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
Except people apparently buy into this garbage! As shows like "Moral Orel" have shown, even if you tried to make the most outrageous, over-the-top parody of evangelism you could possibly think of, it wouldn't come close to the hilarity of this show. It's hard to tell what's even going on when you're watching it. Is it a news show? A talk show? Who knows!? They start out by reporting on various international news stories, but at seemingly random points, the news is interrupted by this odd, troll-like little man with a forehead bigger than his entire face, mumbling and laughing and generally being creepy.
Pat Robertson doesn't even seem like such a bad guy at first glance. He just seems like a senile, yet harmless old coot stuck in his archaic beliefs (like most of our grandparents). But this is a man who has called for an assassination, who has befriended and offered aid to not one, but TWO murderous dictators, who has illegally used donation money to run diamond mines, who has SUPPORTED forced abortions in China, and who regularly implies that Caucasians (straight American male Caucasians in particular) are superior to all other races.
Still, this would all be funny, except that he apparently has a large enough fan base to keep his little show on the air 40 years later (either that, or enough money to bribe some TV executives who don't give a damn what they show). The idiocy of the show becomes alarming when you realize that some people, somewhere, must be watching it and hanging onto every word. Even when Robertson has repeatedly shown how corrupt he is, people still listen to him. I don't know if it's funny or scary. I guess a healthy mixture of both.


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


user
does anyone think that this show actually helps some people, or does it only anger the people who watch it? when i am flipping through the channels and come upon this show i half to watch out of morbid curiosity. i understand that pat Roberson is not all together. what i do not know is if his viewers are like him or if they are good people and think they will have a better life if they listening to what he has to say. pat Roberson is of little consequence. he is an old man who thinks in an old way. fear of damnation no longer has the same affects as it once did (thank god). now if someone will please answer my question i will be dodging lightning bolts for the rest of eternity.


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


user
Before I start...let me say that I fully believe in God. I believe in Heaven and in Hell. Kay now that thats out of the way, I just wanna say that What in the world do these morons that call themselves "hosts" think they are doing?? The last time I checked a host doesn't discriminate, spew hatred filled rants on TV, or try to shove their own beliefs down every unfortunate soul that ventures onto the channel. ALl of these that crazy, idiotic, conservitive, bible thumping, Fred Phelps lover Pat Robertson does daily. I am all for free speech, but since when does that cover a guy who pretty much says that if you venture off his ideal way of life you are right away sent to hell? This is just a perfect example of why religion is the cause of SOOOO many problems. One day in my class room we had a substitute teacher in so we decided to watch some TV since the teach didn't give us any work. And we (against many of us's will) watched 700's Club, and of course that jerk Pat was on ranting and raving about the bible, and he said Simon along the lines of "God says Homosexuality is a sin" and I actually heard a kid go "Hmm I guess he's right." WTF??? Seriously, if the host is trying to make people think that someone else's sexual orientation is a huge sin, then they seriously need to take that host, duct tape them, and throw them off of a cruise liner in the middle of the arctic.


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


user
Here are some examples of Pat Robertsons dubiously claimed "relatively good track record" on predictions
In his widely reported comments from the January 2 edition of the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club, during which he predicted that there would be "very serious terrorist attacks" and "mass killing" in the United States in the "second half" of 2007, host Pat Robertson boasted that he had "a relatively good track record" on earlier predictions. But a review of Robertson's 2006 New Year's predictions undermines that claim. He predicted, for example, that:
* "President Bush is going to strengthen." WRONG
* "The fall elections will be inconclusive, but the outcome of the war and the success of the economy will leave the Republicans in charge." WRONG
* "The war in Iraq is going to come to a successful conclusion. We'll begin withdrawing troops before the end of this year." WAY WRONG
Further, as a January 3 Associated Press article reported, Robertson has a history of making dubious predictions:
The broadcaster predicted in January 2004 that President Bush would easily win re-election. Bush won 51% of the vote that fall, beating Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. WRONG
In 2005, Robertson predicted that Bush would have victory after victory in his second term. He said Social Security reform proposals would be approved WRONG YET AGAIN!
He claims to speak directly with god... If so god has quite the sense of humor watching Pat make a fool of himself again and again..


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


user
I turn on 700 Club once in awhile and only agree with some of the statements made- I'm one of many believers that is considered liberal by most Christians and conservative by most non-Christians. I vote my mind, and its usually not rep. or dem. - i don't believe 700 club tells people what to believe, but that it represents many older christians that grew up in very conservative backgrounds. i think many folks misunderstand what is said on 700 club. it bums me out to hear name calling either direction. i think 700 club folks really do love Jesus but are so busy trying to get people to vote conservatively that they've forgotten to show love to certain people and promote peace like Jesus did. Please don't judge Jesus based on ignorant individuals that believe on Him and let's also not be as ignorant with our comments about them. Why ARE people so mean to each other?


