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
Well to answer one persons's question of "why doesn't anyone remember this film?" it's because really,not that many people saw it in 1978 and it's not been shown much on TV since. (If it's on video that'd be news to me!) Even in the era of sometimes mindless comedies that was the '70s,movie-goers had the smarts to avoid this film. Unless they love Billy Crytal,Paul Lynde or Joan Rivers "that" much!
Paul Lynde was funnier on "Bewitched" or "Hollywood Squares" than here. Joan Rivers at this time in her career was getting laughs making cruel jokes about singer Karen Carpenter's lack of weight! Har-har Joan! It also seems like every "somewhat" famous name from the era is in the cast. (Most surprising is Doris Roberts later of "Everybody Loves Raymond".)
Anyhow,a somewhat good idea for a storyline,a man getting pregnant instead of the woman goes to waste here. With help from a male friend Crystal gets set up with a hooker to finally lose his virginity but because she was "on top" instead of him,he gets pregnant! (A commentary on women taking positions of power away from men).
Crystal's stomach grows,he goes through all the female emotions and related feelings. Unfortunately,he is now a socially misunderstood outcast! He's attacked by a mob who wants him rubbed out (I guess).
He's forced to go into seclusion to have his baby...in a barn. Or if you will,a manger (God only knows where it may have exited from! Ewwww!) It turns out (no shock here) to be a girl!
Everything else about this movie is worthless and forgettable,the humor is high school level or less.
2 stars for a good idea and a few good touching & relevant moments w/ Billy Crystal. Ignore the rest of Rabitt Test,it flunks big time!
I can't believe Roddy McDowell signed on either! (END)


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 when it first came out in 1978, when I was a sophomore in high school. I took a date to see it. I didn't "get any," needless to say, because the film was so bad! Joan Rivers' career never tanked as badly as it deserved after making this awful, unfunny crap. In fact, unfunny isn't a severe enough term: this film is ANTI-FUNNY! You walk out feeling like any laughter that might have occurred was beaten out of you before it could happen. This isn't worth watching out of curiosity, or out of any sense of it being "so-bad-it's-good." Not even the gang at MST3K could've made this worth watching! The fact that Billy Crystal's career survived this early suicide attempt is a miracle.


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 difficult to precisely put into words the sheer awfulness of this film. An entirely new vocabulary will have to be invented to describe the complete absence of anything even remotely recognizable as 'humor' or even 'entertainment' in "Rabbit Test." So, as a small contribution to this future effort, I'd like to suggest this word:
"Hubiriffic" (adj.) A combination of 'hubristic' and 'terrific'; used to describe overly ambitious debacles like the film "Rabbit Test."
Joan Rivers and "Hollywood Squares" producer Jay Redack have severely over-reached their meager abilities to amuse in this 82-minute festival of wretchedness. Trying to put together an Airplane! style comedy with a moldy collection of gags, (Note to Joan: German doctors haven't been funny since Vaudeville) disinterred from their graves in the Catskills - that's is bad enough. But compounding this cinematic crime is River's directorial style, which can best be described as 'ugly', and a cast of once-and-future has-beens so eager to please they overplay even the weakest of throwaway gags.
Adrift in this Sargasso Sea of sap is a hapless Billy Crystal in his film debut role as the film's hapless protagonist Lionel. Watching Crystal in this pic is much like watching a blind person take a stroll in a minefield; eventually the cringe reflex becomes a semi-permanent condition as cheap joke after cheap joke blows up in his face.
I can only speculate about the sort of audience who might actually like Rabbit Test. Cabbages, mollusks and mildly retarded lizards are all likely candidates. But for self-aware, thinking humans - I'd enthusiastically recommend pouring bleach in your eyes before I'd recommend "Rabbit Test."


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


user
Turkish Cinema has a big problem. Directors aren't interested in global cinema. They are local and folkloric, but want to be international. This brings kitsch results such this movie.
Film has jokes translated to Spanish from Turkish and they don't have any meaning for non-Turkish audiences. Even for Turkish audiences after 10 years.
Players, even Ferhan SENSOY have a worse acting than average. They act like puppets.
Movie was shot in Cuba, but nothing includes about Cuba. So Cuba is thought like a banana republic.
Waste of money, waste of time.


