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\nHitchcock's original classic benefited tremendously not only from the performance of, but also the 'look' of Anthony Perkins. He projected a kind of clean-cut innocence: a young teen-idol type of persona. He was not an actor who had portrayed baddies before this; nor was he physically suited to the role of what the public might have imagined a psychopath to look like, especially in the 50's when this ultra-chilling aspect of mental illness (split personality psychosis) was relatively unexplored in film. Which is exactly why the casting of him as Norman Bates was a slice of true Hitchcockian genius. Audiences were taken by surprise to put it mildly.
That's why this re-make does not work, even a little bit, in spite of trying to be an exact copy. Whereas Anthony Perkins looked like someone you would never think of as being a serial killer, Vince Vaughn is easily imaginable as one. He lacks the frail look of Perkins and his acting chops are clearly inferior as well, at least in this role (honestly - has there ever been an actor who could convey nervousness as genuinely as Anthony Perkins?). While it was a pointless re-make to begin with, the miscasting of the story's most important character sucks this film down completely.
As a side note, I feel that Hollywood's propensity for re-making great movies because 'young' people refuse to watch anything that's not filmed in color not only stinks to high heaven of corporate greed but is exceptionally disrespectful to the original work. As for viewers who can't watch black and white - it's their loss. Hopefully they'll mature sometime in the future and no longer require shiny colours to hold their attention. When they do they'll discover that sometimes black and white works far better. With the background muted, the story and performances are that much more front and center. And in many cases the mood or atmosphere created through black and white cinematography is just not attainable in colour.
\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\nWell, I have to agree with the critics on this one, who all said \"leave it alone.\" Why they had to make this re-make of the 1960 \"Psycho,\" I don't know. My guess is they wanted to reach a new audience and thought color and modern-day actors were the answer, since those were the main changes. The dialog was the same and the story the same.
On one hand, I applaud them for not making this over with a lot of profanity and nudity and making it a sleazy film. Yet, if they were going to keep everything the same, why bother when you weren't going to improve on Tony Perkins, Janet Leigh and the original cast?
Did they honestly think Vince Vaughn was going to be as good or better than Perkins? Are you kidding? Ann Heche, with her short mannish-haircut, is going to be better than Leigh? I don't think so!
Yes, the colors were pretty in here but it's the black-and-white photography that helped make the 1960 version so creepy to begin with. It's perfect for the story, not a bunch of greens and pinks! Once again, I guess the filmmakers were banking on an audience that never saw the original.
This was just a stupid project that never should have gotten off the ground.
\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 most disposable movie in the history of cinema?This one is a strong contender!Why wasting so much money for such a pointless useless work? The only difference between the HItchcock classic and this poor imitation is color,wide screen and Leila's Walkman!!A movie which's supposed to generate thrills and fear leaves me completely indifferent.
No you' re going to tell me it will urge the young generations to see the original?balderdash!This \"psycho 1998\" is a giant spoiler.
They could have done something different,for instance ,by casting an actor closer to Bloch 's Bates ,an obese man.They content themselves with an obnoxious rehash!A pox on it!and long live Alfred Hitchcock!
\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,the whole idea of remaking a classic such as \"Psycho\" is nothing short of ludicrous.A lot of time and effort was wasted here.I am sure they are smart enough to know that they could not improve on the original,so they must have had a tribute to Alfred Hitchcock on their minds.However,the idea that began as a well intentioned tribute, results in being a slap in the face to the horror master.This movie is poorly produced,poorly acted,and unnecessary to begin with.The original classic stands well on it's own,even after 40 years.The event of Hitch returning from the grave and coming after the people responsible for this piece of trash is unlikely,but if I were them,I would sleep with one eye open just in case.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\nDon`t be fooled into thinking that this is a remake as in this years remake of THE TIME MACHINE is based on an earlier film . It`s not because this is a pointless re- film . That is the director has used the original camera script shot for shot similar to the \" remake \" of THE GET AWAY from a few years ago . The scenes are identical to the original , the dialogue is identical to the original , the camera angles are identical , no attempt whatsoever is made to embellish or restructure the original script ,( But with a director like Van Sant at the helm we should be thankful . He sure ain`t no Hitchcock ) in fact I might even be correct in saying the costumes might be the same because the private eye wears a pork pie hat. Didn`t they go out of fashion in the late 1960s ?
