empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSo pathetic its not even funny. From the first scene in the movie I knew I was in for a bad time. Thank goodness I only saw this movie on tv. The story line was terrible, not to mention the acting. It was horrid. Very unreal and unusual things happened in this move such as. The lady sticks a whip under the door and whips the guy a little and he just hands over the keys. I'm like, GET REAL. The creators lousy attempt to make a futuristic city even deepened my dislike for the film. To tell you the truth the only good thing in this movie at all was the fighting, which was in itself pretty lame. All I could ask myself when watching this movie was \"when is it gonna go off!\"
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nEverybody loves to see a really bad movie sometime. You watch it, take a good laughs and forget it in the next half hour. But this is not one of those. It's the worst thing that will appear in front of your eyes for a while.
I would like to see someone to take responsibility for Dante - he's really the most stupid villain you can think of: a guy in leather pants that speaks with a voice over and has a victory laugh like a 50's Dracula. How can someone came up with this guy?? And the hero...\"The Dragon\" or whatever...my cereals box has better acting skills than him (maybe than all of them), it's unbelievable. But the worst are the fighting scenes where you would think there could be something in it. They're so lame, it's beyond any kind of description. There's no shame, i just can't believe how this movie was allowed by any studio. But i'm just thrilled it was. Watching this is a self-mutilating pleasure. See this only if you're in a movie quest for pain, and in that case, this one is a sure winner.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI actually liked this movie. Sure, the acting was flat, there was no plot, and the villain was the lamest that i've seen. Michael Bernardo as Dante is worth laughs in his own right, with an incredibly funny catchphrase and evil laugh. But its worth seeing, just for the WORST explosion you will ever see outside of the Power Rangers TV series. You'll know it when you see it. Honestly, this movie must have the budget of a low grade porno. I almost stopped watching after an hour, but i recommend watching through the whole thing; at the very least, there's plenty of eye candy for all to enjoy. Recommended for viewers with a high tolerance to poor movies.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhy is it that virtual \"x-rated video game\" women can speak through their mouths but virtual fighting game champion Dante has to use a combination of telepathy and over dramatic facial expressions? I feel that either they needed to cast someone who looked more villain-like (Michael Bermardo's big brown doe eyes don't exactly strike fear in the hearts of well.. anyone except for maybe casting directors who consistently cast him as either a villain or a heroic 'bad boy'.) OR they needed to just let him use his real voice (and move his mouth), and maybe give him a costume that would not make him stick out like a sore thumb when walking down the street. (but of course this is the future and we must assume that bad fashion taste is considered the norm.)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf movies where virtual reality characters come to life and they are all either male tough guys or female eye candy sounds good to you, then perhaps this movie may not be a total waste of film. Needless to say, the overwhelming majority of people will find this to be an absolute bore, with little acting talent, and even less of a script. Yes, Athena Massey is nice to look at, but that is the only positive thing that I can say about this disaster.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have watched this movie on and off since it started playing about 1 hour ago, and i have to say, thats an hour of my life i wasted and will not be getting back, The acting is crap and the scripts need a serious look at, and whoever wrote them needs to be slapped, perhaps the TV will explode and put me out of my misery..... The only good thing about this movie is that for guys and girls it has some good eye candy in it, though, most of which i wish would disappear, as far as the movie is concerned, the special effects as sh*t, Dante? who thinks a guy dressed in skin tight leather pants and half a leather jacket is scary, he looks more feminine than most of the women in this movie, the voice of Dante is pathetic, nobody finds it threatening or scary AT ALL..... please TV i beg you to blow up!!!!!!!!!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie has got to be the worse movie i have ever seen. I only watched about a half an hour and i just shut it off. The cars in this movie look like two geo metro's front ends smashed together. This movie isn't even good for laughs. The only time i laughed was when Dante kept saying in funny voice, \"Nobody can beat Dante, Muhwa hwaa.\" I said holy god and shut it off. Bad, Bad movie. 2/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDon Wilson stars as a cop who enjoys the occasional virtual reality fighting game, however things go wrong when the people behind the game decide to take virtual reality to a new level by making real people from the video game, okay actually they make the cybersex models as prototype but the main bad guy from the video game awakens and starts killing people and now the only man who can beat the guy is Don Wilson, who in the mean time falls in love with the cybersex model. Actually with all things considered my biggest confusion was trying to understand if the people brought over from virtual reality land, were robots, human, cyborgs or just some type of unidentified computer program. It doesn't matter since this is all just an excuse to watch one of the worst actors ever butcher dialog as if he were running a deli. Don Wilson's complete lack of charisma is the film's biggest flaw since one just doesn't like the guy, he's too goody-goody, his voice is too high pitched and doesn't look very impressive in the action sequences. What saves this bore-fest from my lowest rating is Athenia Massey who looks super hot in high cut outfits and who gets occasionally naked. Also on-board is Loren Avedon (A good martial artist), Stella Stevens and Michael Dorn as the main voice of the bad guy but their efforts are in vain as they are all concealed by the very bad acting of Wilson. Another flaw which is the film's biggest mistake is a lack of action, as we are asked to watch the story unfold but aside from Massey's nudity and maybe some unintentional amusements due to laughably unconvincing acting, there really is nothing of interest. This also extends to the action sequences in which are flatly choreographed, badly directed and completely drained of all possible excitement. Making this virtually unwatchable.