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


user
This was allocated to the fans as the "winner takes all" match occurred between two separate "companies" (the World Wrestling Federation and the "Alliance": an amalgamation of former WCW and ECW superstars. Because the final match to duduce the superior company was a tag-team match, the wrestlers were confined to tossing opponents from each side of the ring to another; each wrestler concludes that in order to debiliate their opponents and to intensify the match, interfernce is necessary. Each wrestler merely pummels an opponent with punches, executes a special move, and tags in a partner. The storyline had previously been tarnished by the subterfuge of Vince that a member of the Allance would be fradulent and join the WWF. It was obvious, with that statement, that the WWF would prevail. Overall: very innovative storyline but poor execution, which is not the scarcity of the wrestlers because the match format is tag-team. The remaining matches are just revolting:
Edge versus Test: potent "big boot" by Test, but this did not display the true talents of both stars
Al Snow Versus Christian: good match but superflous to the pay-per-view
Taji versus William Regal: the worst match of the night
Immunity Battle Royal: This was an outstandingly fun match to watch, but because the main stars of both companies were involved in the main event, only a wrestler who characteristically appears on "Heat" and is probably a WCW light-heavyweight reject (i.e. the Hurricane who is merely hired as an entertainer)
Hardy Boyz Versus Dudley Boyz: The best match of the night: Jeff Hardy executed a "Swanton Bomb" from the summit of a cage and through a wooden table and Matt was wedged into the cage, which appeared to be extremely painful.
Because Stone Cold was the WWF champion, Rob Van Dam was the Hardcore Champion, and Kurt Angle was a "mole" in the alliance, all fundamental stars in the main event on the faction of "the Alliance" were granted work after the match's outcome, except for Booker T., who recently attacked a wrestler on "Raw" and will inevitably be given work. Shane McMahon will return to television somehow, and everyone desired to witness the downfall and demise of "the Alliance" to see Stone Cold out of work. The WWF has done much better. A match in which all tiltes were brought to one faction would have been better, and what ever became of Casket and Iron Man matches?


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


user
WWF Survivor Series 2001
This was among the worst events of 2001. Perhaps its biggest flaw was the fact that it didn't follow suit to most of the previous Survivor Series'. There was only ONE survivor series match. And that Survivor Series match went on for 45 minutes. What's more, anyone with a working brain would know that it would end with The Rock versus Austin and The Rock prevailing for his team. And don't get me started on the preview before the event. No matter who won it was obvious that no one was going to f***ing die. There was no need for all of that pointless hype. Whatever the storyline, it was just a wrestling event.
And as for the rest of the matches: the first match was Christian defending his European title against Al Snow. It was a good fast paced match and its good to see a heel winning a match fairly. William Regal versus Tajiri was boring and we've seen it 2 or 3 times before. Edge versus Test was good but nothing great. The tag titles steel cage match was the best match of the evening. The battle Royal went on for 10 minutes and no one really cared who'd win in the first place. The Women's title match wasn't great. No, not in the slightest. The main event must have been the most hypocritical match in history. The Alliance lost but guess what, after 5 months every single Alliance superstar returned. The match itself was poor. The Rock eliminated 3 of them and Jericho eliminated 2. The Rock was too caught up with his acting to be there when the invasion began. Jericho was the one that jeopardised the whole match. If I wanted any 2 to be eliminated in the early going it would be them. Everyone knew that Kane, Big Show and Undertaker were just fall guys. 7 matches isn't enough for a Survivor Series. If there's ever a Survivor Series as bad as this again I'll


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


user
T. Rama Rao made some extremely beautiful films in the 1980s, but he seems to be a filmmaker who cannot mature with the changing times, styles and fashions. He's like stuck with the same old-fashioned film-making style.
Actors are not bad, not good either. Anil Kapoor generally acts convincingly his two roles of a father and his son, but the flawed script often makes him look funny and pathetic. Rekha is good, but then - she's always good, and here she's nothing more than such. She makes the best of what she is given, but she always does that. In conclusion, nothing great at all. Raveena is OK, which means ordinary, not bad, not good, nothing.
This film is melodramatic, occasionally stupid. Maybe it's a delayed film? Well, even then it still would be below standard. The script is terrible, the film is overdone, and the story goes nowhere. It feels like a film made in the early 1990s, but the script makes it look even older, the style is like from the 1950s.
Don't recommend, unless you're a big fan one of the starring actors.


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


user
The film released at the start of 2000 alongwith MELA both disasters So sad to start a millennium with such nonsense
The film seems to suit 70's but looks like an unintentional comedy for 2000
Anywayz some classic gems from the film: Paresh Rawal I don't understand to laugh at his role or cry Reason: He goes searching his mother in the village worst part is when he realises a secret of Anil he keeps the secret in his stomach which becomes big and makes him look pregnant I remember in my childhood my teacher told me the same joke Urrf!!!! as a child i laughed at it that time but here?
The whole film is a joke can't explain We have Anil in a dual role(One older and younger) and Rekha playing the older's wife and Raveena the youngers We also have reject Harish while Shakti playing the son of Aruna Irani who both fight on who has the worst wig
Direction is outdated Music is bad
Anil tries hard looks too old in the younger role and too young in the older role yet good effort Rekha is adequate, Raveena too is okay Harish is bad Shakti Kapoor is terrible Aruna Irani is as usual Rajnikant is okay in a cameo