Bottom line:Avoid
\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, first of all, who in their right mind would remake Hitchcock and second, who would do it shot for shot? I admit I had no intention of ever watching this movie for that very reason. The original Psycho is one of my favorite films ever and this just seemed like a degrading photocopy of it. I did watch it because my girlfriend wanted to compare it to the original and we both agreed less than five minutes into this crap that it was awful. First, as mentioned, they did it shot for shot. Where's originality? Why remake a movie that is almost perfect EXACTLY the way it was done the first time? Why remake such a movie to begin with? If you ARE going to remake something, remake something that doesn't work and make it BETTER!
Second, they used the exact same script from the 1960 version. The dialog no longer works. It works fine and sounds perfect for the 1960 version, but seems odd and stilted coming out of modern actors. Why not update the dialog? Hitch didn't write the script, you could have rewritten.
This film had some very good talent and they were wasted by imitation of the original actors. The actor who played the car salesman seemed like he was just playing John Anderson's performance as the car salesman in the original. All the actors seemed like the only direction they were given was be the characters from the original movie. Vince Vaughn may have seemed a little creepier than Anthony Perkins, but in doing so, you loose the sympathy you are supposed to have for Norman. Having Norman masturbate while watching Marion undress was going too far and lost the innocence of the character that I think Tony Perkins captured so well in his performance. Viggo Mortensen's accent was annoying and Rita Wilson was far too old to play Caroline. Her lines came off as someone desperate rather than just young and fun like Patricia Hitchcock's performance.
The only good thing I saw about the film was that Gus Van Sant was able to open the movie with the shot Hitch had envisioned. Hitch wanted to open with 1 long shot going over Phoenix but couldn't at the time so he had to settle for a series of shots cross-dissolved together. This film fulfilled that vision with a helicopter shot going into the window of the hotel. After that, though the film became a worthless waste of celluloid.
If you are curious about how to destroy a wonderful film, watch this, but do NOT under any circumstances watch this BEFORE you watch the original. This is a faded photocopy of the original and should never have been green-lit. Stick to the master's film, not the imitation.
\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*some possible spoilers*
Of course this film could not be expected to be as good as the original, remakes rarely are. But, this remake of one of Hitchcock's greatest films, Psycho, could have been a lot better.
First of all, whoever cast the movie must have been psycho. I mean, Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates! What where they thinking?! Unlike the \"harmless\", almost childlike Bates that Anthony Perkins was able to portray, Vaughn looks like he would could be a murderer. In efforts to make his Bates seem innocent, Vaughn ends up acting gay. Many of the other actors didn't seem to fit their parts either, including Julianne Moore who just didn't seem to fit in the film.
On top of the atrocious casting, the cinematography is notably shabby, despite the fact that they remade the film scene for scene. The one thing they added were random shots of object such as clouds or a nude woman, in between the shots of characters being murdered. These shots seemed to be irrelevant to the plot in anyway, and in turn made no sense.
Overall, this Psycho remake, which could been a decent picture, instead turned out to be a complete waste of 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\nNot only Why? But \"What were they thinking?\" This must have been some
sort of payback to Gus Van Sant, because this is one of those odd movies
that never should have been (re) made. It purports to be Hitchcocks film
frame by frame, but without the magic or the tension or the great film
making. Rent the original instead, spare yourself.
\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 horrendous film, ill-conceived and crude. The acting of Anne Heche and Vince Vaughan is so inferior to that of Perkins and Leigh in the original version they have to be seen to be believed. There was no reason to make this picture, which only highlights how accomplished and brilliant Hitchcock was, and how inimitable. Also, there's a creeping, pervasive insensitivity in the film that isn't there in the first film. Hitchcock's Psycho was scary and shocking, but one could genuinely feel for all concerned, even the pitiful Norman Bates. There were moments of pathos, irony and fey humor the remake doesn't have. One of the best things about Hitchcock's film was its incredible and intuitive depth and sense of nuance, of when to cut away and when to show something, on whether to use a close-up or long shot, on whether to make an actor sympathetic and when to make him frightening, and so forth. The remake has none of these qualities and doesn't even try for them. It's an idiotic exercise that I'm amazed even got released.