* out of 4-(Bad)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst off, the initial concept of a lost fortune in gold bars discovered in a New Zealand lake, inside a downed World War 2 plane is a great opening. What follows is nothing but cartoon like drivel. Men chasing men, cars chasing men , helicopters chasing men, helicopters chasing boats, boats chasing boats, for the better part of an hour, the most boring nonsense, with absolutely no advancement to the story. Special mention must be made of the chop shop editing, as many scenes seem to have been spliced together in random order. The acting by all concerned is an embarrassment. One last thing, the picture quality and sound quality is so bad on this DVD that you will be appalled. - MERK
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAt the opposite end of the spectrum from RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is David Hemmings' utterly inferior adventure regarding the salvage of a World War II-era plane with a valuable cargo. Assets include beautiful New Zealand settings, Brian May's energetic music score and some dandy helicopter flying and jet boat chases. The bad, however, far outweighs the good. Donald Pleasence hams as perhaps never before; half of his dialog is almost unintelligible. George Peppard attempts an Australian (I think) accent, then gives it up halfway through. Lesley Ann Warren is at her most irritating. Ken Wahl is, well, Ken Wahl. The dialog is painful to hear and Hemmings' direction is largely inept. The script is not only obvious but terrible. Jokes fall flat, scenes carry no punch and continuity is virtually non-existent. According to the end credits, two men were killed piloting jet boats during the making of the film. What a waste.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was bad but it was so bad that it may reach cult status in the distant future. A sort of film-noir meets Plan 9 From Outer Space. The story was, well, there wasn't actually a story. There is a place reserved for the Ed Woods and Russ Meyers of the world and this film proves it. \"So bad it might be good\" is the best way to describe it. I seriously doubt if this movie will be picked up by any legitimate distribution company therefore it is unlikely to see wide release.
I will add that I expect to see more of actor Ron Carey. He made the best of what he had. The rest of the acting, if I can call it that, was quite forgettable. I have seen worse from big studios with vast budgets.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie wasted 2 hours of my time and just make me wanna scream: \"LAME\". Nicholas Stoller write the movie \"Yes Man\", but direct \"this\" maybe he should stick with writing.
I am so disappointed because I heard all the great review. I was expecting something like knocked up. They say this is from the maker of \"Knocked up\"? why can't I see the resemblance? but this just felt like a shallow, overdone-theme kind of movie for me. I am so disappointed. Actually it's not bad if you consider it as your-average-chick-movie, but that character of the \"band guy\" just get on my nerves
Maybe I was just not paying enough attention to the movie, but yeah they have some funny lines and scene, but i don't felt the originality. And the ending make the movie a little bit better. At least the ending is not some boring cliché one.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI gave this movie a chance only because it had very good reviews. After seeing the trailer I thought - what an unfunny movie full of clichés. But I decided to give it a shot because trailers often don't portray the movie very well. What a waste of time... The movie is worst than the trailer and after spending 2 hours watching it, I couldn't recall one single line that made me laugh. The funniest parts of the movie were the CSI parodies, but that also is pretty passé. I couldn't relate to any of the characters nor hope that they will be together, because I found them utterly stupid. The plot is extremely predictable and inconclusive. Unintelligent comedy for people who are either still in high school or feel that way mentally.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI endured this film just to satisfy my curiosity. It has to be one of the worst films I have ever sat through. I am amazed that this film currently has a 7.5 star rating. The acting is awful, script is non existent and the characters are so predictable and hollow. For a funny film I cannot remember even snickering once and fail to see how it could be defined as a comedy. Do yourself a favour and stay well away from this dross and check out some more worthy alternatives that would give you far greater pleasure. Check out films like the holiday or 27 dresses, these movies would offer a far more satisfying cinema experience. I sincerely hope more educated film goers vote negatively for this film, in the manner it genuinely deserves there bye giving it a more realistic rating that other film buffs could base their judgement upon. Come on folks let's be fair to everyone concerned and give those involved with this film a true reflection on what it is they have produced - an extremely mediocre picture that deserves to be forgotten very quickly.