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\nWhen \"Deranged\" was made the film-makers saw fit to turn Ed Gein into Ezra Cobb even though the resultant film was actually quite close to the facts of the notorious case. I presume that enough was fictionalised that they thought they should change names and such.
\"Ed Gein - The Butcher Of Plainfield\" masquerades as a true story retelling of the Gein case, but actually bears very little resemblance to the history. As a biopic type film it is a travesty. If ever a film needed names changing it is this one, far more so than \"Deranged\". It is as close to the true crime story as \"Dirty Harry\" was to the true story of the Zodiac killings.
OK, so, that annoyance aside, how is it as a horror film? Well, as a horror film, well, as a film generally, it is quite appalling. One of the worst films I have sat through in months. Issues run thus: 1) Kane Hodder is quite astonishingly miscast as Ed Gein. Utterly unsuitable in the part, Hodder just lumbers through glowering menacingly. Very bad.
2) Kane Hodder is the best actor in the film! The rest of the cast are rather \"amateur dramatics\" and utterly unengaging. It is painful to witness some lines being delivered.
3) The occasional efforts of stylish film-making seem to come from \"The Big Book Of Moody Cinematography Cliché\". You've seen it all before, better executed. Aside from the efforts at style, the rest of the film-making is largely inept: cameras shake, framing is bad, there are overlong pointless shots holding back the pace...which leads me to...
4) It seems to go on forever. It is under 90 minutes in length, but sitting through it is an ordeal. You'd swear it ran two and a half hours.
5) Ed Gein almost seems secondary. Mostly the film is concerned with the family affairs of a newly promoted Deputy Sheriff. Said Deputy is played by an abysmal actor upon whose shoulders no film should rest.
Is anything good about it? Well, the gore FX are very good. Some convincing wounds are in display and the make-up is generally excellent. None of this, however, makes up for the massive failings of the film.
It doesn't even have any kitsch value, it's just bad; not enjoyably bad, not \"so bad it's good\", just genuinely bad. A film to avoid and despise.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI just saw this movie and it turns out to be pretty lame just as mentioned by other user reviews and the one thing that bothered me the most was the southern accent some of the characters had, it took place in Wisconsin, not the south. As mentioned from other reviews, Ed Geine wasn't a big dude, so why did the guy that plays Jason and Leatherface portray him?
I fast forwarded through most of it being that there are many slow parts.
Hopefully someone will do their homework on Ed Geine and the town and make a more accurate 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 the worst movie I have ever seen and believe me I've sen a lot of bad movies. I love cheeesy horror but this was just terrible. There was not one scene in this film where I felt scared. All the actors must have been people that they found at a bus stop 20 minutes prior to shooting. I wish that Blockbutser would have given me my 99 cents back. The acting was terrible. The writing was incredibly bad. Someone had to screen this movie before it was released and had to know that it was terrible. I'd be embarrassed to have my name associated with this monstrosity. Don't rent this movie. If you do, don't return it so no other poor souls will ever make the mistake of renting 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\nAll of the great horror movies of the 70's, 80's, and even the early 90's from Psycho, to Texas Chainsaw Masacre (The original not that warmed over WB crap), to Silence of the Lambs. The characters in these movies were based upon the crimes of Ed Gein. The writers and directors tapped into the true story for the inspiration for creating some of the greatest *fictional* movie killers of all time.
The old horror films were great because even though the crimes were loosely based upon the facts of the case of Ed Gein, they were truly fictional and far removed from the true story.
In the case of this movie, they've created a fictional horror film in which they tried to capitalize on the true story in order to sell a cheap, poorly acted, love story between two characters that nobody really cares about. In fact, in a *good* horror film these two characters would have been excellent victims.
End of Lecture...
In short, this film was like wearing clammy underwear on a cold afternoon sipping on a nice cup of chilled vomit.
\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 got this movie for fifty cents at a going out of business sale. I want my fifty cents back. Bad acting, poor script writing, lousy direction, historically inaccurate, even the sound of the film is awful. It's not the subject matter that offends. I'm one of the many who find suspense films and true crime films very interesting. The subject matter could have been treated more seriously, with much more attention to detail and accuracy, and the lack of respect shown for the victims and their devastated friends and family is enough to puzzle anyone. Also, there is little to no attention paid to what could have caused someone to begin the bizarre behavior that Ed Gein was displaying in acting out these horrible crimes.
Save your time and sanity. Don't watch this awful film. If you bought it, you have my sympathy. It's not a total waste though...you can throw away the disc and make use of the plastic case!