\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\nVan Sant copies Hitchcock's masterpiece shot for shot including some modern facets: a walkman, and nudity from Anne Heche. Unless you have a strong desire to see Ms. Heche naked there is absolutely NO reason to see this film instead of the original. Hitchcock's masterpiece is much better and Van Sant fails to realize that in hiding the nudity and the gore, the original shower scene is all the more terrifying. Ask Janet Leigh about that one. The acting is also much flatter and the technical aspects much less impressive.
\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 an embarassment...This doesnt do justice to the original with awful acting from everyone in this movie, Hitchcock must be spinning in his grave. The scence where Marion gets killed in the shower is just so uneffective and unoriginal. The only good bit is that they used the same music and its so obvious who kills her in the shower. I rate this movie 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\n*SPOILERS INCLUDED*
Alfred Hitchcock's brilliant and innovative adaptation of Robert Bloch's novel was an amazing film, unlike anything previous. Every shot, every camera angle, every nuance was PERFECT. He didn't just break the rules, he made up a whole set of new ones.
Here's the spoiler: there is absolutely nothing new, different, or original about this movie. Gus Van Sant doesn't just pay a homage to Hitch, he rips off every idea, and does so in a less original, more conventional manner. I didn't have anything against Gus Van Sant before I saw this movie. I liked Drugstore Cowboy and I thought My Own Private Idaho was a very interesting film. The question burning in my mind when it comes to the remake of Psycho is, \"Why did you do it, Gus?\"
In my mind, there are only two reasons to do a remake: 1) The original was a good story, but the movie sucked. 2) The original was a good movie, but someone has thought of a fresh, new approach to the material. Neither one of these factors is at all present in the Gus Van Sant version of Psycho. Apart from the fact that it is in color, and there is one scene in which there is a montage of disturbing imagery relating to the title character's possible inner dialogue (which I found unnecessary), there is nothing new here.
Furthermore, I found the casting left something to be desired. Anne Heche was okay as Marion, but she lacked a certain vulnerability that Janet Leigh portrayed in the original. I didn't feel as sympathetic towards her character, because the choices she faced seemed far less constrained as a woman in today's society, as opposed to the choices she would have faced as a single woman living in the early 1960's. Vince Vaughn got a few laughs with his rendering of an incredibly naive Norman Bates, but I feel that Anthony Perkins' timing and nervous, haunted look was much more effectively creepy. The only performance that I enjoyed better than the original was the character of Lila Crane, played by Jullianne Moore. She was excellent as usual, and brought a new strength and intelligence to the character.
To be fair, there is some beautiful camera work, especially during the famous \"bathroom scene\" in which Van Sant takes advantage of his use of color to show the murder in vibrant shades of crimson. And yet, during the whole film I had this irritating sense of deju vu. Haven't I seen this somewhere before? Oh wait, I HAVE seen this somewhere before! Nearly every scene seems to be copied shot for shot from the original. One almost gets the feeling the director made this film as a school project. \"See, I can make a Hitchcock film, too!\"
If you haven't already, go see the original. It's held up over the years, and beats this bit of mediocrity, hands down. You won't be 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\nThis is one of the dumbest ideas for a movie. Remake a classic film shot-by-shot. I hope nobody tries this technique again. In 1998, \"Good Will Hunting\" director Gus Van Sant tried it by remaking Hitchcock's 1960 classic \"Psycho\" and failed miserably. What on earth was Van Sant thinking of? This remake doesn't even come close to topping the original. The few changes that were made here were no help. If you want to see \"Psycho\", the choice is obvious. See the original.
* (out of four)
\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 1998 version of \"Psycho\" needed to be set back in the 60's, rather than present day. The headliners would have done a good job with the setting. There were two scenes that just stuck out like a sore thumb. The first one was at the beginning of the movie when Marian Crane (Anne Heche) was sitting at her desk. Her boss took his client into his office because \"it was air conditioning.\" I imagine that the majority of Arizona businesses have air conditioning. The other was the meeting of Lila Crane (Julianne Moore) & Sam Loomis (Viggo Mortensen). Lila sporting the Walkman seemed like an exaggeration to update the movie. The movie did spook a number of the viewers in the theater.
\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\nNorm(an)ally I don't mind remakes. There are some pretty good ones out there, BUT this one is a stinker! Considering it was practically scene for scene, it had a good story and great actors. Van Sant copied Al's direction virtually flawlessly, and it added color (I'm not one of those who think it has to be B&W to be classic). It should have been at least a mediocre movie... but it was pee-pee caa-caa! I don't understand how it could have been screwed up so badly. If you must, watch it as a curiosity, but I would suggest that you not bother.