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film is an abomination of all that is worthy in film making. The lead actor surprises his audience by not actually acting at all. We have to watch almost two hours of his bland soulless face. The jokes are all lame I never laughed once it was Saturday night there were 5 of us having a beer all up for a laugh and then we put this on and you could feel all the warmth and colour being drained from the room. The film ended and the mood was ruined so we all went our separate ways, ruined the night ! OK so pros and cons. Pros beautiful setting in Hawaii, looks good on bluray. Cons worst acting ever; you can tell everyone concerned is just thinking about payday. Predictable poor plot. Zero character development. Forced jokes which fall flat. Many shots of the guys penis which to be fair acts better than him and has more charisma. May all makers of this film hang their heads in shame and hold their flaccid manhoods cheap.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI agree with one commentator who says that it's really impossible to review Glen or Glenda? objectively. If one does so, the film on its merits would have to be rated as fairly terrible given the hilarious, convoluted dialog, the generally mediocre to poor acting by the cast as well as the zero production values. Yet, such an assessment does not capture the absolutely riveting experience of watching this film as it unfolds. It isn't the fact that the subject of the film is transvestitism and that it was a controversial lifestyle choice in the 1950s. It's not even the plea for tolerance of people who embrace alternate life choices that fascinates except as an historic relic.
No, what makes Glen or Glenda? still a fascinating film after 50 years is that Ed Wood laid his psyche bare in a way that so-called auteur directors like Hitchcock or Godard, despite their vastly superior talents, never did. In Glen or Glenda, Wood isn't afraid to reveal his own deeply conflicted feelings about being a transvestite despite the plea for tolerance for it through out the film. Indeed, the conclusion of the film suggest that Ed Wood's Glen character will be able to \"kill\" his Glenda female counterpart by transferring the feelings of love and affection Glen has for his feminine counterpart to his future wife, Barbara. The psychiatrist even reassures Glen and Barbara that as Glen makes that psychic transference, Glenda will disappear. So, while Wood could plead for tolerance of transvestites in general, he wasn't so sure of desiring it for himself.
Moreover, Wood wasn't afraid of throwing everything else that crossed his mind on the screen. He did it with whatever stock footage he could get his hands on. If it didn't cohere, so what? What the viewer saw in Glen or Glenda especially was Ed Wood's imaginative world in all of its fundamental strangeness.
The only comment I wish to add to my comment above is that my two-star rating is based solely on the objective evaluation criteria cited in the first paragraph. The oddly memeric effect the film has despite its technically atrocious qualities I don't think can be rated.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"Glen or Glenda\" was Edward D. Wood Jr's first attempt at directing a feature film. For this he chose a topic near and dear to his heart...transvestism, the \"art\" of a man wanting to dress in women's clothes. To his credit, Wood tried to deal with subject matter that was largely taboo in 1953. Unfortunately, Wood had neither the budget nor the know how to make the film.
The story opens with a prologue by Bela Lugosi that makes little sense and then moves to the discovery of a dead transvestite Glen/Glenda (Daniel Davis aka Ed Wood). Inspector Warren (Lyle Talbot) with the help of psychiatrist Dr. Alton (Timothy Farrell) tries to understand why a man would want to live (and die) this way.
Glen is engaged to Barbara (Dolores Fuller) and is reluctant to tell her of his obsession. And that's it. We see endless stock footage shots of anything from freeway traffic to soldiers landing on the beach, interspersed with shots of Wood walking down the same street dressed as either Glen or Glenda and looking longingly at women's clothes in a store window. Poor old Bela, who was down on his luck and befriended by Wood, keeps popping in throughout the story. I'm not 100% sure but I think Bela's scenes were added for his name value after the body of the movie was completed.
To add to the confusion of Lugosi's narration, Farrell as Dr. Alton also provides off screen narration. Lugosi keeps saying, bevare, bevare...take care, take care, as well as, some gibberish about snakes and snails and puppy dog's tails.
The story also deals with a transvestite who has a successful sex change operation and tries to explain the difference between that person and Wood's character(s). The dream sequences are laughable. A wedding sequence in which someone dressed as the devil appears is a good example. Wood also gives us an apparent rape scene with the actors(?) fully clothed but leaving little to the imagination, risqué for 1953.
