for my son.) while out with friends who insisted upon seeing this instead of Scooby Doo Live Action. My son, who is not so discriminating, liked the movie alright, but he still has never asked to see it again. If you want fond memories of Steve Irwin, buy his series on DVD. Avoid this movie like the plague. If I were Steve, I know I wouldn't want to be remembered for this movie. Respect him: 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
I caught this at a test screening. All I can say is: What...the...hell? This movie plays out about as smoothly as Mickey Mouse reading the script for "Scarface." It's bizarre beyond making the slightest bit of sense; and even if you do leave your brain in the car, the film is still so bizarre that it isn't even funny.
The plot involves crocodile hunter Steve Irwin trying to "save" a crocodile which contains a CIA probe. The CIA comes after Irwin to get their probe back, Irwin mistakes them for poachers, and sets out to "stop" them.
That's about all the story there is; the rest is over-the-top lampooning of Australian culture ("Didja see dat?" and "Crikey!") and strangely choreographed action sequences. At one point, Irwin mounts a speeding RV and knife fights with a CIA agent on top of it. Yes, that's right: Steve Irwin knife fights a guy on top of an RV. Let that be your guide for this ridiculously bad film.


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


user
So, Steve Irwin. You have to admire a man who is not only willing to throw himself into a river that clearly is filled with crocs, snakes, lizards, tons of poop from the aforementioned reptiles, and mud, not only daily, but with enthusiasm. He was never able to make ME want to do it, but he managed to make his wife come close.
This movie does not fall into my parallel universe of film category - the films for people who just had their teeth drilled, have a migraine, or have no film experience and therefore like quiet mediocrity (currently well populated by Disney films). It's too noisy. Well, Steve is too noisy. He's just so happy all the time, and would cut right through the blasé' teenager (I can hear it now: "that movie was so STUPID") or the Tylenol with codeine. I'd say his enthusiasm is catching, but if it was, I would own a room full of snakes, and that hasn't happened yet. I agreed they're beauties, but I'm still not going to pet them.
Plot was indeed predictable. Bad guys were so bad, for a minute there I thought I was shopping at a consumer electronic superstore. But the movie was filled with animals, and Steve and Terri, which is why I watched it. That plot (if you could call it that) was really more of a reason to throw yet another croc in a truck. My expectations were low and stayed that way.
I was hoping, though, that there would be a bit of a sequel, where Steve and Terri (having worked on their acting skills) have a movie with a real plot and more animals with fur. I still can't believe we won't see Steve anymore. I hope that Terri and the children continue to be involved in the Australia Zoo and the discovery channel, at least. I can't imagine seeing a crocodile without having some member of the Irwin family telling me forcefully how wonderful that croc is. Crikey!


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


user
Gday Mates! just watched Croc Hunter the movie. it was alright but the show seems more real. this just seemed like a longer AnimalPlanet episode with funnier lines and more characters. A few things: Steve described snakes Fangs like hypodermic needles. yeeeowch! for reals you know that hurts. and cant they jump up high? hes all grabbin them by the tail and stuff. There was two MAJOR cleavage shots in this movie. when Terry find that baby joey she goes like "We have to nurture them, just like a baby". Woah! i thought she was gonna up & breast feed that kid. that woulda made it PG-13 though. While on Terry, did anyone notice on the movie and a lot of the show Terry's knowledge on ritual mating. she knows her sex stuffs. movie takes place in Queensland, Austrailia. I want a koala, dingo, and joey!
Steve's dog Sui actually has a purpose in this movie. albeit a small one which proves useless against the dynamite-wielding hottie.
Oh and if anyone else watches this, try and agree with me in saying that country bumpkin fat lady with the herd of dogs was RIGHT in shotgunning the croc. he was eating her sheep!! i would be mad too!


