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\nThe movie is about a day in the life of a woman who is going insane. To show that she is mentally ill, she overacts a lot and the narrator tells us she's \"going mad\". Along the way, she goes out with a fat guy who looks like he could be Orson Welles' brother and he later takes a header off a building in one of the only interesting moments in the movie.
This is a strange little film that is very cheaply made--and it sure shows. The film was shot without sound (probably using 8mm or some other cheap type of film) and had some sound effects and an overbearing narration added later. In fact, the narration was the most obtrusive and unintentionally hilarious I have ever heard and it is said in such a silly and over-the-top manner you'd just have to hear it to believe it. As a result of these cost-cutting actions, it's not surprising that the film is bad, though the idea of trying to make this sort of film was pretty original. Plus, it's VERY hard to make it through the entire film.
\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\nSkip all the subjective \"this is a great film\" reviews and read the IMDB trailer or the back the KINO videobox (which includes both versions of this flick) which I'll paraphrase: \"To the tune of sci-fi score by George Antheil, the camera goes on a sleepwalk through B-Movie hell, all photographed by Will Thompson (who did 'Plan 9 from outer space' & 'Maniac').\" You don't know whether to laugh AT the film or WITH it. So if you like self-produced B or C-grade noir-wannabe actors and effects with pretensions of surrealism, this could be for you! Otherwise, get a copy of \"Screamplay\", a modern low-budget expressionist masterpiece.
\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\nIn spite of its high-minded ambitions, Zurlini's film must be seen as a failure. It's one thing to create a world which draws the viewer into feeling the tedium and angst experienced by the protagonist (which I think is what Zurlini was attempting). It's another thing entirely to make a film that is itself tedious and meaninglessly episodic. Despite beautiful cinematography at a haunting location - and a wonderful score - the film never lures the audience in. Too much is unintentionally funny (the phony sound of dripping water in Drago's quarters, for example, or the silent-movie mugging by some of the actors) or simply confusing (Why exactly does Drago want to leave the fort the first time?) for the film to succeed as a coherent work.
\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\nWhen I first saw this I thought it was a joke. All I could think was \"You get the 8MM camera, I'll get my little brother's monster toys, we'll make a movie!\" Why would anyone in a modern time like 2001 make a sci-fi movie like this, it looks like it was made in the early 80's. With actors that are as wooden as a cigar store indian, a script that was written by the director's 4-year-old son, a camera that was stolen from a burning pawn shop, poverty-row special effects, and to top it off, a director that thought making this crap would make them famous. The end result wasn't spectacular, complete with scrappy dialogue and continuity. From Venus must have been fun to make and I'm sure everyone involved had a blast with their silly little movie.
A 2 out of 10 for a valiant, hopeless effort.

\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 has got to be one of the weakest plots in a movie I have ever seen.
However, that is not all that this movie is lacking. This movie has the worst acting, writing, directing, special effects, you name it--it's the worst ever.
I highly advise you to spend your time on worthwhile movies and not waste your time on this garbage.
I do agree with an earlier post that the \"women\" were definitely men dressed up in drag, and that did give me a laugh, I keep trying to figure out if they were being obvious about it or if they were actually trying to be sexy women.
Anyway, there is not much else in this movie that is worth watching!
To sum it up: horrible acting, horrible script, horrible idea for a movie. An hour and a half of my life I want back RIGHT NOW!!
\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 just so utterly horrible that I couldn't get through the entire thing without turning it off, it was just that bad! When I was watching it I kept thinking it looked like some really cheap film made back in the 60's or something with those terrible looking special effects, but then I realized that this was just made in 2001.
The dialog and the acting were really very horrible and the plot was almost non-existent. I didn't think anyone would go back to making films that look so cheap and old, I'm not sure if they did that on purpose or if they really didn't have any budget for this movie at all. It really looks like it was shot on someone's camcorder at a local person's house or something. Maybe they thought they were being retro or something but it just comes off looking really cheesy.
I really don't know how anyone could ever actually enjoy watching this.
0 out of 5 *'s.
\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 you want to see how to ruin a film, study this one very closely. In fact, it is so bad that people should buy it for that reason alone. Especially note how most of the scenes look as if they were knocked up in about 5 minutes. Realism escapes this movie on every level. The overall impression is that someone was given a below average script, wannabe actors, an average director and absolutely no budget whatsoever. With a formula like that, it just had to be doomed.
