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\nFew movies have dashed expectations and upset me as much as Fire has. The movie is pretentious garbage. It does not achieve anything at an artistic level. The only thing it managed to receive is a ban in India. If only it was because of the poor quality of film making rather than the topical controversy, the ban would have been more justifiable.
Now that I've got my distress out of my system, I am more able to analyse the movie:
* From the onset the movie feels unreal especially when the protagonists start conversing in English. The director, of course, did not make the movie for an Indian audience; however it underestimated its international audiences by over simplifying it. Watching the character of the domestic help conversing in perfect English is too unreal to be true.
* Next we get regular glimpses into Radha's dreams. These scenes are not very effective. They coming up as jarring and obstruct the flow of the movie. I'm still wondering how that philosophical dialogue connected to the story. I felt that the surrealism was lost.
* The love scenes felt voyeuristic and are probably meant for audience titillation rather than being a powerful statement. In any case, they do not achieve either of the two.
* The names chosen for the women, Radha and Sita, are names of Hindu deities and hence been selected to shock the audiences. However, since the film wasn't meant for Indian audiences in the first place, the shock-through-name-selection is not meant to achieve its goal, which is absurd.
* The quality of direction is very poor and some key and delicate scenes have been poorly handled. A better director could have made a powerful emotional drama out of the subject.
* The acting felt wooden although Nandita Das brought some life into the role, the others were wasted. I always thought that Shabana Azmi was a good actress but her talent is not evident in this film. The male leads were outright rubbish.
In case you are a fan of Earth and wish to see more of the director, stay away from this one. Please.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSome may go for a film like this but I most assuredly did not. A college professor, David Norwell, suddenly gets a yen for adoption. He pretty much takes the first child offered, a bad choice named Adam. As it turns out Adam doesn't have both oars in the water which, almost immediately, causes untold stress and turmoil for Dr. Norwell. This sob story drolly played out with one problem after another, all centered around Adam's inabilities and seizures. Why Norwell wanted to complicate his life with an unknown factor like an adoptive child was never explained. Along the way the good doctor managed to attract a wifey to share in all the hell the little one was dishing out. Personally, I think both of them were one beer short of a sixpack. Bypass this yawner.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAn obvious vanity press for Julie in her first movie with Blake. Let's see. Where do we begin. She is a traitor during a world war; she redeems that by falling in love; her friends (who are presumably patriots because they are German citizens) are expendable and must die; and she winds up as a heroine. OK. The scenes with the drunken pilot and the buffoons who work for French intelligence can't even be described, and we won't even mention Rock's romantic scenes with a female. (By the way, when they visit a museum, look at his gaze - I reran it on video and it's priceless). Is it a farce or is it a romantic classic or is it a war movie? I don't know and you won't either.
\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\nBlake Edwards tried very hard to change Julie Andrews image in this film. He tried to make her sexy not realizing she already was. I think they were both still a bit irked that Julie had not been chosen to film her Broadway success of Camelot and was passed over as not being sexy enough. Unfortunately, they chose this vehicle to try and assuage this belief. It gets to the point where it is almost funny seeing Rock Hudson, who we all know now was gay, kissing Julie every 2 minutes throughout this movie. It seems now that they were not only trying to make you believe that Julie was a femme fatale but that Rock was straight. Sadly, they have absolutely no chemistry together and the unending kissing scenes start grossing one out. The other error they made with this picture was not knowing what kind of movie they were making. It is almost three separate movies. There is the drama of Julie as the German spy trying to get military secrets from Rock. There is an air war movie with lots of footage of WWI vintage planes swooping about and there is the stupid attempts at humor that Blake Edwards seems to think he has to insert in every one of his pictures whether it is appropriate or not, In this case, it was not. The only truly redeeming qualities in this film are looking at the always lovely Dame Julie and hearing her sing in that crystal clear bell-like soprano. Of course if you love her, you may overlook the weaknesses of this film just because of her. You can always tell yourself, afterward, that it was a hell of a lot better than sitting through STAR!