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


user
Why did I waste my money on this on the last day of Sundance? I want a refund... Can I have my $16 back? While I was watching this film I kept waiting for something to happen, nothing did happen. The only way I even knew what it was supposed to be about was by reading the plot, which was not really like the film. why did the director zoom in with their handy cam and then zoom out? It was not very artistic. Why did the director show Lulu filing her nails for fifteen minutes? Why is it when the actors tried to speak they sounded like they were reading? Or was that the point? I felt like Phantom Love had no story at all, and to be honest I felt like my friends vacation videos had a much higher entertainment value than 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
This movie was probably the worst movie I have ever seen. Here are the things that immediately jump out at me: 1. The woods were more like hills in Los Angeles with a couple trees and brush. Not scary whatsoever. News flash, if you are filming in the Southern California area, big bear is only an hour away. They actually have trees there.
2. The writing was absolutely without a doubt the worst dialogue I have ever experienced. Every possible line in the movie was unoriginal, cliché, or just plain stupid. For instance the name of the camp is "camp blood" (lame), the name of the clown is "the killer clown" (lame). What is a clown doing in a forest anyway? Was that the only mask they could find? 3. The last but certainly the least was the acting. Absolutely the worst group of actors and actresses ever assembled. A virtual cornucopia of shitty lines and poor acting. Worst part by far was when then randomly flash back to this fat foreign girl getting naked for a a photograph. It's a really long scene and I guess she was supposed to be sexy, but she was NOT. Also, and this was one of the few enjoyable parts of the movie for me, was this tool who is supposed to be "athletic." For instance when he is bored in the movie he grabs a couple rocks and starts doing curls with them. Then later on he is supposed to be running for the clown and it is immediately clear with his very "girl like" run, that he is quite far from athletic. Oh and to the girl who played Kat, good Lord stop singing. That song you sang for the credits makes me want to kill myself.
If for some reason you do see this movie, I would at least recommend watching the special features. The group of jackasses who made this film talk about it as if it is this really original story. In fact one of the girls actually says that she let some of her friends read the screenplay and none of them could predict the ending. Apparently she hangs out with special kids.


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


user
Nothing to say but Wow! Has anyone actually had somebody sneak up on them in an open field? Well this happens about 25 times in this movie(clearly the directors' favorite scare tactic). In one of the opening scenes the smooth talking/hot shot producer has to ride in the back seat so the camera man could sit in the front to film. Shortly after he arrives to the field the 5 contestants show up and, although it is clearly at latest 2 in the afternoon they are all convinced that the sun will set any minute. After about 30 minutes of boobless trash we are privileged with a flashback of the clown's history in which we see some of his previous victims. If you watch this movie check out the ladies chest.. her ribs go all the way to her neck, it was flat out disgusting. Most horror movies action occurs during the night but without a night vision camera the chaos is forced to happen during the day. The few night shots that did make it in to the movie look like they were stolen from the Blair Witch Project or random shots from the directors backyard. The movie somewhat redeemed itself in the end when there was a matrix like shoot out with the clown that we rewound and watched over and over laughing hysterically.
Definitely RENT THIS MOVIE IF YOU HAVE EVER BEEN SNUCK UP ON IN AN OPEN FIELD.
SIGNED, THE ANSWER


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


user
Camp Blood III is a vast improvement on Camp Blood II as it has sound mostly in the right places and a rudimentary plot. This time they've ventured slightly further away from the car park the other two movies were filmed in which is a good move as you can no longer hear cars driving past what is supposed to be a remote wilderness.
This time around there's a reality TV show and a fake clown to scare off the contestants. This is hardly a new idea, I've seen at least three other horror movies with exactly the same premise where the real killer turns up but at least this one has a plot instead of people just randomly being stabbed with a knife.
Unlike the other two in the series this one is at least good for a few laughs. I liked how there's a gunshot sound effect when someone gets stabbed early on and the way the boom mike hovers behind people like a phantom.
I don't know why anyone would want to make a third Camp Blood film, I would have thought it would be better to start from scratch but they have at least tried with this one. The half naked deformed woman was a bit much for me, it looks like they tried to keep continuity by hiring some freak who would get her clothes off for $5 just like they did in the second movie. They still haven't worked out that a machete is used for cutting not stabbing but oh well, it's a Camp Blood movie what do you expect? If you like crap films you'll get some fun out of this one.


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


user
Who could possibly have wished for a sequel to Bert I. Gordon's legendary bad trash-film "Food of the Gods"? Nobody, of course, but director Damien Lee thought it was a good idea, anyway, and he put together a belated sequel that stands as one of the most redundant movies in horror history. "Gnaw" is a sequel in name only, as the setting moved to a typical late 80's location (a university campus) and also the cheap & cheesy gore effects perfectly illustrates the 80's. This script hangs together by clichés, awfully written dialogs and plot situations that are not so subtly stolen from other (and more successful) horror classics. Neil Hamilton is a goody two shoes scientist who performs growing-experiments on ordinary rodents in order to do a fellow scientist a favor. Due to some incredibly stupid animal rights activists, the huge and ravenous rats escape and devour pretty much everyone on campus. Following the good old tradition that Spielberg's "Jaws" started, there's an obnoxious Dean who refuses to admit the problem even though severely mutilated corpses are turning up everywhere. During a hysterically grotesque climax, the rats invade the opening ceremony of the campus' new sport complex! "Gnaw: Food of the Gods 2" is terribly bad and therefore a lot of fun to watch! The characters do and say unimaginably stupid stuff (like descending into the sewers unarmed while they KNOW it's infested with rats), the acting is atrocious and there's a genuinely bizarre sequence involving the hero having sex under the influence of growth-serum! I wonder what Freud's theory would be on that! There's a satisfying amount of gore and sleaze and  it has to be said  the music is surprisingly atmospheric. In case you just can't get enough of this junk, there are quite a lot of creature-features revolving on mutated rats, like the Italian schlock film "Rats: Night of Terror", the modest 70's cult film "Willard" and its lame sequel "Ben", the 2003 "Willard" remake starring Crispin Glover and the surprisingly good recent rat-movies by once-famous directors Tibor Ticaks ("Rats") and John Lafia ("The Rats"). Go nuts!