This film along with Wood's other \"classics\" were so bad that they became embraced by the public as cult classics over the years. For that reason, they have survived to this day.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhew! What can one say about this bizarre, stupefying mock-u-mentory about Ed Wood's cross-dressing fantasies?? Well, one word that comes to mind is incoherent! Wood uses raw slabs of innocuous, incidental stock footage, and then builds a \"story\" around them - and what a story!! Wood himself stars as Glen, a regular Joe who just happens to enjoy lounging around in his fiancee's lingerie and sweaters. I think what Wood wanted was a plea for tolerance for all the Glens of this world by showing that Glen is just like all of us underneath, only in angora. Ummm...ok. But then, we get this very bizarre montage of some horny devil, a chick in bondage, some rude, pointing people, some moore stock footage, and finally an emaciated Bela Lugusi,playing some kind of twisted, invalid Puppetmaster. Lugosi is a howl, spouting out such rubbish as \"Beeevaaare...the beeeg greeeen dragon that seeets at your doorstep: he eeeets leeetle boys, puppydog tails, and beeeeeg snails!\" Um, ok, Bela... :=8/ There is a strange, twisted type of Wood logic going on here. Afterall, he does remind us that \"7 out of 10 men wear hats, and 7 out of 10 men are bald\". Hmmm, must be that alien/cross-dressing/habidashery cowspiracy-thang!! Glen or Glenda stars a plethora (whatever that is...) of reliable Wood schlock-actors, including Lyle Talbot, Delores Fuller, and Timothy Farrell, and Wood manages to coax every bit of wretched, amateurish non-talent out of each one. Everybody by now knows Bela's sad story: by the time Wood used him for this flic, he was probably jonesing for another fix and needed the moolah, but even for him this is depth heretofore unreached. One of the MooCow's favorite Wood mooments comes with the stock footage charging buffalo scene - it is sooo loopily demented!! The MooCow says \"Puuuull de schtriiiiings\", and git yer hooves on a copy of Glen or Glenda - you won't believe it! :
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw the biopic of Ed Wood many years ago. Tim Burton payed loving homage to this extremely untalented but yet enthusiastic filmmaker.
Then I saw Plan 9 and it actually tickled me to no end. A silly story, kind of bad production values but still entertaining and even funny.
Then this. What can you make of it. Well, since Wood has been reported as being a cross-dresser it is startling to see a movie that deals with it like a cartoon. Yes, there are some stabs at teaching the audience something about the subject but mostly this is some kind of really twisted self-parody.
One of it's problems is that it has a hundred points of view. On one hand it is a plea for tolerance. Another portrays transvestism as a disease. And finally, it tells the audience: \"Okay, if you are schocked now, then wait until you see this!\" The problem must have been that Wood had to compromise in order for the film to be made. You can almost sense it when you see the opening title from the producer: Personally supervised by... So, where are we. This is neither a serious subject movie or an all-out schocker.
The entertainment value is practically nil. The wooden voice-over is mildly amusing but only because it sounds so misguided. This was made in the 50s though, so one can argue that was brave making a film that even mentioned the word transvestites. It all comes down to what the film itself is trying to advocate against. Schock. The rape scene, while mild is there simply to do that.
So, sorry. This is a misfire but the discredit is not Wood's alone.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nConsidering the film’s reputation as truly the worst of the worst, I was looking forward to watching Wood’s Crappus Opus (my word); it’s not necessarily any more inept than the other Woods I’ve watched – however, being from the REEFER MADNESS (1938) school of film-making, GLEN OR GLENDA doesn’t come across as readily ‘enjoyable’ as his genre efforts.
Also, this surely emerges as Horror legend Bela Lugosi’s nadir (his first of three ‘collaborations’ with the director): one wonders whether he was really aware what kind of film it was (considering the actor’s history of heavy medication and the sheer senselessness of his cameo). Besides, Lugosi’s idiosyncratic delivery is perhaps at its most awkward here…though Wood’s script is mostly to blame for this – given the impossible dialogue (with repeated nonsensical allusions to “puppy-dog tails” and “big fat snails”) he handed the ailing star! By the way, Wood himself plays the central role (under the pseudonym Daniel Davis) – and, being just as worthless in this area, proves to have been an all-round dog!; Dolores Fuller – his wife and co-star – was similarly untalented (she would also appear in JAIL BAIT [1954])…but, at the very least, the image where the latter finally lets Glen wear her angora sweater did give Tim Burton’s affectionate biopic ED WOOD (1994) its famous poster!