\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\nPLEASE people! DO NOT bother with this poorly directed joke. The direction was totally wrong from the outset. Where is the history of his mothers' emotional interference and the general madness in the original family? Why is ED portrayed as this large, overbearing imposing figure full of anger and hate? What IS this crap? The writer and director obviously did no research into the history and just wanted to cash in on the infamous Gein name. The fools who made this movie took so many liberties with the truth, it's ridiculous. If you want t see a brilliant Gein film. go back to the minor classic \"Deranged\" to see how Ed really was. There is humor in that film, and Ed is portrayed as more of the sad, lonely slight man he was, according-to HISTORY. Where is the background story here? There is just poorly set-up shocks (that are not shocking) that we've seen before, and more accomplished as well. Take the worst Texas Chainsaw massacre ripoff, and add this one to that list. Had to give it ONE out of ten because rating wouldn't accept ZERO. I want my money BACK. If anyone regards this film as 'stunning' is possibly getting a financial kickback to do so.
\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\nEd Gein, one of the most famous serial killers of all time, he was the inspiration for famous movie killers like Norman Bates, Leatherface, and Buffalo Bill. He is also one of the most sick and disturbing killers of all time, I watched a documentary on him, so I know his story pretty well. When I saw this, I was curious because I thought it was supposed to be like a documentary re-enactment, but I have to say that this was just a pathetic waste of time. First off, the facts are completely wrong, with a few minor exceptions, and secondly, this was just a stupid Hollywood story when these horrific murders really happened and they just made it into a cheap buck. Not to mention that if they were going to make it into a horror movie, this was poorly acted!
Ed Gein, he lives in a small town in Wisconsin called Plainfield, but he has a little secret that the whole town is being effected by, he digs up dead bodies, as well as brutally murdering people. Bobby, a deputy, is on the case to get Ed Gein, only, no one knows who the killer is at first, just finding crime scene after crime scene. But things get \"personal\" when Ed starts messing with the policemen's family and friends.
Of course this movie was just ridicules and completely insulting to the true story. I always thought that bad acting is a necessary tool to a horror flick, but for this story, it should have been a better acted film, not to mention, it should have been more of a documentary than a stupid cliché'd horror film. Please, stay away from this film, it's completely pathetic and untrue to the story of Ed Gein.
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\nMichael Feifer writes and directs this fictitious story based on the arrest of Edward Gein in Plainfield, Wisconsin. Gein was responsible for a rash of gruesome murders that sent a shock wave of terror through his rural hometown in the late 1950's. His evil mind and twisted world is suspected to be caused by his domineering zealous Lutheran mother. Ed was given the nickname \"The Butcher of Plainfield\". He would rob corpses from fresh graves of women who resembled his mother and he would have sex with them before 'dressing them like a deer' in his garage. Severed heads with bodies hanging upside down being his personal trademark. After his arrest there would be many articles made from human skin found in his home. In this movie, a young deputy Bobby Mason(Shawn Hoffman)makes the search for Gein(Kane Hodder)a personal one, when his storekeeper mother(Priscilla Barnes)goes missing. The acting is a whole lot better than the ridiculously liberal telling of the documented events concerning Gein. Also in the cast: Adrienne Frantz, Timothy Oman, John Burke, Michael Berryman and Amy Lyndon.
\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 story of Ed Gein is interesting, VERY interesting. This movie, however, interesting only in the fact that it was actually made. Kane Hodder's portrayal of Ed Gein is so far off, it's not even the slightest bit funny. Ed Gein did not behave psychotic in public, he was very calm and collected and always extremely polite to everybody and talked to anybody who would listen, this is one of the major things this movie failed to show the audience. But the biggest mistake of this movie, side from even one frame ever being shot, was that Ed never killed anyone without having been told to do so by his dead mother, whom he thought was speaking to him from beyond the grave. He killed only the people who his dead mother said he had to because it was God's will, and he was very remorseful about it, though that didn't stop him from experimenting with cannibalism and wearing people's flesh. I officially gave this movie a rating of \"1\" simply because \"0\" wasn't given to me as an option.
I highly advise all to stay clear of this movie. If you want to see a movie that accurately depicts Ed Gein and doesn't try to put in a sub-plot love story between a cop and a fictional woman who never existed, i HIGHLY advise you see the original movie, which unfortunately seems to not be on IMDb.com though i could be wrong, but i have yet to find it here. The original doesn't stray from the actual events and doesn't try to twist the story. I can understand telling the story from a different perspective, but this movie just tried to straight change the true story itself, something that i find as horrible as if someone made a movie based on 9/11, but gave it a twist that Canada was behind it. Or a WWII movie saying Hitler was a good guy and helped fight the Nazi'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\nI am a big fan of horror movies, and know a lot of info on serial killers. Obviously the director of this one refused to research the film he was creating, because half of the movie was fictional. More than that, the character of Ed Gein was portrayed in the wrong light. I did not rent the movie to worry about the Deputy and his girlfriend Erica. I rented it to watch Ed Gein and his legendary story. This movie was awful, the only reason I gave it a 2 out of 10 is because the gore wasn't too bad. Acting= horrible Actors= sub par Movie= waste of time.