I rented this once, and I swear I got stupider watching it. If you are a humanitarian, buy this horrible, horrible movie, and burn it-UNWATCHED- as a favor to the world. It has no discernible plot, bad acting, and then tosses in something about evil ugly women just to really cap the whole thing off. I would suggest watching paint dry before this stupid waste of a tape! Seriously. The paint would be better. I wish I could give this negative 10 stars.
\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\nTo have to actually own up to making such a horrible movie! Actually, I'm more embarrassed that I sat through the whole thing. It looks like an old 80's sci-fi movie complete with super-fake looking \"special effects\", queer imagery, and very cheesy dialogue. Maybe that's the way they wanted it to look, maybe they think it's cool to do movies in 80's fashion like it will come back in style. Who knows...
If you think the promised eye-candy will save the film, you're in for a disappointment--the so-called \"babes\" are manish and downright ugly. They can't act at all, I don't understand why they couldn't at least get good looking chicks if they want babes with no talent! But I guess when you're making a film this stupid, you don't get very good choices, hot chicks aren't just lining up to do this kind of pitiful crap!
\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 SO stupid I couldn't believe what I was seeing as I was watching it, it was like a huge train wreck -- I couldn't look away because it was just SO horribly awful! I can honestly say I've never seen anything this bad in my whole entire life. It was so cheesy and the acting was just so deplorable that I just kept thinking \"this just has to be some kind of a joke, right? Nobody would actually make a movie this crappy on purpose, right?\" I really hope this is all just a bad joke and these people don't actually expect people to watch this with a straight face, and I really hope the people who were in this movie were doing terrible acting on purpose and don't actually believe that they are good actors?! The drag queens are pretty funny to watch, though, and so are the cheesy special effects straight out of a bad 80's sci-fi movie.
Only watch this if you've already seen every other movie in existence first and there is nothing left to watch at all! I would give this a \"0\" if it were possible.
\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\nWords cannot express how poor this film is.
There is no plot, the acting is appalling, basically the whole film is a joke.
With a running time of 97 minutes, it's about 96 minutes too long.
It might have been OK as a short sketch on a comedy show, but the premise is way too flimsy to work for that amount of time without boredom kicking in.
Avoid this one, go rent a good movie instead!
\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\nIt's tempting to view this film as a daring avant-garde experiment. I like to think that the director was trying to see if it was possible to take all the conventions of comedy film and produce something that was completely, utterly, entirely unfunny.
The answer, to judge by \"From Venus\", is a resounding 'Yes'. This may not be the worst film I've ever seen, but my brain seems to have repressed all memory of the others. This horrible flick hovers just on the borderline: bad enough that the thought still causes pain, but not quite so bad that my internal censors have obliterated it from my consciousness.
It's difficult for me to imagine what the director and the cast thought they were doing when they made this, or why they went ahead and released it once they'd made it. I doubt anyone involved with it earned very much, but surely between them they could have got together enough money to buy up all the prints and have them burned.
This is a movie that has nothing whatsoever to recommend it. It's not even enjoyably bad. It's just a non-movie in which nothing interesting happens. I gave serious thought to taking it back and demanding my money back, which is not something I've ever done before.
Don't even think about renting (much less buying!) this horrible non-movie!
\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 is just the same old crap that is spewed from amateur idiots who have no clue how to make a movie--gee maybe that's why it is a straight-to-video wanna-be movie!
I guess it is my fault for actually spending money to see it (one of the worst decisions I have ever made). What a waste. I usually like B movies, some of them are actually quite good--but this is just too ridiculous and stupid to even be funny.
The losers that made this junk deserve to be put out of business for wasting everyone's time and money making a movie that obviously doesn't even deserve to be on film! These so-called movie makers have absolutely NO talent!
Stupid plot, horrible acting (especially the drag queens--what sicko would actually find that sexy?!), lame writing (if there even was a script--seems like the kinda bull**** someone just made up on the spot)
What is stunning about this movie is its utter lack of anything well-done at all.
How much attention to detail would it take to insure that every frame of a film would be so far below any reasonable standards? I don't think it would be possible to make such a bad movie intentionally, and it is inconceivable that sheer bad luck could produce such consistently awful results.
Anyway, avoid this stink bomb at all costs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
\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 you can tell from the other comments, this movie is just about the WORST film ever made. Let me see how many different words I can use to describe it: Boring, Unbearable, Laughable, Lousy, Stupid, Horrible.....
I could go on with such descriptions but you probably get the point.