\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 \"Psycho\" (1960) is widely considered as Alfred Hitchcock's best work and certainly, in my opinion, is one of the best movies of all time. The decision to film a shot by shot remake is therefore, a little puzzling.
The cast in the original was flawless, so the cast of this remake had a lot to live up to. Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates was not a good choice for the lead. He is too much of a pretty boy hunk and is not very convincing as Bates. I can imagine actors such as Mark Wahlberg or John Turturro doing a much better job in the role. Anne Heche as Marion Crane does a creditable job, but one keeps mentally comparing her to Janet Leigh. Julianne Moore is a much better actress than she shows here and Viggio Mortenson merely walks through his role. The best of this new cast is William H. Macy as the private detective.
Although director Gus Van Sant does an acceptable job, he can't build the suspense the way Hitchcock did. And why did he change the scene in the basement of the house? In the original, the atmosphere is dark and damp and closed in, whereas in this version, it takes place in a brightly lit laboratory like setting. And I think the black & white photography of the original has a definite advantage over the color version.
Maybe another flaw could be the fact that most moviegoers have seen the original and know what is going to happen and when.
All I can say is if it ain't broke, don't fix 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\nHonestly, how hard can it be to make a good remake? Obviously pretty hard! I was soooo excited to see this because I loved the original, and my friends go and see it and tell me it really sucks. Well, I finally see it and I was sooo disapointed. Ok, the shower scene was more realistic...that's why I gave it a 3. Otherwise, it did suck. Vince Vaughn does a terrible job playing Norman, he's just too dense or something. I don't know, it was just terrible. Don't see 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\nNo,no,no. That is my advice to you if you are wanting to see this film. Anthony Perkins is the one and ONLY Norman Bates,as is Janet Leigh in her role as Marion Crane. This just seems like a colorized version of Psycho,with a few mildly different touches thrown in for a more modern appeal. Vaughn is dull as ill Norman,and Viggo Mortenson's Sam Loomis seems too much the cowboy compared to the original. Please folks,do yourself some justice. Don't bother with this. One can only wonder what Mr. Alfred Hitchcock and Mr. Anthony Perkins would be thinking right now.......
* out of ****
\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 first review I saw of this on IMDB says that Vince Vaughn is a much better actor than Anthony Perkins was in this role. Makes me wonder if he saw the original. It's tough to review Psycho if you don't have the perspective of how revolutionary the movie was in 1960. You have a heroine who isn't very likable and is killed not far into the movie and a villain who is creepy, but makes you feel for him. Add to that some graphic violence and you have a blue print for some of the slasher films of the 80s and 90s.
Where does this film go wrong? Let's start with casting. Anne Heche is fine as a Vivian Crane, but as Norman Bates, Vince Vaughn is all wrong. For one thing, he looks far too young. Secondly, he has no idea how to play the roll. His nervous laugh reminds me of Ron Howard trying to play a tough guy on Happy Days. Everything he does screams I DID IT! The original movie, even to those who know everything about it, still makes you feel uneasy about the influence of mother on Norman, and turns her into a real separate character. How about the shower scene. When I finally saw the 1960 movie on a big screen, I was surprised at its power to scare the heck out of me. Bernard Herrman's score becomes incredibly shrill and loud and goes further toward scaring you than Danny Elfman's synth interpretations during the scene. This shower scene merely serves to show us Anne Heche's naked body and some nice color blood. Which brings us to the choice to film in color. Didn't work.
There is something about remaking classic films that hardly ever seems to work. Some may see this as a noble experiment, but honestly, if Gus Van Sant had nothing to add to this film, he should have left it 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\nJud Nelson is an aspiring actor who becomes involved with a married couple who enjoy playing sadistic games on other people. The husband gets his jollies by burying people alive. If that isn't bad enough, he has a miniature video camera in each coffin so he can watch his victims suffocate.
\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\nDodgy plot, dodgy script, dodgy almost everything in fact. The most compelling performance is that of Joanna Pacula as Lauren, but even that does not rescue this pointless and nasty film. The director's implicit invitation to viewers is not merely to suspend disbelief but to suspend judgement.