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


user
I just saw this movie on Flix after timer-taping it. I grew up watching F Troop and had a major hard for Wrangler Jane so I was shocked, literally shocked, to find out after seeing this film that the degenerate homicidal nurse was Melody Patterson, who looks pretty good but also looks completely different and is unfortunately poorly photographed. I would never have guessed it was her in a million years. What the hell is she doing in a picture like this? I agree with the guys here that the movie lacks what it's pushing. No sex, no gore, no tease. It's also a remake of the Atomic Brain aka Monstrosity (1964 or thereabouts). Most of the action is tedious; the main character spends enormous amounts of time running around the crazed doctor's house and basement, and the neighborhood in general, or being roughed up by the cop, all of it boring and time-filling. Now if the Italians would have made this, half the film would have been the Slingblade/Uncle Ernest/Jack Elam henchman fondling the unconscious nude girls. But you only get that for 20 seconds.


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


user
THE IMMORTALIZER was, uh, interesting. It certainly didn't kill me during its hour and a half duration, but it didn't impress me much either. A group of kids are abducted in an alley by musclehead mutants (in a scene featuring cinema's least convincing head crushing sound effect) and taken to a fancy house in the suburbs. Here Dr. Divine and his team are performing brain transplants for his rich old patients so they can have young bodies again. Hey, this was quietly remade with a big budget a few years later as FREEJACK! Who knew that when you transplant an old person's brain into a different body that their new voice will sound exactly like their old voice? With all this talk of pineal glands and the use of a glowing green serum, you can almost see visions of FROM BEYOND and RE-ANIMATOR dancing in the producers' heads. But the production literally doesn't have the guts to pull it off. I've never understood why, when someone is making a low budget horror film, that they don't pack it to the edge of the frame with gore. The acting is uniformly terrible, with the only good performance coming from Clarke Lindsley as the assistant Dr. Price. He has a nice evil laugh. The only other thing of note about THE IMMORTALIZER is that it features lots of old people doing their own stunts. Seriously, most of the cast takes some serious bumps for old folks.


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


user
Bradford Dillman plays a scientist who wakes up one morning in the middle of a bloody crime scene; having partial amnesia (or "global amnesia", which one character claims to define as elective loss of memory), the scientist finds a private detective in the phone book in the hopes of piecing his life back together. Abhorrent concoction very loosely based on Walter Ericson's book "Fallen Angel" (filmed in 1965 as "Mirage" with Gregory Peck). It was probably too racy for television--what with drugs and hippies added to the mix--that NBC initially refused to air it, which is how this low-budgeter wound up in theaters. Director James Goldstone gets freaky with the hyperkinetic visuals and camera-tricks, while editor Edward A. Biery goes wild with the zig-zag cuts. Unfortunately, their admittedly-colorful gimmicks cannot cover up the weaknesses of this updated plot, and the acting is woefully overripe. Dillman, under pressure to recall the events of the night in question, goes through an Actor's Seminar of tics, stammers, nose-wipes, and crazy half-laughs while spitting out dialogue like, "Dream...a dream...drugs...yeah, drugs...that SOUND...bells...help!" As a villainous fellow scientist with a Cheshire Cat smile, Pat Hingle nearly upstages Dillman in the Grand Thespian department by continually addressing everyone in baby-talk, strutting about like a middle-aged peacock and twisting his mouth around in agony. Hope Lange's scientist/love-interest is given the short shrift, but not before she screams at indifferent-lover Dillman: "What do I have to do, talk Ape Man? Me want You!" This is one frantic "Jigsaw"! *1/2 from ****