I would have given this a 0, if possible--bad acting, bad directing, bad production, bad plot.
This was made in 2001 and it looks more like 1965. Very low budget, boring plot, horrible acting, really bad special effects, etc...
I rarely ever see a Sci-Fi film I absolutely think is this bad. I mean this is pure garbage. It has nothing going for it either. As far as a \"B-movie\" this is the very bottom of the lot.
I think I would be more entertained by staring at a blank piece of paper for 90 minutes. Junk like this gives good low-budget \"B\" movies a bad name. This makes Ed Wood movies look good.
The thing about watching direct-to-video movies is, just when you think you've seen the worst, you see something even worse!
DJ Perry is a horrible actor and has no individual characteristics that make him stand out.
Avoid this waste at all costs! Oh the humanity!
\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 is without a doubt the STUPIDEST movie of all time.
I don't know who I'm angrier at--the idiots who made this or my video store for actually carrying this piece of crap!!
I can't even begin to name all of the things wrong with this horrible wanna-be movie.
All of the dialogue sounds like it was made up on the spot, and the acting is the worst I have ever seen in any movie-EVER!!
There is nothing about the script that would appeal to any decent person, in fact I don't think they even had a script, they just made up everything as they went along--and you can tell.
The \"women\" (i.e. men dressed up in drag trying to look like women) in the costumes looked so ridiculous, I guess they were trying to be sexy but--NOT SO MUCH!! Especially that old woman-disgusting.
There is nothing scary about this movie, the only thing scary is that somebody else might actually rent it and have to watch it.
No brain required for watching this, you must be a total loser to want to see this movie.
Don't forget-- I WARNED YOU!!!
\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 let a friend talk me into viewing this movie, and all I can say is--I want to kill that friend.
That is an hour and a half of my life I will never get back and I will forever regret it.
If you've also had the bad luck of seeing this movie you will agree with me that this is absolutely the worst movie ever made, EVER!
If you've never seen this movie and are thinking of seeing it-- let me save you a waste of time and warn you: DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE, IT SUCKS!!!!
Everything in this movie fails, the attempt at comedy and sexiness--it just comes off as stupid, trashy and disgusting. Try having women in the movie who are actually attractive and sexy and not fat, ugly and gross to look at!!
The acting is laughable as is the writing. Obviously, this was made by total amateurs, I can't believe these people were allowed to make such a stupid movie, isn't there a law against that? There should be.
There are a whole slew of good \"b\" movies if you are into that sort of thing, but do not waste you time on this crappy wanna-be movie.
PEACE
\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 had the terrible misfortune of having to view this \"b-movie\" in it's entirety.
All I have to say is--- save your time and money!!! This has got to be the worst b-movie of all time, it shouldn't even be called a b-movie, more like an f-movie! Because it fails in all aspects that make a good movie: the story is not interesting at all, all of the actors are paper-thin and not at all believable, it has bad direction and the action sequences are so fake it's almost funny.......almost.
The movie is just packed full of crappy one-liners that no respectable person could find amusing in the least little bit.
This movie is supposed to be geared towards men, but all the women in it are SO utterly unattractive, especially that old wrinkled thing that comes in towards the end. They try to appear sexy in those weird, horrible costumes and they fail miserably!!!
Even some of the most ridiculous b-movies will still give you some laughs, but this is just too painful to watch!!
\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 was a very disappointing movie. I would definitely call this the worst movie of all time.
The acting and writing were poor. And the jokes were not funny.
I don't see why on earth this piece of crap was even made. I'm not a picky person and I can enjoy stupid things but this is just way too stupid and just plain awful.
Avoid this wretched piece of garbage at all costs!
\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\nNo movie I've ever seen before has even come close to being as boring and stupid as this hunk of junk. And I have always been a big B-movie fan. After viewing this total piece of crap, though I can honestly say that this doesn't even come close to being a B-movie.
No one in this movie could act if their life depended on it. The script is so stupid I don't think I've ever heard anyone talk like this in my life. The writer should go spend a few years studying real-life people to see just how they act and talk, even then they would not be able to make a watchable movie because it is so obvious that no one involved in this movie has any talent driving them at all.
I could make a better movie with a digital camera and some monster toys. Also, forget about any sexy scenes, the women in the leather outfits are so grotesque, you would sooner puke than get turned on!
Avoid this pointless drivel unless you want to be bored out of your mind!