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


user
"Back of Beyond" takes place at a dive diner/gas station in the middle of the Australian desert run by Tom McGregor (Paul Mercurio), a shy guy who suddenly finds himself in a spot of trouble when some visitors unexpectedly arrive. We get what, at first, confusingly seems like a flashback in which he and his sister (though their relationship to each other is better understood later in the film) are speeding through the desert on his motorcycle. Afterwards, he appears as a terribly quiet, and sometimes, moody character in the presence of the arrivals.
We know one thing is for sure and that is McGregor's sort of spiritual sense, his foresight of danger and such--his clairvoyance only slightly relevant to the story, the bulk of which concerns three diamond thieves who's car breaks down and who rely on Tom to help them out of spot without getting in their way. Of course, Tom falls for one of the thieves, a young woman named Charlie, and suddenly, it pits all three already mistrusting allies against each other. But not in a way that really results in anything of much mystery or action. In fact, the whole movie all the while seems to want to build up to something significant, but really fails to do so. Even the ending, of which plays out like a trite campfire tale (and one that really reveals a lot of narrative flaws), is almost just as ridiculous.
It may be worth trying if you don't mind the terribly slow pacing, but are in the mood, at least, for something a little different than the usual.


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


user
Pointless boring film with charismatic Mercurio completely wasted. Released for a minute on a Thursday in maybe one local cinema and avoided by the entire population of Sydney except me and four others BACK OF BEYOND is a project seemingly created by a producer looking for a fee. Local actors like John Polson and Terry Serio deserve better (well Polson has morphed into a Director of lame thrillers like SWIMFAN and HIDE AND SEEK) and Terry Serio seems never to get a guernsey apart from thug roles. But Paul Mercurio should have become one of Australia's greatest exports on screen. Roles like this are major disappointments and films like this are just a waste of talent and time.


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


user
Poor Paul Mercurio. After landing the role of Scott Hastings in Strictly Ballroom, the best film in history, he managed to find himself doing a lot of rubbish. None of the characters in this film is very unlikable, or even hateable, but Mercurio's lead is the sort of person you prefer to ignore - completely unloveable and he wears OVERALLS. Big mistake in costume design, that one.


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 series supposed to be an improvement over Batman - The Animated Series, I, for one, think it failed terribly. The character drawing is lousy... (Catwoman, for instance, looks awful...) But what really annoyed me is that it made Batman look like a sort of wimp who just can't take care of himself in a battle, without the help of two, even three sidekicks. I mean, he's Batman, for God's sake! I know the comic books, I know that Nightwing and Batgirl are supposed to be Batman's allies, besides Robin, but still... making Batman say that he needs help from them... What, he can't handle a few punches? In BTAS, he could face a dozen adversaries without any problem... He's getting old? Come on...
And another thing: I really don't think that Batman would allow a kid like Tim Drake to go into battle that soon, without years of hard training. One, it's irresponsible (and Batman is everything, but irresponsible), and two, it's not what happened in the comics, if we are to remain faithful to them.
Batman - The Animated Series made history, with its animation, its stories and its characters... That really was a legend of Batman. The New Adventures series turned the legend into just another Batman flick.


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


user
First of all I must admit Batman: The animated series is the best batman series by far. We watched it when it used to be on TV. I didn't realize that there was a season four. Actually there wasn't. BTAS ends with season 3, and it should have stopped there.
Why did they have to mess with a good thing. Catwoman and Poison ivy now have terrible grey faces. The Joker looks beyond scary, it seems that each time they revise his appearance he looks more and more creepier. He doesn't seem to have pupils anymore, and now he doesn't even look remotely human (although he is).
Bruce Wayne is voiced by Kevin Conroy who does the best batman. Although he now looks like superman. There is nothing that sets him apart because they both look the same, Bruce Wayne now has blue eyes.
Night Wing really needs a haircut, please! Alfred just has pupils from eyes, looks more like a character from the 80's.
I have watched three episodes from Disc 1 in the series and I already find that this version is more violent and graphic (there is blood in every episode).
If you are a fan of Batman: The animated series, there is no batman season 4. They just included this series as season 4 for marketability. If they just released it as The New batman adventures I don't think as many people would have bought it.
Save yourself the disappointment and stick to seasons 1-3.