A big upset all around, but i wont give up my search for a good horror 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\nJust saw this at the Madison Horror Film Festival and was disappointed. A few shocking, funny moments (fisting the hollow Carla, a urinating harpy in the Dreamland) and two competing interesting premises (similar to New Nightmare with belief bringing a mythical character to life and also Lost Highway with a man living out a fantasy in his head) but had long stretches of no movement and incoherent plot development. Just because you use the framework of dreams or a mental fugue state doesn't make it Lynchian. You need the compelling visuals and creepy performances.
Positive things: Dr. Maitland had real comic timing and all the girls were very cute. Carla's Father, Chalmers, and Ingrid Pitt looked like they were having some fun. And Tom Savini at least looked like he had his lines memorized and we couldn't see if he was just reading cue cards.
I get the Hammer references, but it looks like the director realized the script was a snoozer and just added some shocks to try and get some laughs out of whatever footage he could put together. But they don't work because they're too few and far between and create an inconsistent tone. Condense this to 30 minutes of all the fun parts and you could have a surreal goofy short, but at feature length, skip it. It's not \"so bad it's good\" it's just \"so bad it's boring\".
\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 good intentions were enough to produce a good film, I would have rated the turgid, ponderous, obvious \"Focus\" a bit higher than 4. Macy does his best, but as an earlier poster commented, Miller's little parable asks us to suspend disbelief too often. Perhaps the novel gives us a bit more background on Newman, so we can understand how someone who is obviously not without intelligence could be so dense in perceiving the attitudes of those around him. I agree with another reviewer that if one is unaware of how bigoted average citizens were in America during this time period, then this movie might be an eye-opener. I grew up in the fifties, and the \"good\" pastors of my Lutheran church found nothing wrong with having the church picnic at a commercial beach, whose sign prominently indicated that no Jews or blacks would be admitted. It is difficult for young people today to understand that this was the norm, and not just in the South. As late as 1964, when I graduated from a somewhat racially integrated (but sexually segregated) public high school in Baltimore, my black classmates could not attend the traditional \"father and son banquet,\" as it was held at a facility which did not admit blacks. Sadly, it was an establishment owned by a Jewish family. The subject matter of \"Focus\" is important, and we should never forget, despite the lingering signs of racism in modern America, how truly repulsive the attitudes of that previous generation were.(The \"greatest generation,\" indeed). So, perhaps this film is somewhat valuable in countering the recent wave of sentimental crap about the forties from the likes of Steven Spielberg and Tom Brokow. But in the end, as in \"Far From Heaven,\" the filmmakers' good intentions are undermined by having a protagonist so ridiculously oblivious to the social conventions of their 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 had never heard of this film until it came to DVD. I was immediately intrigued by everything about it: the actors, the title, the cover, and especially the author. Arthur Miller, you can't go wrong with him, can you? Yep. I haven't read the novel, but I'm going to guess it was a lot better than the film. I had high hopes for this movie. I love Macy and Dern, and it looked interesting. Unfortunately, this film never really rises above cookie-cutter messages about racism and bigotry. If you've never seen any other films that deal with this subject, or if you never knew that America was founded on bigotry, then maybe this film will wow you. Others will probably find it predictable, stale, and overall bland.
\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 somewhat-belligerent brother of a suicide finds that he and his mother grieve in much the same way (by acting out) but that Dad is morose and blaming himself. Writer-director Dan Harris gives us a dysfunctional family torn at the seams, characters with question marks hanging over them, and then lays all the story-points out in the most obvious terms: Suicide! Secrets! Gay shame! Family sickness! Ultimately aiming to wrap things up with a tidy bow, Harris wants to make sure we don't miss a trick, initially giving us thoughtful material to ponder but then spelling everything out in an elementary, sentimental fashion. Sigourney Weaver's bemused performance as the family matriarch is dryly disengaged and she's a joy--that is, until Harris gives her a make-over (complete with sensible new hairstyle). It's the cinematic equivalent of a condescending pat on the head. ** from ****
\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\nViewers of independent films know that once or twice a year they are going to see stories about dysfunctional families and they have come to expect them and it's becoming more of a challenge to keep them fresh but here despite the good cast it just seems more of the same. Story is about the Travis family who is trying to recover from the suicide of Matt (Kip Pardue) who was a very promising high school swimmer. Ben (Jeff Daniels) is the father who withdraws from everyone and has never treated his other son Tim (Emile Hirsch) as well as Matt but he does communicate (of some sort) to his mother Sandy (Sigourney Weaver) who finds his stash of pot and starts to smoke it.