\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\nWatching this movie really surprised me. I have never found myself to stop watching a movie in its entirety because 3 dollars to rent a movie is a good amount of money and darn it, I should at least watch the whole thing and get my moneys worth. I made it through about 30 minutes of this absolutely crappy movie when I thought to myself, I am now a little more dumber after watching this movie. I can't believe that the director and actors in this movie actually had that low of respect for themselves to allow this to be released!
There's nothing I can say that hasn't been said by the other reviewers, but even in the worst of films there are usually one or two decent performances...not in this piece of pathetic garbage. I've seen better acting in high school plays. Every, and I mean every 'actor' is bad beyond belief, and what's truly amazing is the uniformity of the badness...gosh, it must have been the director. Where did they get these people?
This is possibly one of the worst horror movies I have ever seen. Although entertaining in places due to its laughable script and even weaker acting, and I use that term very loosely, it is unfortunate that this film was not consigned to B movie hell for all eternity. What could have been a good idea has been ruined by an ultra low budget, poor sound and effects and actors who probably earned their wings in children's television, and poor children's television at that.
Please, STAY AWAY from this movie. Not even worth a minute of your time.
\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 can tell by the other comments that NOBODY could ever actually enjoy this trifling piece of crap, that's the same way I felt.
The whole time I was watching it I was horrified that anyone could make a movie this stupid! What is the world coming to? I guess it is my fault for sitting through the entire movie (ugh!) but it was like a bad car wreck, I couldn't look away.
If you are a kid under 8 years of age, you might like this movie. Otherwise, stay away from it at all costs. It's the stupidest movie I've ever seen.
Everything's stupid--the story, script, and especially the acting, everything! While watching the movie you'll either turn the TV off and think \"how can a movie be so sadly stupid\", or keep on watching from curiosity, to see if things can get more stupid than this (they can't).
These movie makers (if you can call them that) need to seriously go back to their day jobs, not one of them has an ounce of talent, and I highly doubt you can make a living churning out such horrible useless garbage that no one in their right minds would ever want to see!
Just drawn out B.S. Don't waste your time.
\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 was so poor I had to turn it off in the end. I have never watched such a pathetic film. I love B movies and was looking forward to more of the same but was sadly disappointed.
This has the worst acting/plot/direction/writing, etc...... of anything I have ever seen in my life!
My advice to anyone thinking or watching/buying/renting, don't go there!
\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\nOh my god, it just doesn't get any worse than this!!! I always love silly little sci-fi B-movies that are so stupid they are funny and I thought that this would be one of those, but this was just so stupid I found it absolutely deplorable that it was allowed to be released. What were these people thinking? They are obviously not real filmmakers and I really hope that they have gone back to their day jobs after realizing that this is the best they could do! The acting and the not-so special effects were nowhere near the standard of even the lowest budget B-movies. And what is with the men dressed up as women, could they not find any women that wanted to appear in this crappy thing. No, probably not.
I would give this a \"0\" if possible, it does not even deserve a \"1\" for awful. Do not waste your time (and especially not your money) on this horrible loser of a non-film!
\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 is such a crappy movie I have no idea how it got on the shelves, they must have paid the movie store to make them put it there, seriously! The story makes absolutely no sense unless you are on some seriously heavy drugs, you would definitely have to be on something in order to watch this total piece of garbage, so much so that you would not care what was on the TV because you're almost in a coma. The writing sounds like it was done by a 5-year-old and the acting is worse than grade school plays. The hideous special effects they were trying to do look so stupid, what did they spend a whole $5 to make the entire movie, it looks like it! Oh my, that scene with the old woman who has an 80's hairdo and the ugly girls in the rubber suits, me and my friends laughed so hard. Did someone actually think it was a good idea to make this into a movie? I find that hard to believe!
\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 whole movie is just so terrible it is a complete mess. The story is just so stupid I can't believe somebody actually sat down and wrote about this and thought it would make a good movie! The acting is quite possibly the very worst out of any b-movie ever made. I've seen a lot of sci-fi type b-movies before and some of them are actually pretty good, some of them however-like From Venus-should never have been made.
Some movie makers think that just because they put something together and somehow got it on the shelves of a movie store, that they have accomplished something-that it is good and should be watched by people. This is not always true, and it is definitely not true of From Venus. This film loses on all accounts: horrible acting, stupid plot, very weak special effects, ugliest costumes ever, non-realistic dialogue, bad direction, etc. You can just tell this film only took about $20 to make, and I may be giving it too much credit there! I urge you to stay away from this train wreck of a film for your own good!