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


user
The ultimate goal of Big Brother, that we know what to think before we think it, has been realized. Is it some kind of miracle, or sinister joke, that people don mental straight jackets of their own volition, twist themselves into contorted shapes, and grin like apes? Movies, art, no longer risk the unknown, but are forgone conclusions, drained of life.
"The Notorious Bettie Page" is a bland case history, fit for a freshman college feminism course. Its lesson is schematic, right-angled and linear: "See how women are objectified, exploited, abused, then tossed on the trash heap, by a male-dominated society."
Bettie Page, supposedly, was the "pin-up queen of the 1950's," the ass millions of men ejaculated to. (All reviewers repeat that phrase, "pin-up queen of the 1950's," like a choir of monkeys.) Her history as an American sex bomb is familiar: Southern, abused by her father, raped, etc. In this movie she is a naïf, an innocent unaware of the prurient interests she serves and shamelessly profits from. Although she believes in Jesus, she enjoys frolicking nude before a camera lens -- just the wholesome girl-next-door sex-slave American males supposedly fantasize.
From the mouth of writer-director Mary Harron herself, Oxford-educated AND ex-punker (do you smell the combined rot of privilege and "hipness" as I do?): "I feel that without feminism, I wouldn't be doing this. ... I don't make feminist films in the sense that I don't make anything ideological. But I do find that women get my films better." What a cozy clique.
The movie merely goes through the motions of telling the story of a human life, it's subject and purpose having been eulogized and interred well before the movie began. Ms. Page has a boyfriend, but we are shown next to nothing about their relationship. In fact, there are no intimate or detailed relationships in the film.
One can't ignore its smug simplicity. In New York, where Ms. Page tries her best to fit into and appease a man's world, letting herself be tied up in the ropes of bondage and tightly laced into the black leather boots and bodices of S & M, the movie is black and white. But down in Miami, where she goes to get away from it all, gleefully takes off her clothes, and is photographed by a "liberated" female, the movie turns into color.
Like hell Harron doesn't "make feminist films," doesn't "make anything ideological." Ideology has become so internalized, so assumed, so programmed, that it's almost invisible. Big Brother must be smiling.


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


user
Sadly, Marry Harron decided to do a fictional account of Bettie Page's life to go along with her own issues with men. As typical in all her work, every major male character is portrayed as weak, bumbling, or twisted. To add to her fiction, she projects ideas and issues that are not true, according to Bettie Page herself. Bettie did not leave the biz because she thought it was morally wrong or had religious issues (though she became a born-again later in life, through the influence of her 3rd husband- a minister). She left it, because she was in her late 30's, her acting career had gone nowhere and she felt she was losing her looks. The hints of molestation and rape are unvalidated and denied in Bettie's own words and are the director's attempts to claim that any woman who did what Bettie did must have been victimized by men. Harron fails to point out that Bettie designed her own clothes in almost all her shoots (not handed to her by "sick" fetishists). Harron also fails to make a point that Bunny Yeager, who did many famous photo shoots of Bettie, also did many "naughty" shoots with Bettie and was not the morally upright professional photographer portrayed in the film.
The only saving grace is Gretchen Mol looks very much like Bettie. Otherwise, there are other movies and documentaries more accurate and honest to her life and the people in it.


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


user
Who is Bettie Page? I certainly didn't find out while watching this movie. From what I have gathered from other sources, Ms. Page was highly in demand in the post-world war II period as the queen of "naughty" pictures and that is exactly what this film depicts. I never did get to know Bettie, the woman, though. Her childhood in Tennessee was a combination of an Evangelical Christian upbringing and a sordid home life which is only hinted at. The film glosses over her personal life and gets right down to the purpose of the film, the "naughty" pictures. Characters are introduced and abandoned within a few frames but there is frame after frame of Bettie in her pointy bras, Bettie in her girdle and stockings, Bettie in bondage...etc. The movie slides from black and white to color every time Ms. Page visits Miami Beach. Then back to her shades of gray life in New York we go. Gretchen Mol portrays Bettie as one of the most dimwitted young ladies you could ever meet. When Bettie confides to a friend that she missed being her High School valedictorian by getting an A- rather than an A one can only assume that there were only two students in her Senior class. The most interesting part of this movie is how quaint Ms. Page's "naughty" photos seem in 2007. It is truly sad that seeing a woman trussed up like a pig on a spit wouldn't even get a hit on My Space or You Tube. I'm not sure if this movie was written poorly or if some crazed editor cut the thing to shreds. I would only recommend it as a source for persons studying the history of odd undergarments.