*****SPOILER ALERT***** Sandy also starts to flirt with much younger men like the check-out cashier at the grocery store but when she attempts to buy more marijuana she gets busted and hauled off to jail. She doesn't tell anyone what happened but she does discover bruises on Tim's body and also that Ben has taken a leave of absence from work. After all this happens Sandy falls ill and lands in the hospital where her life is in danger which forces Ben to realize that he may have to come to terms with losing another part of his family.
This film is written and directed by Dan Harris who has worked with Bryan Singer on \"X2\" and also the upcoming Superman film and while his script allows these characters to have genuine moments of expressing their pain and confusion the story (for me) just has too many things thrown in. The script touches on so many different areas that you need a scorecard to keep track of them all including drugs, sex, love, infidelity, abuse, neglect, experimentation with homosexuality, and a life threatening illness. If all those scenarios weren't enough for you Harris then tacks on a plot twist at the end that's supposed to sum up and explain most of everyone's feelings towards Tim. While I did roll my eyes at least 2 or 3 times with the way the script kept unrolling one thing after another I must admit that I didn't hate this film and I have to credit the actors for that. Everyone has at least one good scene somewhere in the film but I wish the story would have concentrated more on Weaver and her character than Hirsch. Weaver is exceptional and with a sharper script she could have had a role that maybe would have led to an Oscar nomination but instead we get endless scenes of Hirsch at parties or his shenanigans with the neighbor next door. Harris shows he can be a good writer/director but with this effort he just throws so many different things at the audience that the material just becomes labored and contrived.
\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===========BIG SPOILER================================== This is a terrible movie with no likable characters. So many clichés and senseless scenes. It needs a good editor but then there might not be any movie left. Please save your two hours. The only decent and unpredictable scene in the movie was when the younger brother refuses to stop his brother from killing himself. The description read \"moments of dark comedy\". Perhaps I missed those when I blinked. The horrible characters start right with the funeral. The funeral goers are laughing and complaining about the food while at the funeral of a very young man who has committed suicide? Then the father makes digs at the only son left? Right at the funeral? How is it that the next door neighbor whose husband cheated on her with Sigourney Weaver's character is the bad guy for telling the husband? The father doesn't even know his son can play the piano though everyone else around him seems to know he is a great pianist. The movie tries to shove every dramatic cliché possible into one movie: father over-driving athletic son to succeed, dysfunctional family losing a chosen son to suicide, the son left feeling lost and alone, drugs, marital affairs, child conceived via affair but raised as husband's son, incest, homosexual tendencies, bullies, possible terminal illness, etc, etc, etc. DO NOT WASTE YOUR 2 HOURS.
\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 character's movie. The plot wasn't that hot when it was there, but the characters were interesting and very well-acted. The story focuses on the Travis family in the wake of the eldest son's suicide. I say that loosely, because the story is mostly about the surviving son and the mother, because if the father WAS supposed to have the story focus on him too, they edited the movie pretty poorly. The acting on all parts was very good, particularly Emile Hirsch as the surviving, confused son. The characters were all very interesting and I didn't mind watching them until late in the film, when it just seemed to drag.
My big complaint, however, was the story. The son killing himself was supposed to be the center of the plot. However, it really wasn't. It was something that happened at the start of the story, but then everything went every which way. Then they'd mention that the son killed himself to remind you that that was the central thread. The other thing was that the big plot twists, of which there were plenty, were never really explained or built up to, but just thrown in there randomly and often from far left field. In fairness, the ending was very, very cool. But it was also clear where the inspiration for the story came from: about half of it (the half that wasn't padding) was pretty much lifted from the story in the Pearl Jam song Alive. Which reminds me...
There was a \"poem\" in the movie that was supposedly written by someone who killed themself. I could not have been the only one who recognized that said poem was lifted, word for word, from that very same song. I dunno, this was a movie I had hope for, and they really, really dropped the ball.
\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 wretched psychodrama uses every shabby device in the book to wheedle attention and sympathy from us for its characters, who, with one exception, are not worthy of any notice at all, let alone two precious hours of filmgoers' time.
As in Robert Redford's \"Ordinary People\" (a superb film that, in comparison, clearly shows up the vacuity of \"Heroes\"), a late teenage boy has died, leaving his family in the throes of bereavement. In this case, the death was a suicide, an event that nearly always poisons the emotional well of the survivors in a particularly corrosive way. We follow these people over the next 8 or 9 months.