\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\nThat's what me and my friends kept asking each other throughout this entire flick. We couldn't believe how stupid it was! I think somebody shot this on their camcorder at home and snuck it into the movie store and put it on the shelf as a joke to see if anybody would ever pick it up. Well, I guess the joke is on us.
I guess I should have come to this website first and read all of the reviews it has gotten, every single one says this movie is HORRIBLE, STUPID, and on and on. And boy are they right! Although it did provide some pretty good laughs (me and my friends were pretty drunk) because it is so stupid. We just can't believe somebody was dumb enough to make such a crappy movie! I swear this had to be made in the 70's before they had good technology for movies and stuff because every scene looks really crappy, but when I looked on here it said it was made in 2001? What? It sure doesn't look like a movie that would be made today, but I guess that's what you get when you use a camcorder and shoot home movies using strobe lights and really fake looking lasers, and use real life people from your home town instead of actors or even aspiring actors. BTW-some of those chicks (or were they drag queens, we couldn't tell!) were so fugly, even my drunk horny college buddies wouldn't touch them with a 50-foot pole.
So there's absolutely no appeal to this movie at all, bad acting, bad writing, bad directing, bad special effects, bad, bad, bad. Don't waste your time or money on this one, you'll be completely disappointed!
\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 don't understand how this garbage got on the shelves of the movie store, it's not even a real movie! It was unbelievable, me and a group of friends decided to watch this one night and it was just the stupidest thing any of us had ever seen, I couldn't believe it! We watched the first 15 minutes in utter awe that somebody actually thought of this and then made it into a movie. Are they on crack? My guess is yes, in huge doses. I highly doubt that anyone could ever like this trash. Is this supposed to be sci-fi or comedy or what? I don't thing the idiots who made this even care, they just decided to make a movie about nothing and see how many suckers they could trick into watching it. Well, we put something on film so let's take it to the movie store and see if they actually put it on the shelf--no, no, no. This is not movie-making. The acting is like watching wooden puppets moving around and reading from a book, that's how bad it is. I feel like going to the movie store and complaining and getting my money back, nobody should have to endure this crap. So I am here to warn you--DO NOT RENT THIS MOVIE, it is the dumbest thing you have never seen!
\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 rented this DVD because I'm a big science fiction fan, but this thing (I won't call it a film, because it was obviously shot very quickly on video) seemed like they made it up as they went along. I'm still not sure what it was about. There's these guys dressed up in some weird S&M outfits, and I guess they're from another planet, anyway, not much makes sense in this low, low, low, budget film. If it was their first film, I'd cut them some slack, but I think it's like their 5th film and it's really REALLY bad.
Very bad acting not one good actor is this movie. This director must have been out of his mind to even work on a horrible film like this. Don't waste your time or money on this DVD please people don't. It is not even worth the .99 cents I paid to rent the DVD. In fact I'm going to tell them the DVD was messed up to get my money back. I don't believe in giving anything at all a bad review but I must here. My advice to anyone involved in this sinking ship--please find another profession to get into. How could you make a rotten movie like this? I would give this negative stars if possible, it's that terrible.
\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 always had this morbid curiosity when it comes to notoriously bad and unpopular movies. I also have always enjoyed so-bad-it's-good flicks, you're looking at someone who actually liked recent cheese filled kid flicks like Catwoman and Thunderbirds (2004).
So I watched this, and it turned out that all the critics are right about this one. It's a MAJOR flop, but unlike a lot of flops, it isn't even enjoyable on any level, not even just to make fun of. It's just one boring cringe-fest after another all the way through.
I had been warned. I didn't listen. I am a fool.
Don't be a fool, don't waste time and money on this pile of trash.
\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 original story had all the ingredients to make a thoroughly gripping Film. But failed miserably in this version as even Cherie Lunghi was a pale imitation of what she was to become - so much so that I suspected that she must turn out to be an accomplice right to the end. Sherlock Holmes was turned into a warrior quite unlike anything every suggested by Sir Arthur Conn Doyle ? In fact it was Doctor Watson who showed what little common sense that was going. The boot blacked midget from the Andoman islands looked as though he could not fight his way out of a paper bag and what the villain was doing taking tea in Baker Street for a denouement was beyond anything that the old Scotland Yard could ever have dreamed up. So consign this TV Film to their Black Museum please.