Incidentally, the latter film features a presumably fictionalized meeting between Wood and Orson Welles – well, for all intents and purposes, GLEN OR GLENDA constitutes Ed Wood’s CITIZEN KANE (1941) given its gleeful propensity for gimmicky narrative techniques: in fact, the barest thread of plot is padded with stock footage galore (many of it irrelevant, such as the bewildering instances of S&M) and inane dream sequences (highlighted by the presence of an impish demon sporting outrageous bushy eyebrows that would make Martin Scorsese weep with envy)! The film’s sincere attempt at a plea for tolerance and psychological probing into the affliction/phenomenon of transvestism is, however, sabotaged at every turn by the sheer amateurishness of the approach.
For what it’s worth, the edition I watched was the “Extended Re-issue Version” which included six minutes of ‘depraved’ footage (directed by W. Merle Connell) censored on original release! Furthermore, my copy went out-of-synch every so often (which forced me to rewind it slightly to get the audio back on track) – though, thankfully, this was the fault of the source conversion to DivX as opposed to the film itself.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDirected and written by the famous/infamous Edward D. Wood Jr, using a pseudonym(Daniel Davis)playing the lead role of Glen/Glenda. This is an almost radical documentary about transvestism; Wood himself being a transvestite with a fetish for angora sweaters. It seems miles of stock footage and an incoherent Bela Lugosi is used to stretch this odd and awkward film to 67 minutes. Police inspector(Lyle Talbot)seeks enlightenment from a psychiatrist, Dr. Alton(Timothy Farrell), to better understand the emotional and disposition of transvestites.
Also in the cast: Delores Fuller, \"Tommy\" Hanes, Captain DeZita and Wood's sister Evelyn. Of note: Farrell also acts as narrator. And Fuller later helped write songs included in the Elvis Presley movies BLUE HAWAII, KISSIN' COUSINS & KID GALAHAD.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI just recently watched Ed Wood Jr.'s autobiographical movie Glen or Glenda for the first time after having heard so much about it for so many years. Nothing I had read or heard about this film could prepare me for what I saw. This has to be the most bizarre movie ever made. Stampeding buffalo, women in bondage, Satan prancing around and Bela Lugosi, rambling only as he can, \"Bevare, Bevare....pull the string, pull the string...\", it was totally insane. The acting was atrocious and the dialog was unintentionally hilarious, exactly what one would expect from an Ed Wood film. Having said all that, as horrible as this movie was, I have to give Wood credit...he was way ahead of his time. You have to remember that when this movie was made transvestites were not even discussed in public, much less the subject for a movie. I have read that Wood was a transvestite in real life, and I'm sure this movie was based on his own experiences. It was sad to see Bela Lugosi having to say the ridiculous lines he had to say for this film, but it was kind of Ed Wood Jr. to at least give Mr. Lugosi an acting job at a time in Bela's life when he was penniless and a drug addict and no one else in Hollywood would hire him. If you have never seen this film then you have to see it, especially if you are a fan of Ed Wood Jr.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs many know, this is the feature film debut of Edward D. Wood Jr. as as a writer/producer/director/actor. I have been a fan of Ed Wood for several years now. While I don't like this as much as some of his other films it was probably the largest insight that the cinematic going public gets of Wood during his life. Everybody knows that he was a transvestite. This film is about changing one's sex and how being a transvestite can create conflict in relationships with loved ones. This film is way ahead of its time in dealing with this subject matter and how it deals with it. However, the film still contains Wood's usual pitfalls of bad dialog, meaningless stock footage, and hokey special effects. Throw in Wood's usual overdose of Bela Lugosi hamming it up and you have Wood's first attempt at being a director.
The plot is that a police inspector goes to a doctor after he discovers the body of a transvestite who committed suicide for advice on how to avoid further problems along these lines. The doctor tells him the story of Glen, who is also a transvestite. Glen wants to marry Barbara, but can't bring himself to tell her about his secret. He also tells the inspector about Alan who undergoes a sex change because he is really more suited to being a woman. Bela Lugosi plays a scientist who seems to add some kind of running commentary on what is going on (Lugosi's part really isn't well defined and proves to be most likely a vehicle for Wood to have a star in his film and Lugosi to get some cash).
All in all, the movie shows the hallmarks of Wood's career. It was obviously shot on a very low budget and has quite a few things thrown in rather haphazardly. It definitely has the \"it's so bad, it's good\" feel to it. However, I do have to applaud Ed on his progressive thinking in making this film. Transvestitism and sex changes were not extremely open subjects in the early 50s. Wood took a big risk in making a film that portrays transvestites as people who are not sexual deviants and putting a more human face on cross-dressing.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nLike other movies from the worst director ever, Ed Wood, this movie is very bad but because of that it is also very funny. May be not for everyone, but I laughed a lot. It is a strange thing when you enjoy a bad movie. How do you rate it? As a movie very low, as entertainment at least a little higher.