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


user
Boring, predictable, by-the-numbers horror outing at least has pretty good special effects and plenty of (mindless) mayhem and gore to satisfy (mindless) genre fans. Mostly it's about giant rats chomping on a set of characters we don't care an iota about - if that's your thing, tune in. (*1/2)


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


user
In the first one it was mainly giant rats, but there were some wasps and a giant chicken too. This one, however, is just giant rats period, well giant rats and one really growing little boy. This one is about this growing boy and a scientist that is trying to help him so he accidentally creates giant killer rats...you know how it is. This movie has some kills and its moments, but I find it to be on par with the original, I just prefer some variety in my giant creature movies. Well, that is not true...I actually like "Empire of the Ants", maybe I just do not care for giant rodents. All in all a rather drab movie though it does have one rather odd turn of events in this one dream sequence that is truly bizarre. I just can't recommend this one.


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


user
This film is really bad, with a script full of 'memorable' lines and incredibly bad performances. The special effects are also bad (not the worst ones I have seen, either) and the music is so bad that you have to listen to it to believe it. Just two short themes (30 seconds long or so) are repeated constantly throughout the whole film.
All in all, one of the worst films I have ever seen.


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


user
i tried to sit through this bomb not too long ago.what a disaster .the acting was atrocious.there were some absolutely pathetic action scenes that fell flat as a lead balloon.this was mainly due to the fact that the reactions of the actors just didn't ring true.supposedly a modern reworking of the Hitchcock original "Lifeboat".i think Hictcock would be spinning circles in his grave at the very thought of it.from what i was able to suffer through,there is nothing compelling in this movie.it boasts a few semi big names,but they put no effort into their characters.but,you know,to be fair,it was nobody's fault really.i mean,i'm pretty sure the script blew up in the first explosion. LOL.it is possible that this thing ends up improving as it goes along.but for me,i'm not willing to spend at least three days to find out.so unless you have at least a three day weekend on the horizon,avoid this stinker/ 1/10


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


user
MABEL AT THE WHEEL is one of those movies with a behind-the-scenes story that's more interesting than the movie itself. This was Chaplin's tenth comedy for Keystone during his year of apprenticeship, and his first two-reeler. Here he played one of his last out-and-out villain roles (although the feature-length TILLIE'S PUNCTURED ROMANCE was yet to come), and it also marked one of the last times he would work for a director other than himself. In fact, Chaplin's conflicts with director and co-star Mabel Normand almost got him fired from the studio.
Chaplin hadn't gotten along with his earlier directors, Henry Lehrman and George Nichols, but according to his autobiography having to take direction from a mere "girl" was the last straw. Charlie and Mabel argued bitterly during the making of this film. Chaplin was still a newcomer at Keystone and his colleagues didn't know what to make of him, but everyone loved Mabel. Producer Mack Sennett was on the verge of firing Chaplin when he learned that the newcomer's films were catching on and exhibitors wanted more of them A.S.A.P., so Chaplin was promised the chance to direct himself in return for finishing this movie the way Mabel wanted it.
Unfortunately, none of that drama is visible on screen in MABEL AT THE WHEEL, which looks like typical Keystone chaos. The story concerns an auto race in which Mabel's beau (Harry McCoy) is scheduled to compete, but wicked Charlie and his henchmen abduct the lad, and Mabel must take the wheel in his place. For all the racing around, brick hurling and finger-biting the film is frankly short on laughs, but there are a few points of interest. There's some good cinematography and editing in the race sequence, though there aren't really any gags, just lots of frantic activity. Chaplin himself looks odd, sporting a goat-like beard on his chin and wearing the top hat and frock coat he wore in his very first film appearance, MAKING A LIVING, but the outfit suits the old-fashioned villainy he displays throughout. At least it's novel to watch him play such an uncharacteristic role. Visible in the stands at the race track are such Keystone stalwarts as Chester Conklin, Edgar Kennedy in a strangely dandified get-up, and a more characteristic Mack Sennett, spitting tobacco and doing his usual mindless rube routine. As a performer, Sennett was about as subtle as the movies he produced, but you have to give the guy credit: he knew what people liked. These films were hugely popular in their day. Mack's performance doesn't add much to MABEL AT THE WHEEL, but he probably had to be on hand for the filming of this one to make sure his stars didn't kill each other.


assistant
0