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


user
I have only seen Gretchen Mol in two other films (Girl 6, Donnie Brasco), and don't really remember her, but she did a great job as a naive girl who posed for pictures because it made people happy.
She really didn't think what she was doing was wrong, even when she left the business and found her religion again.
The photos she made were certainly tame by today's standards, and it is funny seeing men with cameras get all excited, and politicians pontificating on the evils of pornography. David Strathairn (Good Night, and Good Luck) played a super part here.
Mary Harron (American Psycho) wrote and directed an outstanding biopic of the most famous pinup girl ever.


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


user
When setting out this film, director Mary Harron seemingly had the goal of clearly documenting the progress of Bettie Page's career, from early modelling days to leaving modelling to go back home after the Senate Hearings on Juvenile Delinquency and her religious rediscovery in the 50s, and so intent is she to get all of these facts on screen in the time allowed she seems to have missed out on taking any time to explain anything in depth.
When you think of someone who had Page's career you'd think that there would be plenty to discuss, her reasons, decisions, life event, personal traumas, but Harron avoids any kind of personal exploration of the character. In the first fifteen minutes or so of the film there are brief hints of child abuse, domestic violence and a gang rape, but these are all rushed past and then never referred to again. You get the impression that Harron and Guinevere Turner (co-writer) wanted to gloss over anything that wasn't glamorous and flattering. You go into this film expecting to gain an insight into who the person behind the posters was, but all you are given is a list of things that she did and recreations of some of her most famous photo shoots.
All in all the film really frustrates you as you watch, desperately waiting for some extra layer to reveal itself. How did she balance her religion with her job? What made this young Tennessee girl move from modelling into bondage photography. The film simply shows her going to another modelling agency and putting on whatever she's told, but surely it would have involved some shock and deliberation, this was after all the 50s.
It seems to me that Harron is trying to make a point about how tame all this is by today's standards (Page never took any photos of explicit sexual actions) and how the reaction some gave this kind of thing was really overzealous And although this is true, she never actually makes it seem sordid in the eyes of others. Today we look at a young girl posing topless and think nothing off it, but we should have got some sort of feeling about how shocking it would have been to a contemporary audience. This woman was a central part of a Senate hearing on Juvenile Delinquency, but no one is ever really shown as shocked.
Basically I left this film just thinking how tame it was. Harron and Turner have managed to avoid anything that might be unpleasant to a viewer. They come across as two lifelong fans of Miss Page and are desperate to make sure that nothing, absolutely nothing, could possibly put a bad light on their heroine, and have therefore avoided any in depth probing into who she really was. (Before and after her career there are reports of her violent nature and mental problems) And all that's left is the string of events that made up her career, without any substance whatsoever behind it.


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


user
Well that's 90 minutes of my life I won't get back. This movie makes teen tv show "California Dreams" look like "Almost Famous". The acting was horrid and storyline unrealistic. Don't even get me started on the actual band at the forefront of this story, lame songs, look etc.. You had to believe that they were one of the hottest bands in the country, and there isn't enough irony in the world to accept that one. The guitarist is seen to be a heroin user, not that I blame him, if I was around such a putrid band with stale songs and wooden acting I'd be injecting the horse too.
If you take music remotely seriously, avoid this at all costs.


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


user
Now, I won't deny that when I purchased this off eBay, I had high expectations. This was an incredible out-of-print work from the master of comedy that I so enjoy. However, I was soon to be disappointed. Apologies to those who enjoyed it, but I just found the Compleat Al to be very difficult to watch. I got a few smiles, sure, but the majority of the funny came from the music videos (which I've got on DVD) and the rest was basically filler. You could tell that this was not Al's greatest video achievement (that honor goes to UHF). Honestly, I doubt if this will ever make the jump to DVD, so if you're an ultra-hardcore Al fan and just HAVE to own everything, buy the tape off eBay. Just don't pay too much for it.


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


user
And the Oscar for the most under-rated classic horror actor goes to - Dwight Frye. Seriously his name should be stated with the same awe as Karloff, Lugosi, and Price, and this movie proves it. His character Herman was one of the 2 reasons I can give to watch this movie. Dwight gave this somewhat more than slightly disturbed misfit a lovable yet creepy demeanor that led you hoping for a larger role the entire movie.
The other reason is the comic relief of M. Eburne. Being in the medical profession myself I have to give kudos to the expert performance of a self-pity prone hypochondriac. Though other "medical mistakes" did give a brief chuckle especially when the good doctor samples his fellow physicians medication... "Well continue giving it to her" Unfortunately these 2 outstanding performances could not keep me awake through 3 attempts of sitting through this unbearably slow movie. The plot is predictable with only few minor twists. The filming while pulling off a legitimate spooky atmosphere was more productive at making me yawn - yes you can use too much shadow.
My recommendation - watch this once to see Frye and Eburne - but only when wide awake and with lots of caffeine.