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


user
I doubt Jigsaw was hip even at the time, the whole LSD theme married to a murder mystery being a patently obvious attempt to grab a young audience of the era without in the least truly showing any understanding of the sixties counterculture. The dated aspect aside, Jigsaw suffers from many problems, including overwrought acting, silly and stilted dialogue, LSD flashbacks that go on interminably long even after the point has been hammered home in the first 60 seconds, a failure to create any true suspense even though the actual plot is, on paper, a great vehicle to do just that, and an ending that is so trite and predictable (not to mention reminiscent of a lot of bad television shows) that the climax is actually an anti-climax. If it was a better movie, we might be able to suspend disbelief on a few things where it would help enjoyment, but the weaknesses are so glaring they only serve to highlight the improbabilities viewers might otherwise overlook. I saw Jigsaw on television and it is definitely late night TV fare meant to fill airspace and pass the time to kill somebody's insomnia rather than anything anybody ought to actively seek out. At very best, a three 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
Nell Shipman attempted a plot to lead up to a chase finale in 'Back to God's Country' of the previous year, and she failed miserably. This time, she does better, although it seems pointless. 'Something New' hardly has a plot lying outside of the chase. There's a brief premise, which sets up the hero (co-author and Shipman's boyfriend) to have to save the girl (played by Shipman), then it's nothing but an exciting, implausible chase from there. Of course, it plays out like an hour-long advertisement for a Maxwell Sedan, but the entire movie is congruously ridiculous. It doesn't seem that she learned much from the last-minute rescue films of D.W. Griffith or its parodies by Mack Sennett and other comedians, which she's imitating.
One point of interest is that Shipman writes and directs herself into the film as the writer of the film's story, which has as its protagonist a writer (Shipman again), although she doesn't do much else clever or humorous with it, even though she attempts to. Again, others had pioneered the writer's joke in the intertitles, like Anita Loos with 'Wild and Woolly' or Frances Marion with 'A Girl's Folly' (both 1917). At least, Shipman gives the impression that she doesn't take herself or the film seriously--and neither do I. 'Something New,' despite its claim, is hackneyed.


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


user
Being a fan of silent films, I looked forward to seeing this picture for the first time. I was pretty disappointed.
As has been mentioned, the film seems to be one long, long, commercial for the Maxwell automobile.
Perhaps if the chase scene was about half the length that it is, I may have enjoyed the film more. But it got old very fast. And while I recognize that reality is stretched many times in films, without lessening a viewer's enjoyment, what was with the Mexican bandits? I mean, they are chasing a car through the mountains, a car that most of the time is moving at about one mile per hour, yet they can't catch up to it?


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


user
Nell Shipman must have been paid a hefty sum of money to promote the Maxwell automobile's off-road capabilities. The plot of the movie is pretty simple, Nell plays a writer who has a bad case of writer's block, and needs inspiration, so she goes to visit Mexico to absorb the atmosphere. There she meets the hero (Bert Van Tuyle), a cowboy who chooses to drive a car rather than ride a horse. While Nell is visiting with her father's partner at his mining camp, a gang of local bandits kidnap her and bring her to their camp deep in the wilderness. The hero needs to get to her quickly, so he decides to drive there in his car. This is where the film takes a weird twist. Bert proceeds to drive over every terrain imaginable, huge rocks, small streams, heavy brush, scraggly tree stumps, steep inclines, etc etc, for the greater part of the film we get to see this car struggling to crawl over obstacles. Now mind you, this isn't a modern-day ATV, it's a 1920 Maxwell automobile, so it looks very out-of-place as an off-road vehicle. And it clearly has limitations for some of the terrain it encounters, we get to see it stuck more than once in this film. But the filmmakers made an effort to show it beating the odds and eventually passing all the obstacles. Once the hero gets to the hidden camp and rescues the girl, he jumps in the car with her and drives off with the bandits in hot pursuit (on horseback), and at this point it became hysterically funny to me. Watching this car slowly rolling over huge rocks, getting stuck in gravel and mountain brush, going forward and back to get momentum enough to pass over fallen tree limbs, the bandits should have had ample time to catch up. But they never do, even though we are to believe this wilderness chase goes on throughout the night. And in a silly climax, the car climbs a mountainside, and helps Nell and the hero push a huge boulder down the side to crush the pursuing bandits.
After seeing this film you would think the army should invest in 1920 Maxwell automobiles because they clearly have better off-road capabilities than Hummers and Bradley tanks combined. Watch this film just for laughs, it's worth it just to see Nell cuddling up to the car grill and saying "You did your best, brave little car"


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


user
I enjoy quality crapness, and this ranks up there with some of the finest. the cg is out of this world, or at least pre-dates our world, and the insanity of a 6 foot bloke in a rat outfit chasing after people is laughably bad. I quite enjoyed some of this, but the acting is so goddamn awful, and even the obligatory nude scene doesn't really have any baps out in it. just a complete waste of time if ever i saw one. I don't know who wasted more time, me watching this, or the poor saps who got dragged into making it in the faint hope that this will launch their acting careers. I can assure you, it wont. However, on a brighter note, I have managed to successfully do the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon from this movie, so I think it was almost worthwhile watching the 91 minutes 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
Yes, this is one of THOSE movies, so terrible, so insipid, so trite, that you will not be able to stop laughing. I have watched comedies, good comedies, and laughed less than my wife and I laughed at this movie. The other comments give the idea well enough. The characters are so unpleasant you cheer the rats on, the effects are so poorly done you wonder whose elementary school art class was in charge, the acting-- oh the acting-- talk about tired dialogue and embarrassing pauses.
But the rat, yes, the big rat. Why we didn't get to see the rat until the end rather surprised me. Often the 'big one' isn't shown until the end because the budget is limited and good effects chew up so much money. I surmise, however, that in this case the big rat was hidden until the end because the filmmakers were ashamed that the best they had was a guy running around dressed up like a woodchuck with third-world dentistry.
The most sublime part of the whole movie is the elevator scene. After figuring out that the rats couldn't stand loud noise (migraines from the bad acting?), the main dude rigs up a fire alarm to send the rats into a frenzy. If you've ever wanting to see a pair of rats waltz while blood squirts out of their heads like a geyser, this film is for you. Really, you need to rent it and see for yourself.
But not for more than 99¢, OK?