The movie tries to explain what a transvestite is and it does this through a scientist (Bela Lugosi) and an inspector (Lyle Talbot) who talks to a doctor (Timothy Farrell) who knows about these things. The doctor tells the detective two stories and that is what we, and apparently the scientist, see. The doctor tels these stories because a dead transvestite is found, suicide, and because of a headline in the news paper about a sex-change. The first and longest story is about Glen (Ed Wood himself) who is in love and about to marry Barbara (Dolores Fuller) but he has never told her he like to dress as a woman, when he is named Glenda. The movie tells the same thing over and over again, especially the fact that a transvestite is not necessarily a homosexual. The movie almost says that being a transvestite is not a bad thing, but being homosexual is, since it keeps telling us the fact that a transvestite is not a homosexual. The second story is about a transvestite who really wants a sex-change and not just wants to dress up as a woman, but it is much shorter and less interesting.
A couple of things make this movie very bad, and therefore laughable. How the story is presented is the first thing, the way the same things are told over and over again and the conclusion of it all are others. This is not where it ends. The acting is very bad, especially Dolores Fuller seems to be reading her lines directly from a little screen somewhere. Every thing she says is funny. The whole dialogue actually gave me quite some laughs.
There is also a sequence where someone walks into a room. The door stays half open and we see something hanging on the wall, not completely straight. Then the door, in what seems to be the same shot although we know it is not, is a little less open and suddenly the thing on the wall hangs straight. Ed Wood didn't mind to leave this kind of continuity errors in his movie. May be a good thing, because basically it is just another laugh for the modern audience. I think you understand that it is a bad movie and I think there is a good chance you will laugh at the ridiculous mistakes as well.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere's a part of me that would like to give this movie a high rating. Considering that it was made in 1953, this is a very courageous movie about transvestites, tackling the issue fairly seriously and sympathetically (and offering the viewer a lot of information on the subject) and trying very hard not to stereotype. The movie clearly makes the point that transvestites are not homosexuals, and that aside from wearing women's clothing they lead a relatively normal life. It deals with the pain of not being accepted in society - the plot revolves around a police officer (Lyle Talbot) desperately trying to understand the issue because of the recent suicide of a transvestite. So, you have to give everyone involved with this movie credit for taking on such a controversial (in the context of 1953) subject.
Having said all that, I'm also sorry to say that this movie is absolutely dreadful. In trying to portray Glen/Glenda's (Edward D. Wood) pain, the movie falls into silly (and at times surprisingly - again given the era - sensual) fantasies that make the story very hard to follow. The acting is wooden at best. None of the dialogue comes across as real; the actors look and sound like people reading speeches written by others. And - worst of all - there was no point to having Bela Lugosi in this movie. This was another of the increasingly embarrassing roles this poor man took on in the latter stages of his career. \"Pull the strings; pull the strings,\" poor Lugosi's character (called The Spirit in the credits, but really coming across as more of a mad scientist) kept crying. And nothing he did really seemed to have much connection with the rest of the movie.
For artistic merit, the movie doesn't really deserve much more than 1/10. However, for the courage involved in just putting it out, I'll give it a 3/10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBela Lugosi as God? Transvestites discussed in a movie in the straight-laced 1950s? By golly, this must be an Ed Wood film.
Watching this movie, I felt a combination of guilt, pleasure, and nausea all at the same time. The story is about Glen (Ed Wood himself) and his cross-dressing alter-ego Glenda. Somehow, if this movie were made now, I could see Kevin Kline playing Glen/Glenda. Notice how all the cross-dressers' alter egos are versions of their male name (Glen/Glenda, Robert/Roberta, etc.). It attempts to sympathetically portray it as the mental disorder that it is, rather than as a graphic perversion.
Somehow, Wood manages to sneak in bondage and S&M sequences into his initial story of Glen/Glenda. Along with these racy scenes, Satan himself shows up, obviously having a bad hair day. The dialog and pace are nonexistent, but the film is enjoyable in its context -- the weird world of Ed Wood.
Sterno says put on your favorite lace panties for this one.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst of all, Ed Wood Jr. is not the worst director ever, Plan 9 From Outer Space not withstanding. Coleman Francis deserves that title. I present Exhibit B, Glen or Glenda.