The father (Jeff Daniels) becomes a withdrawn, virtually mute, usually drunken stiff who secretly takes leave from his job for months, sits instead on a park bench all day, and insists on setting a full plate of food at the deceased son's place for every meal. He treats everyone else in the family with unerring nastiness. He sees his doctor regularly but the issue of therapeutic intervention in his obviously dysfunctional state never comes up.
The mother (Sigourney Weaver) yells at the neighbor woman, among others, gets busted when she stupidly tries to buy \"marijuana\" (her term) at a head shop (what adult in reality would ever try such a dumb stunt?), and, near the end, swoons into coma with a lung condition that everyone in the theater assumes is cancer (she's a heavy smoker). Ms. Weaver has a few flip lines but generally behaves too unintelligently to merit much empathy.
It's not that there aren't people out there who behave in these silly ways when severely stressful circumstances arise. But why make a film of such drivel? What can anyone learn from this pair's conduct?
The deceased's older sister (Michelle Williams) is away at college and all too happy to distance herself from the family zoo. The younger brother (played by Emile Hirsch) is the only credible member of the family. His suffering is genuine, its causes multifold, and his conduct is coherent within the circumstances. But Hirsch's character is too soft spoken, too morose and beaten down, to carry the movie. The other bit players, subtexts and cutesy, unreal dialogue don't help.
The suicide theme is echoed in an almost nonchalant manner in the case of two other minor characters. So what is the writer-director, Dan Harris, trying to say about this subject? That it isn't a serious matter? Why Jeff Daniels agreed to play the sap of a father as written in this screenplay is something only his therapist might possibly be able to answer. Avoid this dog. Instead rent Redford's classic. My rating: 4/10 (C-). (Seen on 2/17/05). If you'd like to read more of my reviews, send me a message for directions to my websites.
\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\nKinda funny how comments for this film went consistently downhill, now add mine. I think the script could have been saved by better acting, and the acting by a better script. Together, it was difficult to watch, and I don't flinch from such subject matter.
Sigourney was the best part (I thought the relationship between her and her surviving son was pretty much the only new thing this film offered to its genre) but even she lagged. Can't blame her, who knows what takes were left on the cutting room floor by the director and/or editor. The whole movie had an \"okay, that's good enough, let's move on\" feel to it, when I KNOW there was more to be mined from the actors and the script, which did have some good lines and some interesting themes.
I don't think this counts as a spoiler, but a perfect example is the scene where Sigourney marches up to her son's supposed tormentor's house and has this look on her face and I thought \"that's the face of someone who is overacting what it's like to see someone living in a mobile home\" and sure enough, next shot, meant to shock us I'm sure, bully lives in a trailer as opposed to a nice house, like hers.
As many other posters have pointed out, there are SO MANY better movies with similarly airy scripts about similarly messed up families that hit the notes better -- \"Celebration\" probably being the ultimate example that I've 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\nStylized Hollywood Westerns, full of familiar conventions, seem to have eternal life and this is an avatar. Everything in it seems to have been scraped out of the back of a drawer from 1939, a larger budget applied, and this production its issue.
Gary Cooper has played this sort of role dozens of times -- the displaced Southerner, fast on the draw and firm with honor, though kinda easy going whenever possible. He plays Blayde Hollister who travels to Texas looking for the gang who destroyed his cotton plantation. He wears a buckskin-fringed shirt and packs two ivory-handled six shooters. He speaks with a countrified accent -- \"A feller could get hurt doin' this.\" (Cf., \"Sergeant York.\") The gang is led by sneering Raymond Massey, who buys and sells land, usually by underhanded means whenever possible. The gang includes Steve Cochran, who cannot play a Westerner though he's very good at scum bags in general. The requisite woman is Ruth Roman, daughter of the Mexican plantation owner, who looks and speaks about as Mexican as a Boston brown betty.
I don't think I'll bother too much with the plot. No doubt someone has gone into it in some detail and it's not worth much more mention. As in any 1939 Western, it's labyrinthine. Everyone except Cooper and his friends are underhanded and there are multiple double crosses and switched identities and hidden secrets.
Everything is retro. The plot, the dialog, the wardrobe, even the music. The score is by Warner's stalwart Max Steiner. He's the guy that scored \"King Kong.\" That was 1932. This movie was released in 1950.
Cooper's name, by the way -- \"Blayde Hollister\" -- prompted me to look through the records of the RACA -- the Real American Cowboy Associaton -- to see if that name cropped up in their archives, which date from the beginning of time to February 4th, 1911, when the last Real Cowboy passed away due to an unfortunate encounter with a deranged peccary. There has never been a Real Cowboy with the name Blayde. Hollister, yes, but not Blayde. As a matter of fact, there is no record of any Real Cowboy named Wade, Luke, Cole, or Matt either. The most popular names for genuine cowboys, in descending order of frequency, were Clarence, Mortimer, Noble, Nebukadnezzar, Plautus, Pinchbeck, and Hortense.