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


user
"When a small Bavarian village is beset with a string of mysterious deaths, the local (magistrate) demands answers into (sic) the attacks. While the police detective refuses to believe the nonsense about vampires returning to the village, the local doctor treating the victims begins to suspect the truth about the crimes," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.
An inappropriately titled, dramatically unsatisfying, vampire mystery.
Curiously, the film's second tier easily out-perform the film's lackluster stars: stoic Lionel Atwill (as Otto von Niemann), skeptical Melvyn Douglas (as Karl Brettschneider), and pretty Fay Wray (as Ruth Bertin). The much more enjoyable supporting cast includes bat-crazy Dwight Frye (as Herman), hypochondriac Maude Eburne (as Aunt Gussie Schnappmann), and suspicious George E. Stone (as Kringen). Mr. Frye, Ms. Eburne, and Mr. Stone outperform admirably. Is there another movie ending with a mad rush to the bathroom?
Magnesium sulfate Epsom salts it's a laxative!
**** The Vampire Bat (1933) Frank Strayer ~ Dwight Frye, Melvyn Douglas, Maude Eburne


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


user
Think "stage play". This is worth seeing once for the performances of Lionel Atwill and Dwight Frye. COmpare the Melvyn DOuglas in "Ghost Story" with the Melvyn DOuglas of this film. Are there vampires at loose in this 'Bavarian' village, or is there a more natural, albeit equally sinister, explanation? Dwight Frye is Herman, a red herring, who is cast as an especially moronic character. It's fun to look at his different facial expressions in what is really a stock character. NOt much happens for a long time, but then we discover that Atwill's pipe smoking doctor is the real murderer. There is too much 'comic relief' but that is par for the course for this era. Fay Wray looks really good.


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


user
It's the nature of businesses to try to capitalize on others' success. Here we have a movie taking elements from the earlier 'Dracula' (1931) and 'Frankenstein' (1931) -- in a Germanic town the village leaders believe that vampires (in the shape of bats) have been the cause of recent deaths of bloodless victims. Even though shot at Universal (and at the Bronson caves!) it's a Poverty Row feature; it's not fair to compare it with those earlier, more expensively made and superior films.
From the familiar and exciting, chilling music of the main titles (which must have been by Mischa Bakalienikoff), through the talky but well done opening sequence, we anticipate the arrival of Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray and Dwight Frye to give us a good 30s mystery film. Unfortunately, it doesn't happen. That's the disappointment.
We get little more than the formulaic elements of such films but with slow pacing, low budget, not enough of Dwight Frye, the overdone presence of Maude Eburne (Aunt Gussie), and the premise for Lionel Atwill (Dr. von Niemann) to require human blood or how he exhibits mind control over his servant Emil (Robert Frazier) never made very clear.
Do not watch the technicolor 'Dr. X' (1932) -- which also stars Lionel Atwill and Fay Wray but as father and daughter -- before watching this the way I did; it's an Oscar winner by comparison. So watch this one first. Structurally, 'The Vampire Bat' still isn't that good. It plods along with too much talking or unnecessary comic relief, without focusing strongly on the vampiric villainy.
Besides 'Dr. X' and 'Mystery of the Wax Museum' (both 1932 and co starring Fay Wray), Lionel Atwill's most famous appearances are as the one armed gendarme in 'Son of Frankenstein' (1939) and as Moriarity in 'Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon' (1943). Dwight Frye steals all his manic scenes in 'Dracula' (1931). As the 'young lovers,' Melvin Douglas and Fay Wray have a nice kissing scene, but that's about it. He can be seen in 'The Old Dark House' (1932), and Fay gets dragged around by Joel McCrea in 'The Most Dangerous Game' (1930). Then there's her 1933 classic 'screamer.' Too bad more time, money and rewrites weren't available for this film to better showcase the talents and chemistry of Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray and Dwight Frye. Sadly, then, this drearily disappointing film 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
Boy what a dud this mess was.But it only lasts an hour and I only paid a buck for it so I'll live....unlike the entire cast of this 1933 clunker who are all dust by now.
So anyway a small village starts having bodies turning up that have been drained of all their blood.The local yokels start talking about vampires ,of course,and a little more loudly after each body is found.The town sheriff or constable or whatever he is,played by awesome actor Melvyn Douglas,tries to tell them otherwise.When he mentions the fact that the dead have one large hole on each side of the neck,instead of two holes close together, the locals simply then say it's a giant vampire bat.The constable insists that vampires do not exist and it must be a human culprit doing the killings.
But Melvyn doesn't seem too bothered either way.He spends most of his time trying to get into the pantaloons of his sweetie,played by Faye Wray.Also in this mix is the town simpleton,played by Dwight Frye,who always seemed to have played the same role in every movie he did.He further freaks out the townspeople by catching bats and drinking his own blood.Lionel Atwill plays the town doctor who seemingly is trying to help the constable solve the crimes.And boy does he ever stink as an actor.Atwill is as close to cardboard in this role as he could get.And Lionel Barrymore is also in this thing....lots of big names to be such a pile of guano.
Other than the terrible mis-title this movie has,the alternate name,"The Blood Sucker" is much better,this movie is also dull and plodding and just silly.
For me the high point of the movie is watching Frye,he nails the freaky town weirdo but other than him this movie didn't offer much.And then when you find out the reason for the strange deaths and see the special effect thing that required all this blood you'll really be let down.
Bela Lugosi did a lot of awful pictures but at least he was fun and interesting to watch.Think of this movie as a really bad Lugosi clunker WITHOUT Lugosi and you'll get a feel for how miserably bad this mess was.
If you can't make a good 1930's horror film at least put Lugosi in it.