\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\nWhat was this, a Zucker brothers movie? I don't mind a little humor in my Holmes (I'm a big fan of Billy Wilder's \"The Private Life of SH\"), but this version of \"The Sign of Four\" feels like a Grand-Guignol-esque episode of \"Murder, She Wrote\" (right from the opening credits, that are of the worst possible kind: a montage of scenes from the movie) as directed by Mel Brooks. Ian Richardson is a fine actor, and certainly looks the part (he's a dead ringer to those drawings from The Strand!), but his interpretation of the character is all wrong and overly humorous, from the silly smile he frequently sports (I thought the drug Holmes was into was cocaine, not weed) to his expressions of comical stiffness in the carnival sequences. Not to mention that when he disguises himself as an old man, he is so over the top that despite the fine makeup we instantly recognize him. David Healy is an unmemorable but, given the circumstances, acceptable Watson, and is not too much of a buffoon... at least not more than the rest of characters. Cherie Lunghi (Excalibur) plays Mary Morstan in an exaggerated ingenue fashion straight out of a 1930s vaudeville.
Story-wise, there are some pointless additions (like giving Tonga vampire teeth, an appetite for raw meat and a carnival pit as a place to live, turning him into a reject from Island of Dr. Moreau), and we are even denied the pleasure of discovering the mystery alongside Holmes, as we are well informed of everything way before Holmes finds out. And this is full of tired clichés: not only we get the infamous catchphrase \"Elementary, my dear Watson\" (which, as any Sherlockian will know, Conan Doyle never ever wrote), but we are exposed to such blatant commonplaces as having Hindi music pop out of nowhere when Holmes goes to see a white guy in Hindi clothes.
Bottom line: In Britain, in the eighties, two rival TV companies attempted to create a long-running series of Sherlock Holmes adaptations, and produced initial TV-movies as potential pilots. One of them starred Ian Richardson, the other starred Jeremy Brett. Thankfully, the one that got its way through multiple episodes was the good one!
3/10. Travesty.
\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've seen about a half dozen of the low budget poverty row B westerns that Ken Maynard made in the 1930s, and I am consistently amazed at how poor an actor he was. How did he ever get to be a leading cowboy actor? They say that he could ride pretty well back in the silents, but he doesn't do anything particularly impressive in these later sound films. Still, maybe he got the leads because he was big and could ride.
Phantom Rancher isn't as bad as some of the other Ken Maynard films I've seen, but it still isn't much. Some of the other characters refer to him a couple of times as a \"young fella,\" where it appears to me that he's just as old as the other older actors.
And if that's not silly enough, there's a rather significant script problem in this film. At one point, one of the characters makes a remark about how the phantom had prevented the poisoning of a well, something that hadn't happened yet. Just a couple of minutes later, we then see that particular scene. No, it wasn't a flashback. At first I thought perhaps that when Treeline Films was doing the DVD transfer, they might have reversed two of the reels. But in those days film reels contained approximately 11 minutes of film, and the whole reversal only took about 3 or 4 minutes tops. Everything else was in a logical order. So, it looks like that was a genuine continuity problem in the original film. Maybe that's one reason why Colony Pictures didn't last very long.
\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 earns its 3 for lousy writing, poor technical merit and continuity problems. Some people have given this movie a 10--and perhaps that is okay if you are simply scoring it for its fun factor. However, technically this is an inept movie serial from start to finish--produced by 3rd-rate writers, actors and crew. That really was true of nearly all the serials because they were meant as low-brow entertainment particularly aimed at the kids. And there's nothing wrong with that, but \"high art\" it ain't!! Spy Smasher earns a lower than average score compared to other serials because it is of even lower quality and has MAJOR continuity problems--even for a serial. It was common for a serial to have a \"cliff hanger\"--i.e., a moment at the end of the episode that looked as if the good guy dies but miraculously survives when the next episode began. BUT, in this film, it's much hokier and ridiculous. You would literally SEE the hero die in the last episode, but in the next, they re-shot the scene and showed he actually DIDN'T die (even though they clearly showed him buy the farm in the last one)! Again and again in SPY SMASHER he seems to die but in the next episode they show it from a different angle and he somehow avoided death--even if he fell 1500 feet into a river, fell into a buzz saw or whatever.
Watch this movie not for its quality but either for a good laugh or to learn what it was like to go to the movies on Saturday mornings decades ago.