The first half of the movie consists of a surprisingly thoughtful exploration of crossdressing, especially since it was made in 1953. The last 15 minutes of movie are also not bad as well.
This is not to say the movie doesn't have problems. Bela Lugosi was totally extraneous, intoning odd lines. Poor Bela looked like even he wasn't sure what was happening at times. The acting was decidely wooden, though no worse than a period Universal B movie. The long dream sequence that makes up the middle of the film was totally bizarre; more like a vaguely menacing stag film than a dream sequence. The Alan/Ann story, the supposed original focus of the film has a tacked on quality about it.
No, Ed Wood Jr. is not the worst director ever. He was able, at least for part of this movie, to make an earnest social statement. When Coleman Francis tried to do that in Night Train To Mundo Fine (aka Red Zone Cuba), it just ended in chaos. Glen or Glenda is at least watchable without Robot help.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI approached this movie with the understanding that it was one of the worst flicks ever made. I sat down to watch it with this mindset, and was pleasantly surprised.
It's not great. It's not even that good; in fact, it's pretty poor. However, it's not as bad as I had been led to believe, by a long shot. It's pretty inept, and, evidently as a cost cutting measure, a lot of stock footage is pressed into service, a lot of which has no apparent relation to the narrative.
What it is, however, is an intensely personal movie made by a man who evidently did not have the skills or the funding to do his idea justice. Before you discount _Glen or Glenda?_ out of hand, examine your own artistic skills. Me, I'd love to be able to draw, but anything I try to sketch comes out like stick men. I'd love to be able to sing, but all I do is frighten young children.
Wood had an idea, and unfortunately he didn't have what it takes to make it work. However, this was an incredibly daring movie for the puritan 50s, however exploitative or incoherent it may appear at first glance.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDecent but overrated dramatic thriller, film attempts to depict the spiraling out-of-control inner demons of a tormented artist. The problem is, not a single relationship illustrated on screen is believable, and plausibility appears to have been thrown out the window. The title character is so difficult to relate to making it's rather impossible to imagine any of the on- screen characters emotionally invested in him either. The conclusion is also fairly predictable; there are certainly enough clues provided from the get go to indicate exactly where the story is headed. Choosing to entirely suspend one's belief in the situations or the relationships, the film itself is well acted (especially by the leads) and manages to create some nice tension as the story unfolds. As a metaphorical feature there is some food for thought, and had the script been stronger, there's certainly potential here that could have been put to better use.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOK, we got JP from Grandma's Boy and Chuck from, well Chuck. I thought this movie would be quite good based on the reviews, and it did start out pretty high on my movie scale, but about halfway through it was just dragging out for so long I kept losing interest. I actually got so bored, probably because you can see right away what's going to happen in the end; the story is actually quite thread-bare, I skipped over 15 minutes and didn't miss a thing! This film should have been a short work, maybe around 45 minutes to an hour max. It starts out good and finishes good, too bad the filling is bland, boring, dull, and lacks everything but time. Some people say they like it for the music; I don't care for jazz and I don't go see movies for their score, I go for the story and when that's drawn out... well, ratings drop in my book.
Bottom Line: Good open, great close, boring filler. Story was cool, but if you don't know what's going to happen a quarter of the way through, you haven't seen too many thrillers.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs a true lover of film I must advise you to avoid this appalling effort,, God knows how funding was approved, Seriously this is one cinematic experience which delivers zero dramatic tension and plods along until nothing happens again and again and again ,, The only connectivity is two scares which at least keep you awake Possiby the worst film I have ever witnessed and the acting by the female lead is bordering on criminal intent. One blessing with modern technology you can fast forward and watch it on 12x and it will only last 25 minutes, ,, And you won't miss any of the plot
No idea how people find this at all interesting and some are giving it high marks !