If this movie had been released in 1939, it would have been routine. In 1950, it is a calamitous monument in the history of human recycling.
\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 most ridiculous westerns that Hollywood ever made. Gary Cooper plays 'Reb Hollister', a former confederate officer wanted by the law. He meets up with a moron named Weatherby, played by Leif Erickson, who is a U.S. Marshal with no knowledge of firearms. Weatherby is on his way to Dallas to see his fiancee, Tonia Robles, played by Ruth Roman. Senor Robles, Tonia's father, has plenty of men, but they can't seem to be able to keep an eye on his cattle, which are regularly rustled by the Marlow brothers. Will Marlow, played by Raymond Massey, has financed the loan on the Robles estate, making things completely absurd. He even has the power to call for mortgage payments before they're due, simply because he feels like it.
Since Weatherby is a Boston boy who can't fight, since he only became a Marshal so he could visit his fiancee, Tonia, (Just another instance of more plot nonsense. Are we to assume that you only have to pass a written test to get this job? Wait a minute, this guy couldn't pass the written test either.) he switches identities with Reb Hollister, who of course is an expert gunman. Reb takes the liberty of greeting Weatherby's girl with a passionate kiss, while Weatherby looks on like an idiot. Gary Cooper, Hollywood's number one stud, is in fine form here as Reb. Before the movie's done, not only does he take Weatherby's job, he steals his fiancee also, and Ruth Roman as Tonia, falls for him so hard and so fast that she gives chump Leif Erickson the brush-off before the films little more than half over.
There isn't a shred of plot credibility in the whole film, so despite the good cast and lush photography, the film is a dud. And Cooper's character is a complete heel to boot. The film also stars Barbara Payton as Brant Marlow's girl, a beautiful and talented actress who squandered away her chances, unfortunately, by making too many headlines for the wrong reasons. I strongly suggest you pass this one up.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is the most pitiful excuse for a comedy show I've ever seen. I'm confounded that this guy was given his own show. It smells of complete and utter desperation on the part of comedy central, trying to fill the void left by the talented and incomparable Dave Chapelle. He's a tip from Ned's bag of comedy gold: Is a punchline not funny? Need to give it that extra push into hilarity? F***ING YELL IT AT THE TOP OF YOUR LUNGS. Simple, no? And as an added bonus....finish half your jokes with...THEN YOU'RE RE-TAH-DED!! or DUH-DU-DUUUUHHHH! Oh man. So....funny. Beaner...hilarious. Wetback....does the laughter ever stop?
To illustrate my point in a more cerebral way, i'll cite an example. Mencia jokes about how \"retarded\" it is to rebuild new orleans, because it's so close to the water. Genius. The line of distinction between a great comedian and a hack has never been drawn so clearly. While a good comedian would find hidden humor in the tragedy, finding subtle ways of weaving a joke into something that we can all laugh at and take solace in, Ned goes for the obvious. Move the city. Great. Wait, is that funny? Ned doesn't have the intellectual capacity to find the deepest meaning of things. The hurricane didn't flood the city, ned. The levee project was underfunded and in serious need of federal dollars...and behold! They broke. I guess that's God's way of telling us we shouldn't be there. After all, he's got a seat in congress. What a fool.
Chapelle was a master of turning a tired racial comedic spin on its head. He was effortless at it, and at all points, we were laughing with him. While mencia talks about black people not being able to swim *yawn,* Chapelle took it 300 yards further with the black and blind white supremesist. You don't have to be scathing to be edgy. You have to be original.
Mencia and his legions of fans are like that closeted gay dude who laughs all too emphatically at gay jokes, thinking it somehow masks his own insecurities. Except of course, with Ned, he's laughing all too emphatically at the \"retards.\" Du-du-duuuuh.
\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 thought \"puppets making crank phone calls\" was pretty low, but I don't believe that Carlos Mencia's show even qualifies as comedy. His main objective is to make the audience incredibly uncomfortable while using the word \"beaner\" as many times as he possible can. I have never felt compelled to write a review declaring the awfulness of anything on IMDb before, but I really do hope this show is never renewed or rerun.