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


user
well after watching this i can say that it ain't the worst movie ever made,, yes folks there is worse than this,, there are some good points to the movie,, you get to watch drunken teenagers, have horrible deaths,, and cute looking rats eating some science experiment, and getting grotesquely huge,, the drunk janitor,, the cranky doctor,, and yes a girl in thong underwear that has absolutely no shame,, dumb jocks,, i could'nt personally wait for the rat to eat these drunken fools,, i was rooting for the rat the e ntire time,, it had a good premise,, the first part of the movie,, was interesting though with the scientific explantation about the rats,, and the little back story,, but i think that it ruined when the dumb drunken horny teenagers come into play,, the rat in my opinion, the one that get's lost,, her name is Brenda, was so fake,, must have been a cGi rat,, looked like a guy dressed up in a beaver suit,, this was pretty schlocky, lame,, but not totally horribble,,


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 easily one of the worst ones I have ever seen. And I don't mean that in a good way. We wanted to see a crappy horror/thriller, so we picked the one that seemed to be the lousiest in the store. For once, the film was everything we'd expected. And more! (or should I say less?)
The actors look like they are reading their lines from posters behind the camera. The so-called special effects are created by putting red see-through plastic in front of the camera to give the impression that we are seeing through the eyes of the killer rats. And the script? Don't even get me started on the script... And just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, it turns out that the first part of the film was Oscar-material compared to the ending.
Take it from me, this film is hilarious if you're into crappy horror-films, but if you want a GOOD film, keep on looking. This is not for you.


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


user
What a terrible film.
It starts well, with the title sequence, but that's about as good as it gets.
The movie is something about rats turning into monsters and going on a killing spree. The acting isn't so much poor, but the script is pointless and the film isn't even scary despite the atmospheric music.
It really is amazing that some group cobbled together this bag of rubbish and thought it would make a good film.
It isn't a good film. It's trash, and I urge you not to waste a minute of your life on it! One out of ten.