Presumably it is intended to be steamy and menacing, but although the film has its erotic moments they are few and far between. This sort of thing has been done better by lots of others. Don't go out of your way to see 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\nTotally forgettable movie but an unbelievable soundtrack: I'd give it (soundtrack)a 9 out of 10. I have the CD and the guitar work (Nils Lofgren) is superb! I saw the movie years ago and had to check IMDb to remember what it was about. I obsessed about getting the soundtrack and have since had to replace it. It ranges from blues/soul/ballad to a dose of gospel. All songs written, arranged, produced and performed by Nils Lofgren who is the \"other\" lead guitarist opposite Steve Van Zandt in the E Street Band. This dude can play! The vocals are handled by Nils (he can't sing very good-too raspy), Bonnie Sheridan (who is a great singer) and Tom Lepson.
\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 was poorly shot. Looks Like a rush job, last minute casting is obvious. Writing is very weak. Good for stage, not film. I feel bad for Andrew McCarthy. He's a very good actor who has not been getting good roles lately. This role was not for him. Maybe glad it has been picked up yet. On the festival circuit this film shall stay.
\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\nAwful in a whole new way, ANYTHING BUT LOVE probably should be seen by movie buffs--if only as a cautionary measure that proves all that can go wrong with a \"vanity\" production. I am guessing a vanity production, since there is no other reason on god's green earth to cast as talent-free and not particularly attractive non-singer/actress as Isabel Gold in the leading lady role--vied for yet by the likes of \"lookers\" like Cameron Bancroft and Andrew McCarthy--except that she also helped write this bizarre little movie. Her singing leaves much to be desired, and yet, unbelievable as it is, all the other characters in the film think she's terrific. There are a few moments here of actual charm or humor, but VERY few. Otherwise this is a silly, sad fiasco that veers from paint-by-numbers to paint-by-wrong-numbers. You know how it is when people look at a piece of modern art and someone says, \"My kid could do better than that!\" Well, this is a movie, the likes of which your--or anyone's--kid might do better.
\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\nOne would think that with all the lavish care and expense that went into this made-for-TV movie, it would reflect something of the taste and manners of the upper class couple--Wallis Simpson and the Prince of Wales--instead of being a mawkish, unappetizing historical romance.
Nor is it helped by the fact that JANE SEYMOUR and ANTHONY ANDREWS give stiff, rather uncomfortable to watch performances in which the events move much too slowly to hold attention.
It's hard to understand why a star of OLIVIA DE HAVILLAND's caliber would wish to play the supporting role of Aunt Bessie since the role is so colorless she just about fades out of sight. At this stage in her career, Olivia was appearing in so many \"nobility\" roles requiring a regal presence but nothing more.
A trivial movie best left forgotten among all the made-for-TV movies of that era.
\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't get me wrong. I've got a considerable soft spot for the works of Charles Band, both as producer and director. But you've got to raise an eyebrow when the man who was willing to put his name to \"Dollman Vs The Demonic Toys\" sticks a pseudonym on anything. As a bit of bad-movie fun, \"Head Of The Family\" is rather lacking, although it is better acted than you might expect. Jacqueline Lovell is a definite talent who deserves better than these kinds of movies. J.W. Perra is also quite funny as the titular monster, though for such a superintelligent being he does get hoodwinked quite easily. Y'know, I'm nitpicking because the rest of the movie is so sharp and witty of course....
And having a lead character called Lance Bogan? Nice one guys. We didn't know you Americans knew that piece of slang!
\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 is awful, just awful. Someone bought it for me as a Christmas present because they knew I liked a good horror flick. I don't think they understood the \"Good\" part. All I can say is next year this person is getting slipper socks from me. Avoid this movie-- it makes you bitter. 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 saw this film for one reason: the tagline is \"Upset the head and you're dead!\" Cracking. It's not surprising that this silly horror comedy runs out of steam before the tape is out of the box, but it wrings a few laughs from its oddball premise and cast of characters: an eagle-eyed human radar, a huge strongman, and a big-breasted sexual magnet are all mind-controlled by a huge head in a chair, who's not happy about his family being blackmailed by a murderous scumbag. This looks like being a promising mixture of ham and cheese before it becomes clear that the characters are one joke wonders and the plot is pretty ordinary if you, erm, ignore the giant head.