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst off, this movie leaves you in a limbo mood wise. You don't know what to feel. So much so that you don't feel bad for Caines character when his son gets murdered (which was actually mostly due to bad editing). The script was too bland. None of the situations matter as you watch them. The soundtrack, or lack there of (if there was it wasn't good enough to even remember) does not help it one bit. Only good surprise to this movie was Andy Serkis' performance. It was on par if not better than Caine's. The story would have probably gone better off if Serkis would have killed him. Because quite frankly you don't feel any kind of redemption in the climax. Just a feeling of lack of feeling, if ya feel me. Basically this movie massively lacks draw. Leaving the audience alienated throughout the entire thing.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOn paper this looks a good film . Michael Caine plays a tough and ruthless boxing promoter who's son is up for a title eliminator . The pity is that when the story is transferred from paper to my television screen it loses a certain everything . I had hoped we'd be seen emulating his definitive role in GET CARTER and as the film progresses it does seem to take on the qualities of a tough gritty revenge thriller but the whole tone of the film jumps around so much you'll be confused as to what genre it's trying to fit in to . For example Caine ( Who you can't believe in as Billy \" Shiner \" Simpson , he's simply Michael Caine ) has a laugh out line as he refers to someone as \" Hattie Jacques \" then in a supposedly humorous moment has his henchmen break someone's arm . Oh how I laughed . I mean it's supposed to elicit a laugh the way it plays out on screen isn't it ? But these seems at odds with the way the rest of the film plays out
Obviously director John Irvin doesn't know what approach to take with Scott Cherry's screenplay . Irvin isn't a bad director and is well regarded for his war films such as THE DOGS OF WAR and HAMBURGER HILL but he's ill suited to this type of violent drama and one can't help but feel he might have been intimidated somewhat by a living legend like Caine . Caine does give the impression he's just doing it for the money and the well known faces in supporting roles like Landua and Cranham are basically just cameos who could be played by anyone
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA vehicle for Michael Caine. Its fairly well written and there's some OK acting in it but, really, it's a mess - not funny enough, not frightening enough. It's a flaccid modern cockney thriller.
I like the premise - that even in the refracted moral hinterland of East London people do do things for the right reasons. A surprise result to the first proper fight Caine's old-school Billy Shiner has promoted inflames his paranoia. The second half of the film has him chasing shadows to deal with the disappointment of the outcome of the first.
MY greatest disappointment was in director John Irvin's failure to make more of the relationship between Shiner and his lieutenant/filial substitute Frank Harper. Harper's, a British Tom Sizemore, understands his role well whilst those around him seem to have ignored it. Pity. 4/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMichael Caine might have tried to make a larger than life character to a successful degree but the whole storyline and Character's around him where not likable or interesting at all. It was all very Boring and somewhat predictable. Martin Landau , a favorite actor of mine had a nothing role.He was useless. Michael Caine got a bit irritating after a while and the film couldn't decide if it was a comedy or a serious thriller. Caine tries hard and good on him but i felt the direction and storyline let him down. Don't waste your time. It starts off well for the first 10 minutes and then that's about it. A film for Die Hard Caine Fans Only. Stay away from this One...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe emergence of Quentin Tarantino and his dubious influence on the likes of Guy Ritchie may have triggered the wave of appalling British gangster flicks we've been bequeathed over the past few years, but one of our most famous acting exports only serves to perpetuate the cycle by lending his considerable name to trash like this. I only wish he'd taken a moment to consider before choosing this project for the same reasons of personal gain he admits he often employs. It's not only stifling HIS talent, but possibly the promise of future originality from British films.
Not one of this film's characters are likeable or even remotely realistic, and the dialogue consists of the usual empty threats and colourful language. Caine doesn't give the material any more effort than it deserves, either. If this was meant to be in the style of a tragic fall from grace a la \"King Lear\", it would've helped immensely had I cared about the ultimate fate of the principals, instead of just wishing that they'd get mired in the quicksand of life and dragged under almost immediately.

\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNot every movie with lesbian chicks and vampires, touching our favorite trash/cult genre is nice. Unfortunately this movie lucks of originality and the performances do not come up with the trash standards. Seem the creator's intention to make it cult it failed. Trash movies are trash movies because it happens. You cant create in purpose this kind of films.I don't know if Mr Creepo is a legend (first time i heard his name) BUT if he is i wonder the reason...
Awful. Even the lesbian scenes are pathetic so any fans of erotic x-ploitation films will not be satisfied, as there a thousands of movies better than Barely Legal Lesbian Vampires.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBad. Personal opinion? The folks who made it? They knew that when they made it. To star in this movie, again my opinion, you needed to meet three criteria ... #1: You had to own your own Goth style clothing and jewelry. Makes wardrobe both easier and cheaper that way. #2: You had to be able to remember and repeat your lines with out cue cards. Note that I didn't say you had to do it well. Saves on time and paper work. #3: You had to be willing to get naked. Gives an R rating and thus bolsters sales. Want to watch a better movie? Easy. Get a camera and some of your buddies together and do it yourself. Trust me, you won't do any worse. As vampire movies go, well, this one sucks. And a hint here for people like me who like to look for little oddities in movies ... Consider the link between vampires and crosses. Now, take a look at the symbols and names on the headstones in the cemetery portions of this thing were filmed in. Ed Wood couldn't have planned that kind of an accident any better himself.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"