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


user
Spoiler below, but read on or you'll never know the horrible fate that awaits all planing to rent "Rodentz".
On a moonlit night, in a remote research laboratory, a major medical breakthrough is about to have deadly results. A chemical compound that was created to "hunt and destroy" deadly cancer cells has leaked from the hazardous waste disposal system into the building's basement. Now, the rodents involved in the laboratory experiment upstairs are not the only rats in the facility that will become the altered species. Professor Schultz, a leading bio-researcher, has just determined that the addition of a new enzyme now enables his "hunt and destroy" formulation to regenerate for the length of time necessary to neutralize deadly cancer tumors. When three varying degrees of the new mixture are administered to three different rats and the rest poured down the faulty "Waste Hazard" sink, shocking side-effects result in a night of terror.....right.....
Seriously, this is probably the worst film I've seen this year. Everything about it screams "Low-budget!", from the horrendous acting to the special effects which are some of the worst I've ever seen. The characters are clichéd morons and act in stupid, predictable ways: walking down dark hallways alone, looking for a cat, tripping and falling so the "rats" can catch up with them, boarding themselves up in a small room, etc.
While some films are cheaply made, this film really takes the cake. Every possible corner is cut, everything from reusing earlier shots, filming the "Lab" hallways from different angles to make it look bigger (That reminds me--why were only TWO guys working in this freakin' massive building?!?!?!?), to music and special effects that could be done on a children's workshop PC.
That brings me to the worst aspect of this steaming pile of dung--the special effects. Just horrendous. The computer generated rats look so fake and stand out in every scene so even the dumbest of film buffs could see they are computer generated. And that giant rat suit--OH MY GOD!!!!!!!! seriously, are we supposed to believe that freaking beany baby is a monster? Just pitiful........On the better side, some of the gore looks pretty cool, especially considering the budget.
The actors all suck. no one involved with the production cared or knew what they were doing. I've wasted enough time with review, just take my advice, it's garbage. 1/10.
About the DVD: The transfer sucks, the audio is passable and there's a commentary track on the disk by the director and two of his friends, who say they had absolutely nothing to do with making the film but were there to ask questions and make comments. All three of these sub-human primordial slime are so incredibly stupid that they should be institutionalized before they can harm themselves or others. I don't want to waste any more of you kind reader's time or mine, for I am starting to remember more than I want to about this film..... DVD rating: 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
Winter Kills is a terrible, incoherent and very disappointing conspiracy comedy-thriller from little-known director William Richert. While watching the film, I honestly felt as if I was the emperor in the classic fable The Emperor's New Clothes. The film made me feel like a fool because I couldn't make head nor tail of the serpentine plot and the nonsensical characters. But I felt kind of embarrassed to admit to myself that the film was tying my brain up in knots. So I stuck with it to the end, hoping that the whole tangled mess would untangle itself. Then I realised.... the film is SUPPOSED to be serpentine, nonsensical and illogical, because that's the whole point. This is a satirical look at conspiracy theories and theorists, with the knotting-up of the plot used as a metaphor for the knotting-up of truths, half-truths and lies that define any conspiracy. Even when I got that the joke was on me, I still felt Winter Kills to be a pretty awful movie.
Young Nick Kegan (Jeff Bridges) is the younger brother of a former United States President who was assassinated in Philadelphia. Nick is present when a dying man claims that he shot the President and gives detailed information about where he hid the gun. Nick follows the clues, but every step of the way the people helping him seem to die in mysterious circumstances. Also, his father Pa Kegan (John Huston), a vulgar and disgustingly wealthy businessman, keeps interfering with Nick's investigation. The deeper he delves into the assassination, the more Nick realises that he is descending into a web of complex lies and red herrings, where nothing is as it seems and no-one can be trusted.
The film is an utter nightmare to follow, and in many ways is not worth trying to follow for the afore-mentioned reason that it deliberately tangles itself up. The cast is packed with extraordinary talent but most of them are wasted. Toshiro Mifune has one of the briefest and most pointless cameo roles in cinematic history; Elizabeth Taylor appears uncredited and has not a single line of dialogue; Richard Boone is given what seems to be an interesting role but his character goes nowhere. John Huston has the best role as the powerful patriarch and provides us with the film's few enjoyable moments with his acerbic delivery. Anthony Perkins also gets a creepy role and handles it well, though his screen time is far too short to do complete justice to the character. Some nudity and sex scenes are tossed in for no real reason and, while they're quite graphic and might appeal to voyeurs, they really belong in another film. The film's semi-comic climax is farcical and disappointing, yet paradoxically memorable in its weird little way. There's obviously a cult audience out there somewhere for Winter Kills.... but I won't be counting myself among its number.


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


user
With an absolutely amazing cast and crew, this might have been a classic. Instead it is a repetitive paraphrasing of all the conspiracy theories extant in 1979 about the JFK assassination grafted, rather pointlessly, on to a vaguely incoherent plot about the murder of fictitious president Kegan in 1960. Many superb character actors are wasted as they are either not given enough to do - Sterling Hayden or Eli Wallach, for instance, or they are asked to go rather luridly over the top - John Huston. Jeff Bridges and Anthony Perkins do manage to acquit themselves very well, in their very different ways, though.
The photography is gorgeous, but does not justify an hour and a half of your life, or the price of the DVD purchase.


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


user
i can't say i liked this movie very much.it has some amusing moments,but it doesn't seem able to make up its mind whether it is a comedy or a drama.it doesn't really work as either.it's too light in tone to be a drama,and the amusing moments are few and far between.it also doesn't make a lot of sense.things seem to happen for no reason.and it's also extremely convoluted.i feel like they just made things up as they were going.if they had just taken a bit of time to explain things,this might have been a better movie.i would say the ending was anti climatic, but that would mean the rest of the movie had actually been building up to something,which it didn't.it just sorts ends,and that's that.i didn't find it boring,really,but like i said,there there just isn't any point.i'll give Winter Kills a reluctant and weak 3/10


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


user
From the pen of Richard Condon (The Manchurian Candidate 1962) comes this muddled tale of political intrigue and assassination. The story, told in almost comic book fashion is difficult to swallow. All-star cast considered, this poor effort is not entirely the fault of the cast and crew: the novel was replete with the same short-comings. It seems as though at times the story is actually mocking the more sincere effort put forth in "Manchurian Candidate." A disappointment on all counts.