\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\nAhh, nuthin' like cheesy, explopitative, semi-porn, masquerading as horror...This one stars Jaqueline Lovell(sometimes Sara St. James), the nubile starlet also seen in \"Femalien\", \"The Erotic House of Wax\", and that family favorite \"Nude Bowling Party\". She is now a fixture in Surrender Cinema's line-up of talentless cuties starring in pointless, soft-porn exploitation flicks. \"Head of the Family\" actually tries to be a real moovie. A con-man and a tramp try to get said-tramp's husband off-ed. They turn to a large-brained evil genius in a wheelchair, and his family of moronic misfits, who uses mind control to send out zombies to do his nefarious bidding. Said-genius has a giant head, hence the clever title of the film: that's about the extent of the film's humor. But basically, it's an excuse to show off the ample talents of Lovell and Dianne Colazzo (Ernestina). Laced with some of the wierdest dialogue can be herd (what the heck is \"plowing oats\", anycow??), and just plain stupid, this titular thriller will moost likey appeal to the breast-cownters of Drive-In Theater, but no one else. The MooCow says avoid the devoid, unless yer looking for a rent on cheesy T&A/horror night. :=8P
\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 not only disappointing to the horror/suspense film lover, it was disappointing to anyone who sees it. WoW. I thought that this film might be funny because the guy with the huge head. However, it was filled with long and drawn out conversation that wasn't needed. There was so much sex that I hate women and men now. This film was not only boring, but there was no substance. Wow. Wow. On to of all this, each scene looks like it was light from a single light bulb, and I think they used the same set for two different lawyers, a restaurant, and an airport. This movie is not for the movie lover who loves bad movies because in the end, it feels likes wasted time. See the movie!
-party
\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 gore, no blood, no gratifying death scenes...dumb dumb dumb dumb. Dear God sitting through this movie made me sick. Sick sick sick. Very boring...extremely boring...
Theres not even a humorous aspect to this film! i cant find a good thing to say about it, other than the lead guy had a nice body...I guess. Definitely not worth the fifty cents I paid to rent 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\nThis movie gives a cinematic example of the word worthless. It's awful, you can forget plot or decent acting, cause it's not there. And with the dismissal of any decent story or acting or even the trait of being mildy frightening then there is usually only one plus left for a horror film. The appeal to those who like soft core porn. This film doesn't even have that. The women show a little skin, but not really anymore than say the Xena show. Except for the main star who is not particularly attractive and has a couple of poor, and I mean poor sex scenes. So in short if you like good movies you have no interest in this film, if you like cheese you still don't have any reason to rent this film, if you like erotica and soft core porn you really have no motive to rent this film, and most importantly if you value your time in the slightest, you cannot do better than to avoid this 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\nUpon completing this infernal piece of trash, a friend and I swore a solemn vow never to again speak of how we had just trashed away the last 90 minutes of our lives. This film is completely pointless, a two dimensional hero and heroin who we can't give a hoot whether or not they survive and some of the lamest villains to ever darken the screen of horror (or any other) genre. To further prove just how absolutely pointless this film was, I would have liked to add a plot synopsis, but I can't write fiction. All and all, the only reason I can think of that anyone would ever want to view this film is if they had just murdered their entire community and is looking for some self afflicted punishment that will haunt you for all following years to come!
\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 to be one of the all time greatest horror movies. Charles Band made the best movie of 96' in this little seen gem. Highly realistic and , incredibly stylised- with a visual flair David Fincher would envy, its not hard to see why Band went on to make such classics as 'Killjoy 2: Deliverance From Evil', 'The Regina Pierce Affair', 'Virgins of Sherwood Forest', and 'Timegate: Tales of the Saddle Tramps'.
With a highly sophisticated story- a tiny body with a large head controls a family of weirdos who perform experiments on naked women, this movie may be a bit too much for younger viewers and is only for the most educated type of viewer, but for those who see it, Band is able to convey subtle messages about the human condition through his masterpiece. The head is symbolic of the lost love and longing for one's inner self that we all must face at one point or another, and for this reason i was able to engage with this film on a deeply personal level. Although many earlier critics have compared Band's film to Re-animator and other lesser works, this stands head and heels above the rest. It is gorier, but not pointlessly. The gore in this film is well crafted and used to enhance the storyline, rather than to just get a cheap shriek out of the audience. Also, the special effects in this film are absolutely top notch, easily the best work done in a horror film since... well... ever! The work in this film makes Savini's effects look like the work of a blind, limbless hobo.