Mencia is trying to be the next Dave Chapelle, and perhaps he was only hired by the network because they hoped he would fill those shoes. It is obvious right down to the rip of Chapelle's intro (blues guys vs. mariachi band). However, Mencia has absolutely *no* attitude, and does not delve into popular views of the hispanic culture enough to come up with a creative poke at it each time. Instead he sticks to a small number of hardly-shocking nicknames for his fellow latinos and makes \"jokes\" about immigration. Every once in a while, he'll take advantage of the slight darkness of his skin to make fun of someone else, like middle eastern cultures. These jokes mainly consist of reiterating every joke or stereotype made against the culture, and perhaps some incredibly old topics (such as 9/11), in a watered down, stand-up style, while he laughs at himself to cover up the audience's style. I think he's too afraid of really offending anyone, so it just makes the viewer feel awkward. He also beats jokes to death. If you've ever seen \"Why the f*** is this news?\" you'll know what I'm talking about. It's funny at first, but he just rambles on and on and becomes Captain Obvious at some point.
It's a trainwreck that is purely 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\nI haven't watched this show in months, but for a while I was forced to watch it every day because I had a roommate that liked it. So maybe it's undergone some vast improvement in all that time, although the commercials and the 4.2 rating on IMDb aren't a good sign.
It was clearly just a quick replacement for Chappelle's Show. Even Mencia says so. And while I wasn't even that big a fan of Chappelle's Show, his jokes were at least original and clever (and far edgier than Mencia has ever been). Mencia's jokes are completely unoriginal and stale. If you can't see that, I guess there's just no hope for you. But to be fair, here are some examples:
--Mencia blatantly rips off Chapelle's Lil Jon skit. Just takes it.
--\"South Park\" makes an episode about scientology. One week later, Mencia has a joke on his show about how offensive he is to scientologists. Bear in mind the joke isn't ABOUT scientologists, but about how much he's offended them on his show. When up to this point, he has never made a single scientology joke, ever.
--After Hurricane Katrina, two AP photos go around the Internet showing a black man \"looting\" groceries and a white woman \"finding\" them. WEEKS later, after millions of people have already seen this, Mencia presents it on his show as if he discovered it and it's being shown for the first time (the Daily Show would have been on something like that in a day). Pathetic.
Even more annoying than the joke-stealing is the way Carlos has promoted himself and his show, claiming he's breaking down some sort of PC barrier (whatever) and that if you aren't laughing, you must be a weak prude who can't handle any jokes about race. Yes, Carlos, it's not because you're not funny, it's because we're all too offended to laugh (if that was really true, then why was Chappelle's Show so popular?). He constantly berates his audience for \"not getting it\" if he doesn't get enough laughs, and often repeats and EXPLAINS his jokes, a technique most comedians stop using by age 14.
The worst part is that Mencia does not seem to be very intelligent. It's sort of tragic that there are dozens of funnier, more insightful comedians out there trying to make it while this guy is rolling in money. His show is supposedly the third highest rated on Comedy Central, which is baffling (again, it has a 4.2 rating on this site). Where the hell are they getting these numbers?? Comedy Central tries to bill itself as an \"edgy\" station, but as long as it tries to appeal to the dumbest audience possible, that will never be the case.
\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...so where's my friggin trophy? I seriously expected a banner and confetti to drop from my ceiling for watching a full 30 minutes of that crap. Comedy Central is truly dropping the ball lately, trying to fill the void left by Chappelle with multiple seasons of a retarded man impersonating retarded men. Dah duh nah!! If you pay attention to the show, you'll notice that when Mencia isn't stuttering over punchlines and laughing at his own skits, he only makes exaggerated observations which seem to lack any sense of humor. You ever notice how people in Buick's drive really slow? It's like Dah duh nah! Not even the midgets and half naked hot chicks manage to distract from Mencia's distinct lack of talent. Furthermore, Mencia isn't even a \"wetback\" as he constantly and adamantly proclaims he is, which makes him a fraud on top of it all.
If anything good could be said about Mencia, it's his effort. The man clearly has no talent, but like a wounded antelope in the mouth of a hungry alligator, god knows he's trying.
\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\nYup, that's right folks, this is undoubtedly the worst show in the history of television. If you want to watch a sad, lonely and unfunny hack comedian attempt to entertain the masses with a half hour of pale and tired social ramblings that your mildly retarded cousin commented on at the Thanksgiving dinner table then this might be the show for you. This is billed as edgy comedy my friends but to be honest this makes Tim Allen look like Richard Pryor. Avoid at all costs. Unless you're a masochist.
\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 is it now-a-days that minority comedians feel its okay to slander their minority and expect to get away with it?
Carlos Mencia is no George Lopez. There IS a difference. When watching comedian Carlos Mencia, I think he hates his own people. And more than that, I think he was forced to pattern his show as the \"Hispanic/Latino/Spanish\" version of the Dave Chappelle show. What a horrible mistake. (Note to Mencia: Please do not do a \"Block Party\" movie. As much as I would like to see Santana, Tierra, El Chicano, Christina Agullaria, Jennifer Lopez, Shakira and the reunion of the cast of \"Xica da Silva\" on one stage, don't.)