\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\n20th Century Fox's ROAD HOUSE 1948) is not only quite a silly noir but is an implausible unmitigated bore of a movie. Full of unconvincing cardboard characters it is blandly written by Edward Chodorov, who also produced, and is surprisingly directed by Jean Negulesco from whom one would expect a great deal more. Miscast is Ida Lupino in the leading role! Lupino, a lady who was capable of exuding about as much sex appeal as a blood orange, is here under the illusion she is Rita Hayworth playing the part of a sexy bar-room Torch Singer. Handsome Cornel Wilde as her lover is as wooden as usual and totally wasted is the talented Celeste Holm who's role is little more than a bit part. Then we have Richard Widmark who has the most ludicrously written part in the picture! When we first see him he is a nice O.K. guy who runs a thriving Road House. Then suddenly - and for reasons that are not sufficiently made clear - he becomes insanely jealous of his manager (Wilde) when the latter tells him that he is about to marry Lupino. You see Widmark wanted to marry her himself but - 1) He never proposed to her - 2) They never had a relationship (they don't even have anything that resembles a love scene together) and - 3)without telling anyone (including Lupino) he has obtained a marriage license. Wow! So how Widmark was to achieve something like wedded bliss with Lupino after such a \"courtship\" is anybody's quess. Huh? Well, when Widmark goes to pieces over the whole affair so also does the movie I am sorry to say. From here on the Widmark character turns unintentionally comical! His losing his marbles so early in the proceedings is totally implausible and unconvincing. He finally goes over the edge, becomes completely deranged and with a few Tommy Udo sniggers, he laughably goes gunning for poor Cornel Wilde before biting the dust himself.
And if that isn't enough of a mess of a movie for you - the picture is also marred with a constant use of studio sets and indoor exteriors. There's not a single outdoor shot in the entire movie! Added to this - 95% of the film takes place at night.
Besides an interactive press book and a photo gallery the extras also includes a featurette \"Widmark & Lupino At Fox\". Whatever prompted such a documentary is beyond me! As far as I know they were never before together in a movie at Fox or anywhere else! However this featurette is hosted by such heavy hitter know-alls as Robert Osborne, Eddie Muller, Rudy Belhmer and a few others who amazingly heap praise on this wearisome and cringe - inducing affair. All I can say then it must be me I guess. But \"Road House\" up to now was a forgotten and buried Noir and as far as I am concerned it should have remained so.
Fox would do better if they issued DVDs of superior and thus far elusive Widmark movies like \"Down To The Sea In Ships\" (1949) and the colourful \"Red Skies Of Montana\" (1952).
\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\nWhen you're used to Lana Turner in the Postman Always Rings Twice, and compare it to this low budget, low talent, low quality film, well, I was just embarrassed for Ida Lupino's 'singing' (more like talking) and non-piano playing scenes. When the first non-singing scene started and all the people just stared flatly at her, I was positive they were all going to roll their eyes and start leaving or at least talking among themselves (She stinks, c'mon let's get out of here). The actors are flat - emotions are deflated. And Ida is a real spoiled bi-otch throughout - just a 100% turnoff. This was like Betty Boop on conscious sedation meets a gas station attendant in nowhere's ville USA. The story was flat, the music was flat, the acting was flat, her chest was... no never mind. I felt sad for the rest of the actors. Perhaps if the right actress was to have been given the lead role, and the men actors had more emotion, then the film could have had a chance. Sorry for offending those of you who thought it was out of this world. I wouldn't have minded if it stayed out of this world.
\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\nPretty dreadful movie about several unbalanced young people in a car starts off reasonably well but becomes more bizarre and hard to swallow as it progresses. Rachel Leigh Cook is the sole highlight in a tender and sexy performance, but I would recommend this film only to die-hard fans of the actress.
\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\nAn \"independant\" film that, from the back of the box, promises twists, adventure and an emotional adventure we will never forget. This film also fools us into watching it by flaunting Rachel Lee Cook with a starring role. After the first twenty minutes, you realize that this movie is going to give you NOTHING. The story goes on aimlessly, revealing nothing new or important to keep us interested. All three \"disturbed\" characters have only small grains of back story to force us to care. Just as you reach the end, everything about the story is altered and instead of helping the audience catch up, you are left with no idea, and more importantly, no interest in \"why\". The director, who also thought it would be a good idea to co-star, seems to come into the film with no prior experience or knowledge of useful filmmaking. The entire piece looks like a college \"art\" film crafted by a freshman film student trying to hide a lack of true talent.