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


user
Ah WINTER KILLS , based on the novel by Richard Condon which deals with a conspiracy that killed the president of the United States 20 years ago . I knew Condon also wrote THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE which dealt with a similar theme and was looking forward to seeing an intelligent thriller
WINTER KILLS left me cold . It's not a thriller - It's a piece of worthless crap , possibly the worst movie I've seen this month and boy have I seen a lot of bad movies in June . The problem lies in both the direction and the script and seeing as William Richert was responsible for both then he should be blamed entirely for this unfunny farce
There's two things wrong with this movie . First off is the way everything is presented in a totally over the top manner . It's not as OTT as say something like that James Bond movie with David Niven and Peter Sellers but everything has a farcial edge to it with actors completely mugging their performances . This might have been justified if there was entertainment value to the movie but there's none . As a satire it's very silly , so silly that it becomes almost unwatchable . Secondly the scenes seem to have been cut so much that they're rendered senseless . Take for example a scene where the hero is confronting a loopy militia leader called Dawson . Dawson tells the hero he has 30 seconds start then it cuts to the hero being on board a plane . The scenes begin and end with no rhyme nor reason
A dire movie that's an ordeal 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 watched the pilot and noticed more than a few similarities between 3 lbs and House, M.D.. Tucci's character is brilliant but socially inept out of choice, similar to Laurie's character House, but without the acerbic wit that Laurie brings to House. Meanwhile, Tucci's 'straight guy', the emphatic doctor Seger, is not developed into a more interesting character, like the fallible 'straight guys' Cuddy and Wilson. Indira Varma's character Adrienne Holland is too similar to Jennifer Morrison's doctor Cameron to be a co-incidence.
Someone at CBS obviously noticed the success of House, M.D. and told his staff to get him (her) a similar show, hoping that mimicry would prove successful. However, copying a show like House demands the same high level balance of wit and suspense and Tucci and company are just not up to the challenge.
I didn't know the show was canceled until I read the comments on IMDb, but it doesn't come as a surprise to me.


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


user
3lbs is obviously just a self indulgent programme for Stanley Tucci to be a producer/moody deep doctor. Unlike House he has absolutely no personality and unlike Grey's Anatomy the brain surgery cases are't even interesting. This programme is supposed to be set in a leading centre for Neurlogical cases - yet there's nothing interesting or exciting going on! Not even the so called pathetic 'feud' between him and a rival adds anything to the show and neither do those hallucinations. In the pilot there was a brief glimpse into the leads's social life as a father - snooze! boring and pointless.
This show is pants,there's a glut of medical dramas around at the moment and this does nothing to make it stand out as special.


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


user
I can appreciate what Barney is trying to achieve, but after sitting through this last night at a college movie house, I couldn't help but think...when is this gonna end? A very long and ponderous two hours and fifteen minutes. I had only seen a part of Cremaster 3 on DVD and thought I knew what to expect. That said, experimental films such as this are better digested in small increments. There are a couple of beautiful/horrible images...including the title sequence (no kidding), but if you go into this expecting any kind of plot or meaning, then you are in for a long, snooze-inducing ride. I managed to stay awake for the whole thing (if that's a compliment) but more often than not, I was waiting for some kind of meaning or narrative...big mistake. Among the collection of images are a very ornate gift-wrapping ceremony, the creation of a disgusting dish of what appears to be petroleum jelly slabs formed with a cookie cutter and sprinkled with shrimp (this is served to the crew of the ship which is shown throughout the film), a large blubber cheesecake with a large tentacle turd placed in the center of it, and the mutual evisceration of Bjork and director Matthew Barney which eventually culminates in some bizarre kind of communion, followed by their transformation into whale-like creatures. The soundtrack is at times beautiful and annoying...sometimes even maddening. At one time, there is a song being sung by Bjork to go along with the ephemeral rituals being played before us, and at other times there is just a constant droning of a high-pitched instrument, which we see a mysterious woman playing at the beginning and end of the movie. If this sounds like it doesn't make sense, that is because is DOESN'T! If this sounds like your cup of tea, then you will absolutely LOVE it! If this sounds like something that you probably won't like, then stay far away from it, because you will most likely walk out of the theater during the halfway mark like several people at the screening I attended. This is the very definition of an art film. You get from it what you take from it. But otherwise, there really isn't much there, other than a few oddities and constant construction and deconstruction rituals. I'm glad that there is a place for films such as this, but I can't say I would want to sit through it again. However, I can't say I wouldn't want to see one of Barney Cremaster films from start to finish and compare it with this. I think, perhaps now that I know what to expect I might enjoy something like this more. To give you an idea of what kind of comprehension factor this film has, I probably would've liked it better if I had gotten stoned. Then again, it could've felt twice as long as it was, and then it would've REALLY gotten ponderous. Definitely not for everyone.