The only problem i have with this film is the copious amounts of full frontal nudity, which were ultimately unnecessary in achieving the composer's goal- to create a timeless epic that would forever go down in history as possibly the greatest film of all time. If it were not for this slight problem i would have given this film a perfect 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\nA couple of friends and myself visited the video shop a few years back and we were in one of those moods to rent some cheesy non seen flicks. My friend grabbed Head of the Family and we were greeted by a head sitting in a wheelchair. Well that set us off laughing and we decided to have a bet to see who would be the one who had to go to the desk and pay for the movie. Well you guessed it, it was me!!!!!!!! I have never been so embarrised in all my life. We got home and put it on and we rolled about the floor laughing for about 45mins because this was the funniest film in the world. I cant remember much about it but one thing i do remember was the blonde girl getting it on with some guy in the back of a shop every 5 mins. That head made me laugh and when i look at other peoples comments aboout this movie it makes me laugh even more. Head of the family is so good and the head is funny and im still laughing ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
\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 film on the advice of a friend who assured me it was one of the funniest things he'd ever seen. Sadly this person is completely lacking a sense of humour and I was forced to endure two hours of the worst film making I have ever seen. Please do not watch this film. 1/10
\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\nI saw this movie on a show that was showing bad B-movies and trying to get you to buy them. It basically was just a long trailer but gave you a really good idea of what the movie was about. After viewing the trailer, I thought I would rent this movie because it looked stupid and generic, but could still be entertaining in a perverse sense. IT'S NOT ENTERTAINING in any sense of the word. The film has two (or should I say four) things going for it and it's not the number of deaths, it's the women. They are hot and naked a lot and Ms. Lovell could be a legit actress, but not in a movie where the emphasis is on T&A and corny dialogs. This isn't even a horror movie or scary, unless you are talking about watching the actors try to act. The production value is pathetic, the acting is worse and the writing is the worst. What was the point in making this movie? To scare people? To rip off \"Texas Chainsaw Massacre\"? To try and be funny? To show off the women's breasts? To put some guy's head into a retarded outfit, with fake hands and legs? To have a character just say the word \"Snow\" over and over? To not have any real violence but have enough nudity in an attempt to cover up the fact there is no real plot? To be able to make a sequel to a movie no one has seen or will ever watch? I made a mistake in picking up this movie, don't make this mistake too.
STAY AWAY FROM THIS 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\nI am not a fan of the original book but was expecting to see a better adaptation than the Natalie Portman movie, which I found awful. This version is even worse.
First, there is very little of Ms. Gregory's book in this script. The whole subplot of George Boleyn's sexuality is completely eliminated and in this version George is merely a flunky shuttling between his duty to the Boleyn family and his duty to the King. I thought the title of the book referred to Mary as the lesser-known of the Boleyn sisters, but here it is used to refer to Anne.
Second, the script has the characters periodically address the audience as if in confession. Apparently this is intended to give a bit of back story and explain their motives, but it is amateurish in execution.
On top of the bad script, the direction is stunningly bad. There are too many shots done with a circling camera which is none-too-steady at best and downright shaky at worst. Several of the speeches are delivered tentatively, as if in a first rehearsal. The production values for Henry's flamboyant court are minimal. The costumes vary: some are copies of historical portraits and others are from some costume designer's fevered imagination. And the King, the source of all power and favors, is often shown ALONE. No fawning courtiers, no servants in the background - where are all the people?? I am accustomed to Hollywood turning history into fantasy, but I expected better from a BBC production. Even based on a flawed book this production is 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\ni was lucky enough to read the book beforehand and i do know a little about Tudor england.
the writing directing and editing of this TV movie for the most part was truly awful. i felt as if i was watching a really bad drama doc about the period rater then a movie.
first there were too many cut's between important parts. And leaving out important events which happened at the time, one is henry's fall out with Rome over his desire to divorce Katherine of aragon which led to england's breaking away from Rome and establishing her own church. they barely stuck to the book at all. i'm all for creative freedom but to a limit, especially when your dealing with a well written book as your starter point. in the book Mary give's birth to young Catherine first and then she has young Henry is born. Both their father is Henry's the eight. in the movie they show harry's first then Catherine. And suggest that Catherine father is William Carey.
there are too many bad moment's in the movie to write them all.
i will however say that Jodhi May and Natascha McElhone portrayal as the Boleyn sisters was probably the best part of the movie.
if you haven't read the book and know nothing about Hennry's the 8 court i will recommend to stay away from this movie. And for those who read the book the movie will annoy you for it's lack of details and important plot'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\nThis movie twists the facts of Anne and Mary's lives into something unrecognizable. To make Mary Boleyn, who in fact was a rather dim and foolish creature, and make her the \"good\" sister is just silly. It is Anne who was in fact the far more interesting character, and that is why it is her life, and not Mary's, that has been told so often.