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


user
'The Vampire Bat' is definitely of interest, being one of the early genre-setting horror films of the 1930's, but taken in isolation everything is a bit too creaky for any genuine praise.
The film is set in a European village sometime in the 19th Century, where a series of murders are being attributed to vampirism by the suspicious locals. There is a very similar feel to James Whale's 'Frankenstein' and this is compounded by the introduction of Lionel Atwill's Dr Niemann character, complete with his misguided ideas for scientific advancement.
The vampire theme is arbitrary and only used as a red-herring by having suspicion fall on bat-loving village simpleton Herman (Dwight Frye), thus providing the excuse for a torch-wielding mob to go on the rampage - as if they needed one.
This is one of a trio of early horror films in which Lional Atwill and Fay Wray co-starred (also 'Doctor X' and 'The Mystery of the Wax Museum') and like their other collaborations the film suffers from ill-advised comic relief and a tendency to stray from horror to mainstream thriller elements. Taken in context though, 'The Vampire Bat' is still weak and derivative.
All we are left with is a poor-quality Frankenstein imitation, with the vampire elements purely a device to hoodwink Dracula fans. But for the title the film would struggle to even be considered as a horror and it is worth noting that director Frank Strayer was doing the 'Blondie' films a few years later.


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


user
CLASS OF '61
Aspect ratio: 1.33:1
Sound format: Stereo
In 1861, class members from the West Point Academy are torn apart by the outbreak of the Civil War.
Gregory Hoblit's OK historical drama makes an obvious point - virtuous men are rendered blind by conflict - though the production seems a little stilted, despite authentic period detail and a cast of talented newcomers (Clive Owen, Christien Anholt, Josh Lucas, Andre Braugher, Laura Linney, etc.), toplined by Dan Futterman as a conscientious Southerner who takes up arms in defence of slavery, pitting him in direct conflict with his former Northern friends. The movie's emphasis on such a misguided - though sympathetic - character is particularly brave, but the drama is otherwise flat and superficial, and Hoblit's direction is efficient rather than inspired.


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


user
A remake of Alejandro Amenabar's Abre los Ojos, but this time with a living, breathing mask as a lead. For the dubious advantage of an English sound track, we endure Tom Cruise's soulless performance, as usual, with zero depth. Yes, the character is identified with his persona, but we usually are given some character underneath that to hold our interest. His empty posturing negates any erotic energy that could have been between his character and Cruz or Diaz.
There is an acting exercise that involves using masks to free the actor to enrich his presentation of character by verbal and body language means. Cruise's masking only painfully emphasizes his inadequacy as an actor. Do see the 1997 original Amenabar Open Your Eyes!