Carlos Mencia likes to use the word \"beaners\" as much as Dave Chappelle liked using the \"n\" word. Neither is funny and neither is acceptable, even if it's from 'their own people'. Carols Mencia also likes to say, \"If you're offended, too bad\". It's not the offense, it's the defense because of what is being said and asked to be accepted.
Carols Mencia goes further - he disrespects everyone for what he assumes is comedy. It's not comedy, it's not funny. There is a finesse to being able to look at yourself and make others laugh out of comedy and not laugh out of enforcing stereotypes that other races believed in the beginning.
Mind of Mencia needs polishing because Carlos Mencia needs polishing. Find out what is funny and not what will set more prejudices in motion and then - do it. Until then, the show, Mind of Mencia is a pass.
\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\nCarlos Mencia just plain isn't funny! His show is painful to watch because of that. His sketches/parodies are all very horrible, and this really just feels like a filler for the Chapelle Show, which while I'm not a big fan of that, it is much funnier than this trash. Carlos Mencia gives the stupid speeches and he all too often depends on finishing his monologues with a retarded voice and going \"der, der der.\" It's just not funny. He often, when talking to others, makes puns. They are horrible and painful. When people don't laugh, he blames them...why would anyone laugh, he's not funny. He has an immature sense of humor in everything he does on this show, it's amazing that anyone but 3 year olds watch this. One of my least favorite things he does, is water down every topic and make it seem like a joke! I hope that this racist idiot gets taken off the air as soon as possible because he's dumbing down a station that doesn't need to be dumbed down anymore.
\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 a great example of what happened at Comedy Central after Dave Chapelle left. Here's the problem with Carlos Mencia. Firstly, his birth name is Ned Holness, and was known that until he was 18, when he switched his name to Ned Arnel Mencia. He was born in Honduras, though he acts like he's from Mexico. He grew up in the United States, as well.
I might be able to forgive all that crap, but...
He's been caught stealing other peoples material. Joe Rogan has been his most vocal critic in this way. The Stereotype Olympics was an idea he ripped off a couple of DJ's from Miami. He has stolen jokes from Bill Cosby. He stole George Lopez's material in his own HBO special (13 minutes of it).
He thinks what he's doing is so original, but Dave Chapelle and Lisa Lampanelli have been cracking on race for years before this idiot (amoung others).
This show will crash and burn. The word Beaner can't last that long before it gets old. He hasn't done anything new since the first episode.
\"Wanna hear a joke? A Beaner jumping a fence!! That's funny for 3 Seasons!\" Not.
Awful.
\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'm surprised that the comparison hasn't been made yet between Mind of Mencia and the television program The Awful Truth, which ran a few years ago. Helmed by controversial director Michael Moore, the show would begin, in the exact same manor as this show, with Moore interacting with the audience, and introducing segments, namely short documentaries and skits, which had been put together in an attempt to provoke thoughts about current issues. The difference? Mencia rarely delves past the superficial and the reactionary. What he says and does is often pandering and rude, and insults the ability of his audience to make decisions for themselves. There's a difference between being \"edgy\", which I have no problem with, but Mencia tries too hard to accomplish this, and ends up coming off as arrogant, and with little backing. He does however, make points occasionally, but often in order to get to them, one has to sit through some pretty mind numbing attempted shock humor.
\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...If you've been laughing too much for a long time, and need to take a break.
After reading about 25 unfavorable reviews of this show, I decided to turn it on and check it out for myself. Everything that each of those people have said about this show is absolutely true. Mind of Mencia is like a half hour version of Mad TV, but with somehow worse jokes.
One skit I had the displeasure of watching was \"The Second Annual Stereotype Olympics\". What's funny about black guy who has trouble swimming, or gay guy named \"Sparkles\" that wins a banana eating contest? Neither of these concepts is particularly novel, insightful, or amusing. Do we really need a joke about Star Wars every episode? That movie came out like 30 years ago. Mencia's solution to funny things up is toss in some stereotypes about Hispanics and throw a few \"beaners\" in there; and call it a day to go home to roll around in his pile of money. Pure comedic genius.
Then he blatantly ripped off Jeff Foxworthy on a second show I watched, with a \"Your gay if...\" bit. You could just imagine the roaring laughter he got when he snook in a Ryan-Seacrest-is-gay joke. It's not like either of those has already been done to death.
Unless you're a big fan of Jason Friedberg and Adam Seltzer movies, please stay away from this show. Especially when there are authentic comedians like Dave Chappelle out there who can joke about races and racism and still be insightful.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"