In response to an earlier review, I fail to see how Anne's life was so \"criminal\"... to me it's Henry who was the real criminal. Whatever Anne's motives for winning the king and withholding her affections in order to gain a crown and husband has to be taken into context of the time in which these real-life events took place. Anne, in comparison to the majority of most of the courtiers in her time, was a relatively innocent figure. Most modern historians discount or have disproven most of the myths and slanders that this movie perpetuate about her, and I have never heard of anyone who actually believes the rumour than she slept with her brother. This movie is so sensational and false that it is maddening to think that someone, without knowing anything about this period in history, could walk away believing anything this movie has presented as \"fact\".
I won't even get into the weird filming of the movie... but I'm pretty sure that cameras weren't invented in the 16th century, so I don't understand why Anne and Mary are talking to one throughout the movie... it's a really bad plot devise and is jarring and annoying, to put it mildly.
Anne of the Thousand Days is not accurate either, but is infinitely more entertaining and at least comes closer to telling the story of one of the most intriguing women of history. Don't even think about renting this.. it's two hours you'll never get back!
\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 included in the Six Wives of Henry VIII BBC miniseries DVD. I loved those six movies. They were well-acted, well-scripted, and historically accurate. I did actually read Gregory's book and liked it well enough despite it's HUGE historical inaccuracies (I mean the whole fake homosexual angle with George Boleyn in particular), but this movie didn't even mention that. That angle was one of the pivotal points of the book.
Above all this movie just leaves me asking \"WHY?\" Why do we see, as someone else aptly put, \"The Real World: Tudor England\"? Why are the camera angles so bad in general?
Why is the script so bad? I mean, I know it was improv, but come on! The actors at time stutter and stammer over their lines and it's obvious that they're making them up as they go along.
Why are the sex scenes so awkward? The way they were done in the book made them at least somewhat interesting. In the movie they're just bad, verging on being absolutely hilarious. At one point, the actress playing Mary Boleyn was having sex with the actor playing Henry VIII. He's thrusting away and she's got this look on her face that says \"Hm....I need to go to the store. Is he done yet? Maybe if he finishes I can go pick up some cheese real quick...\" It's just bad.
Why does Catherine of Aragon play such a small role in this movie? Her refusal to get a divorce was one of the leading causes for the scandal that rocked Christiandom. She's the reason why Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn couldn't get immediately married. Why is she not present here? Over all, this movie is just 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\nI realize a period piece is expensive to make, and that this style of shooting (close framed shots to camera, moving camera, wide aperture shots, washed-out) allows such films to be made for a price. As a style, it has advantages and disadvantages like any other, it allows more period pieces to be made. Like any style it has its detractors and supporters - there are probably even those that believe that this manner of shooting has an artistic basis.
If only some of the money saved, could have been spent on the script for whatever style is used, a film needs good writing and good acting.
The acting in this film is mostly very good. The writing less so. It is composed of a collection of bits taken from the book and much which is relevant to the plot is left out making for a disjointed collection of scenes with little or no continuity.
If you have read the book, do not under any circumstances watch it. If you have not read the book, are easily pleased and have nothing better to do there is no harm in watching it, but be prepared to be disappointed.
It could have been so much better.
\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't express enough just how bad this film was. First of all what a waste of some legendary stars although they are quite old and pretty unconvincing. Fred Astaire, well I guess he must have owed some one a big favor as this was his last film role. The script is a mess and the film seems terribly draggy. I imagine maybe if I saw this back when it came out (1981) I might have thought it was decent. However seeing so many actual good horror films, this was one of the worst. The only real convincing anything in this mess was the very young and lovely sort/of creepy Alice Krige. The main young character was trying to act the best he could but was utterly terrible. I wasn't sure how much of it was from his lack of skill or the lack of a comprehend-able script, but either way he was just plain bad. Don't watch unless you want to see a bunch of old guys be somewhat scared.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"