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


user
Well, I hate hollywood, but love cinema so i have to watch these cruddy movies in theaters. And, I was hoping Vanilla Sky would be good. i was hoping that they would either keep the original "Open Your Eyes" exactly the same, or they would make it their own. Well, it happened to be a little bit of both, and it sucked.
It started out good. I love Radiohead. I wish there was more of that. But by the end we are listening to Good Vibrations by The Beach Boys. Talk about a wide range of suck between. They had one or two good songs in the club and maybe a couple others, but why oh why did they have to blare GV during the climax. It was more annoying than confusing or blatant. Especially when it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PLOT. At least put some meaning behind the songs. Kid A = primary. Whatever.
He also did a bang up job with the club scene. That was cool. Otherwise the movie was one big ball of arrogance. As if audiences would get the movie. The ones that would get it read subtitles, and the rest won't. Its as simple as that. The motivations got all screwed up. I didn't comprehend the Diaz motivations (hadn't they done the Chicken Soup night before?) and some of the others. And I hate Kurt Russell. Stay overboard. Tom Cruise can't act (especially in these types of movie [i.e. Eyes Wide Shut]). And the elevator. I get it. Anyways they tried improving the original with a crappy american rock soundtrack and crappy angles and good film print and glossy processing and it would have helped if crowe hadn't screwed it up.
2/10 Major disappointment.


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


user
This wasn't the major disaster that I was expecting, but that is about as positive as I can be in my description of the movie. I'm not sure what was meant to be funny about this movie, but I suppose it's all a matter of taste. Personally, I don't find it funny to watch morons living their idiotic lives or making fools of themselves on television, but then again, I'm not a fan of Jerry Springer's pathetic daytime talk show. I didn't get too bored watching this, but I was definitely never enjoying it, either. If you're in the mood to see a bad movie, but one that isn't too painful to sit through, this is a good choice.


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 not a regular viewer of Springer's, but I do watch his show in glimpses and I think the show is a fine guilty pleasure and a good way to kill some time. So naturally, I'm going to watch this movie expecting to see "Jerry Springer Uncensored." First of all, Jerry appears in approximately twenty minutes of the film's running time. The other hour and twenty minutes is spent building up this pseudo-farce about trailer-trash, jealousy, incest and deception. Jaime Pressley (who looks hot as HELLLL) is a trailer-trash slut who sleeps with her stepfather (a very unusual-looking, chain-smoking, drunken Michael Dudikoff who finally strays from his action hero persona). The mom finds out about the affair, they get into a fight, they want to take it to the "Jerry" show (that's right, no Springer). And then we have a parallel story with an African-American couple. They take it to the "Jerry" show. The characters collide. Blah, blah, freakin' blah! Trash has rarely been this BORRRINGG!!!! I was wondering why the hell Springer has millions of fans, yet none of them checked out his movie. Well, now it's TOTALLY obvious!! Whether you love him or hate him, you will hate this movie! How can I explain? It's a total mess of a motion picture (if that's what you call it). It's so badly edited, with scenes that just don't connect, and after a period of time the plot virtually disappears and it's simply all over the map! Just imagine a predictable soap opera transformed into a comic farce. With seldom laughs.
My only positive note is a hot girl-girl scene. That's as risque as it gets. Don't get me wrong, the scene's pretty risque, but if you look at the overall film comparing it to the material on Springer's program--this disastrous farce seems extremely sanitized.
My score: 3 (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
Somebody could probably make a great documentary about the Jerry Springer Show, but this fictionalized version merely succeeds in draining anything authentic and interesting out of the trash-TV phenomenon. There are dozens of famously bad movies (e.g. "Manos: The Hands of Fate") that show more creativity and spirit than this dreary, witless waste of film.
Seriously, why not a documentary about the Jerry Springer Show, that would begin to answer some of the real questions like: Who are these people? What happens to their lives after they appear on this show? How did the mayor of Cincinatti find himself here?
One good line: During an "orientation" session for guests: "People, I can't emphasize this enough: NO WEAPONS!"


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 thing that kept me from vomiting after seeing this movie was the fact that these are just actors and not the freak show that usually appears on the TV show. This is also the main reason that fans of the TV show won't like the movie, but not the only reason. This movie has about as much entertainment value as getting a root canal. It approaches the abyssmal depths of bad movie making, and then gets even worse. I won't waste your time describing this movie in further detail; suffice it to say that I pity the poor camera people who had to suffer through watching this c**p the first time.


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


user
Lets make a movie about a talk show that already exists and basically have everything that happens on the show! Well if that idea doesn't intrigue you, which it shouldn't, stay away from ringmaster. I had the displeasure of seeing this in the theater and actually being able to sit through this mess of a movie. I guess jerry springer doesn't play himself as it shows from the cheap props for his show (yes it looks even cheaper than the real jerry springer show) and he is only known as jerry in the film. The plot (if you can call it that) is about a daughter while living with her mother decides to start sleeping with the mother's live in boyfriend. So the mother's brilliant idea is to call the jerry springer show as well as getting it on with her daughter's boyfriend. (Is it any coincidence they live in a trailer park). Meanwhile somewhere else in america a woman finds her cheatin' man with her friend in bed together. So of course call america's therapist Jerry springer! I'd talk about the rest of the film but even thinking about the film now is giving me a headache. Jamie Pressly who plays the daughter looks totally unattractive in the movie. And remember Michael Dudikoff the kick ass karate master from the american ninja series? Well take a look at him now as a white trash drunk. The thing is he really looks too horrible and out of shape to call it "getting in touch with his charecter". But if your idea of fun is seeing Jerry Springer sing a country song about his own show or guys hooking up with transvestites...well...JUST WATCH THE SHOW INSTEAD! ... at least steve was smart enough to stay out of this flick.