\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 episode about living on minimum wage. It went as far as an Oprah Winfrey's appearance for the said episode. It's bad enough people struggle making ends meet week to week. Then having this hypocrite exploiting the problem. I didn't appreciate the constant complaining from him or his significant other, throughout. Queston is how any people have the power to pay their medical bills from the ER? sure he shows that the bill is high, but he paid the remaining balance(from his own pocket) after-wards from his \"harrowing\" experience. How many poor people have that type of privilege after 30 days to pay off their bills. Instead they are starving and \"robbing Peter to pay Paul\". Complaining throughout the episode isn't a humbling thing for him. The movie and restaurant scene is appalling. Another privilege he has that poor people don't.
\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 only seen the minimum wage episode yet i have no intention of watching the others, how can that be? Morgan starts theatrically complaining about his awful situation living on minimum wage right at the beginning of the episode and the complaining never stops. Ever. Luckily for the viewer, his skinny girlfriend is just as annoying as Morgan (if not even more annoying).
And then to top it all, they go to the movies and buy bottled water for 2,50 and after that go to a restaurant to eat out all the while they naturally *drumroll* complain about being poor.
I don't care if the other episodes may or may not be better than this. No one should be forced to watch this crap.
\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 video has audio that is meant for someone to hear during their sleep. And the same can be said for the video.
Morgan and his wife pretending to rough it at minimum wage jobs? With a camera rolling? And his little wifey-poo complaining? Give me a break. They are both rich. They are sitting in their fake $350/month apartment filming this with their $1,000/month each video crew of 12.
I used to respect Morgan, but now his \"30 days\" experience is nothing more than trying to fool any volunteer viewers who are willing to be fooled.
C'mon Morgan, you are being filmed doing a $6.00 an hour job and you are being paid by naive employers who don't see those big cameras filming the whole thing?? And we aren't to think they aren't paying you under the table?
\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\nAltman is very proud of the fact that people in his movies talk over each other, because, he says, people do that in life. Well, people also cough, burp, go off on tangents, etc. The point is that just because people actually do something doesn't make it compelling cinema. That's one issue.
The bigger issue is that this just isn't a very clever or direct or hitting or relevant satire, in 1988 or 2004. Garry Trudeau is still living in the 1960s and thinks everyone except a small core of Republican elected officials is a 60s-style hippie liberal. I mean the guy still trots out Zonker in his strip - a character that is a complete anachronism, yet Trudeau still employs him as if he is representative of a large stripe of American youth.
Don't get me wrong. I am a conservative, but I'm not saying that this is bad because it's got a liberal bent. It could take a liberal tack and be funny and relevant, but it's not. It is mainly a vanity piece with a bunch of prominent celebrity liberals (including the odious, repellent Ron Reagan, Jr.). At times it feels unscripted, and the rest of the time it has a snarky air of self-importance and \"aren't we oh-so-clever?\"-ness.
Someone said that this show insists it has a cult following. I think its cult status is more wished-for than actual. I'm certain there are two or three people out there who taped all the original episodes in 1988 and still have them, but if that is the standard, then every show ever aired is a cult classic to some degree. If Tanner didn't have the names Altman and Trudeau attached, it would be another forgotten HBO production from the 1980s. Instead, it's presented as hard-hitting, incisive political commentary from guys who are at the top of their game. The reality, however, is about as far from that as possible. Pat Paulsen's presidential satire is more relevant than Tanner ever was, and he's been dead for a decade.
\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 watched this last night on Sundance. Altman must be the most hit or miss director of note ever. This show, despite its \"star power\" is utterly non-compelling, and its political insights--which I as a proud liberal in no way disagree with--are shallow and clunky, and seem ripped from the headlines of USA Today, despite the fact it's coming out of the mouth of someone as esteemed as Mario Cuomo. The drama, as such, is not very dramatic, and the comedy is not funny. The only points of interest, really, are seeing how New Yorkers live their lives, and the loyalty of a cast and crew to reassemble a show that keeps insisting has some cult following from 1988. Sometimes it seems like Altman's sole contribution to cinema has been the art of having all your actors talk at once, the effect of which is one feels depressingly like they're a stranger at a wedding.
\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 pointless film was a complete disappointment. None of the characters is likeable in the least, so you watch what befalls each without really caring. What was worst was renting this movie at a gay owned establishment only to find that this story of male hustlers was filled with homophobic young men engaged in plenty of scenes of straight sex and not one single scene of gay sex.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"