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 massively boring and pretentious. There is only one good moment when a sailor shaves Mr Barney's(think the purple dinosaur-less pretense) eyebrow. The music is relentlessly cloying-it is sad that Bjork, someone with so much inner beauty, has been brought down to pretentious falsity in her art. The pomp of the tea service makes a beautiful ritual seem vapid. the mythology and culture are not respected in this film they are lifted. Not just from Japanese culture but from another filmmaker...(stay tuned) In a perfect "art imitates life" moment-the crew of the ship finds a giant piece of sh*t. Which is what the audience found in the theatre. There are some set pieces which are very composed and arty without heart---thenprepare for spoilers-I'm talking to you MR BARNEY.
The Emperor has no clothes! Mr. Barney you have been outted! I have seen Jodorowsky's HOLY MOUNTAIN. And your thin, fake veil of BS has been lifted. You have stolen your images your style and your ENTIRE ART CATALOGUE from this man. Now that HOLY MOUNTAIN has been released FINALLY let's hope the powers that be at the Art Councils of the world STOP FINANCING YOU! Poor Jodorowsky-lost in a financial battle with the Beatles Lawyer when he is the Lennon/McCartney of film-making. And BTW while Jodorowsky is the Beatle-YOU ARE THE MONKEES! A cheap thin soulless rip off only liked by facile kitschy college freshmen. And BTW I am a filmmaker. If you are interested in making a reality film-I will legally fight you in a ring defending Jodorowsky-you, defending outright thievery.


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


user
I watched this movie as a preview of a Matthew Barney art exhibit. It certainly prepared me. I almost skipped the exhibit and, in retrospect, probably should have.
Aside from the score being great (Bjork) and the photography rich and colorful, the content was mostly tedious and predictable. Gee, I really needed to see someone wearing pearls to figure out what the pearl-divers were up to. The film was mostly a silly mixture of Japanese cultural references and industrial shots of modern whaling technology being used in a mock-hunt/harvest. The film "peaks" with enough gratuitous shock-art to turn your stomach.
What was the point of the movie? While others might argue that it is an anti-whaling piece, one could equally argue that it somehow also justifies whaling. Personally I think it was Barney's attempt at "flashing" the audience with his anal, fecal, self-mutilation, and cannibalistic fetishes.
Bottom line: unless you really get off on Barney's sense of art, don't bother seeing this movie. The message is obscure, the pace slow, and the cultural references pretentious. If you're after shock-art, you'll do better at one of the many "Undead" movies or hunting down an old copy of Hustler and taking in a fecal-cartoon.


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 agree more with another reviewer that mentioned Jodorowsky.
Barney seems to be utterly boring and uninspired "content-wise". He can produce eye-candy (and I like candy), but its pretentiousness and fundamental artistic emptiness just diminishes all the joy.
I am afraid that many people don't distinguish between similar (but really only on the surface) works of Jodorowsky or even more linear film-makers like Tarkovski or Kubrick (I love 2001 Odyssey and was never bored through the ending scenes...) That kind of art as M.Barney's makes adds confusion and fends off the viewers that could otherwise start to appreciate experimental cinema. Typical empty post-modern "conceptual" art. And check his interviews. I just don't buy it, sorry. And so boring.
I was never bored seeing Alejandro Jodorowsky's movies, while Drawing Restraint 9 was an utter disappointment. Especially while it offered the possibilities to be something, to actually tell something in a non-linear unorthodox way (like the beginning and the great choreographed dance and preparations for the ship to sail out. Ships "meeting" on the sea... Ideas of feces as an object of value(if it was feces). Those "pearl" divers... Everything could construct a great surreal movie with some content. But it didn't. ANd those horrible pretentious scenes of dressing up and fake tea ceremony... How vain and fake and philosophically pretentious but empty can it get?
I has some great picturesque scenes, but the whole movie became so boring and pretentious and utterly empty and fake that it made me physically sick.
And it doesn't have good tempo. I like slow pace movies, but this was just boring in some scenes - because it was pretentious and fake - so I was just forced to witnessed prolonged scenes of artistic vanity...
That kind of movies just kill the art and spirit in my view.
I want more Jodorowsky!!!


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


user
Don't get the impression from other reviewers that this film stinks cos it's ambivalent about the Japanese whaling industry (which, morally, is no worse than the US meat trade or the Scottish haggis cull), it stinks cos it's pretentious tosh, the sort of up-its-own-behind guff that gets modern art a bad name. That said, there are some stunning images, but there are stunning images in the average bus ride if you use your imagination, so that's no reason to go and see this nonsense. What happens in the film happens very slowly and often accompanied by a soundtrack that sounds like a cat being gutted, and then, just when you thinks it's finished, it starts again. I saw it it in a porn cinema in Rome which had been hired for the weekend to show Barney's film works, which is an admirable and clever way to reclaim what had once been a local fleapit from the dirty-old-men-in-macs brigade, but if the trendy young things and the slightly older beard-stroking Bjork fans were to be honest, everyone might have had a lot more fun if they'd just shown one of the pornoes!


assistant
0