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


user
Meaning: if this movie got pitched, scripted, made, released, promoted as something halfway respectable given the constraints (yeah, I know, Springer, sex, violence), where is He?
Reminded me of porn movies I saw in college, plot and dialogue wise.... shoulda just done something for the scurrilous porno market, showed penetration and be done with it-- would have made more money, the ultimate point of this exercise....


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


user
Please avoid this movie at all costs. This is without a doubt, the worst movie I've ever seen. Most movies have at least one redeeming value. This has none. Totally horrible!


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


user
Ringmaster, Jerry Springer's pathetic excuse for wasting film that should be recycled as toilet paper recently destroyed my confidence in the art of film. First of all, it was made. Second of all, people went to see it. Third, some people voted it the best movie they have ever seen. If a monkey could make a movie, i'm 100 percent sure that it would be 1 billion times as good. Most crappy movies have their moments, (even Godzilla had a few cool special effects) this film's moment was when I left the theater nauseated. The only thing that possibly could've made this movie any worse would be if Jerry Springer was the star. If I want to stare at crap for an hour and a half, i'll take a dump in a can. If anyone didn't utterly despise this movie, I pity you, and your children, and your children's children's children; however, contrary to Springer's beliefs, I clearly don't condone children having sex.


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


user
I love watching Jerry as much as the rest of the world, but this poor excuse for a soft-core porno flick is needlessly offensive, lacks anything resembling wit, and serves merely as a vehicle of self-promotion for Springer. Even though it runs a quick 90 minutes, the film drags hideously, and I should have had the common sense to walk out. Simply atrocious.


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


user
To preface this review, I must say that I was, I suppose, a little curious about this movie.. However, I probably would not have seen it had I not had my arm slightly twisted.
In my opinion, this movie shows just how depraved man can be. In my eyes, the worst thing about this whole Springer phenomenon is not that type of people on the "Jerry Springer Show" act as they do (which in itself is eminently reproachable), but that many people are so curious and excited to watch them and hear about their lives (yes, I suppose that includes me.. to whatever extent it is true). If not glorifying that kind of behavior (as some might say) at the very least we may be subtly corrupting our minds and/or desenstizing ourselves to this type of behavior.
But enough soapbox (sort of). Here's the skinny: the movie has an R rating, and while it may deserve only that (I did look away at some scenes, so I'm not completely sure), I feel that an NC-17 (tip of the hat to the other reviewer) might be a little more appropriate for the immense sexual content (a cynic might comment that the movie was just one big excuse to show sex on the big screen). The plot is very bizarre, tying together the stories of an absolutely dysfunctional family and a group of stereotypical blacks upset who will appear on different Springer shows. At the end, the movie leaves one with some resolvement- and Springer rhetoric about the need for us to see the real world (evidently as seen through his show). I agree with him there- it is important to know how the world really is so that we can seek to effect positive change. Having said that, let me just tell you- the world's pretty bad- glance in a newpaper or the news to see that, but let's not shell out good money to support the kind of sensationalistic and perhaps formulaic titallition that Springer seeks to give us.


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


user
Ok, let me say that I didn't expect a film starring Jerry Springer to be cinematic gold, all I asked for was it to be cinematic...and it wasn't even that. It looked like someone's bad home movies. Poorly acted, scripted, and filled to the brim with nudity of the most unnattractive people I've ever seen.
The film's "plot" focuses on a low-class family who decide to go on the "Jerry Farrelly Show" to discuss multiple affairs between a mother, daughter, stepfather and the daughter's fiancee. From there, the movie fizzles and develops into a unique experience: white-trash pornography. There's redneck sex, interacial sex, even sex between Jerry and his wife? (Yuk!) This film encouraged me to want to run out of the theater and get a second circumcision. At least it was mercifully short. Disgusting and degrading. African-Americans and working class America should be offended. (Howard Stern should be pleased however, he didn't squander his attempt for film stardom. His was smart, funny and entertaining)
MY GRADE: F+ (the daughter was hot)


assistant
0