\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\nJulie Andrews satirically prods her own goody-two-shoes image in this overproduced musical comedy-drama, but if she approaches her role with aplomb, she's alone in doing so. Blake Edwards' film about a woman who is both music-hall entertainer and German spy during WWI doesn't know what tone to aim for, and Rock Hudson has the thankless task of playing romantic second-fiddle. Musicals had grown out of favor by 1970, and elephantine productions like \"Star!\" and this film really tarnished Andrews' reputation, leaving a lot of dead space in her catalogue until \"The Tamarind Seed\" came along. I've always thought Julie Andrews would've made a great villain or shady lady; her strong voice could really command attention, and she hits some low notes that can either be imposing or seductive. Husband/director Edwards seems to realize this, but neither he nor Julie can work up much energy within this scenario. Screenwriter William Peter Blatty isn't a good partner for Edwards, and neither man has his heart in this material. Beatty's script offers Andrews just one fabulous sequence--a striptease. *1/2 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\nDavid Bryce's comments nearby are exceptionally well written and informative as almost say everything I feel about DARLING LILI. This massive musical is so peculiar and over blown, over produced and must have caused ruptures at Paramount in 1970. It cost 22 million dollars! That is simply irresponsible. DARLING LILI must have been greenlit from a board meeting that said \"hey we got that Pink Panther guy and that Sound Of Music gal... lets get this too\" and handed over a blank cheque. The result is a hybrid of GIGI, ZEPPELIN, HALF A SIXPENCE, some MGM 40s song and dance numbers of a style (daisies and boaters!) so hopelessly old fashioned as to be like musical porridge, and MATA HARI dramatics. The production is colossal, lush, breathtaking to view, but the rest: the ridiculous romance, Julie looking befuddled, Hudson already dead, the mistimed comedy, and the astoundingly boring songs deaden this spectacular film into being irritating. LILI is like a twee 1940s mega musical with some vulgar bits to spice it up. STAR! released the year before sadly crashed and now is being finally appreciated for the excellent film is genuinely is... and Andrews looks sublime, mature, especially in the last half hour......but LILI is POPPINS and DOLLY frilly and I believe really killed off the mega musical binge of the 60s..... and made Andrews look like Poppins again... which I believe was not Edwards intention. Paramount must have collectively fainted when they saw this: and with another $20 million festering in CATCH 22, and $12 million in ON A CLEAR DAY and $25 million in PAINT YOUR WAGON....they had a financial abyss of CLEOPATRA proportions with $77 million tied into 4 films with very uncertain futures. Maybe they should have asked seer Daisy Gamble from ON A CLEAR DAY ......LILI was very popular on immediate first release in Australia and ran in 70mm cinemas for months but it failed once out in the subs and the sticks and only ever surfaced after that on one night stands with ON A CLEAR DAY as a Sunday night double. Thank god Paramount had their simple $1million (yes, ONE MILLION DOLLAR) film LOVE STORY and that $4 million dollar gangster pic THE GODFATHER also ready to recover all the $77 million in just the next two years....for just $5m.... incredible!
\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 not a big fan of musicals, although this technically might not qualify as a musical. But I thought I would give it a chance as I love war movies. It was mediocre at best.
Hudson seems totally out of kilter in this role. It just didn't work for me. Julie Andrews probably played her part as best as she could, but I just find it hard to buy her as a conniving, deceptive spy. Sorry, I know that is classic stereotyping on my part. But I have to say I think this is Julie at her most beautiful and feminine looking. I always thought of her as more matronly, but then surely that's a result of her roles in Sound of Music and Mary Poppins. No doubt they were desperately trying to get her out of that typecasting in this role. She was quite beguiling in appearance here, but I still didn't buy her as a spy.
I couldn't keep my focus through the whole movie and found myself tuning in and out - and having conversations with those in my room (which I usually never do - I'm always shushing everybody). So that tells you how little it held my attention. 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\nBlake Edwards' legendary fiasco, begins to seem pointless after just 10 minutes. A combination of The Eagle Has Landed, Star!, Oh! What a Lovely War!, and Edwards' Pink Panther films, Darling Lili never engages the viewer; the aerial sequences, the musical numbers, the romance, the comedy, and the espionage are all ho hum. At what point is the viewer supposed to give a damn? This disaster wavers in tone, never decides what it wants to be, and apparently thinks it's a spoof, but it's pathetically and grindingly square. Old fashioned in the worst sense, audiences understandably stayed away in droves. It's awful. James Garner would have been a vast improvement over Hudson who is just cardboard, and he doesn't connect with Andrews and vice versa. And both Andrews and Hudson don't seem to have been let in on the joke and perform with a miscalculated earnestness. Blake Edwards' SOB isn't much more than OK, but it's the only good that ever came out of Darling Lili. The expensive and professional look of much of Darling Lili, only make what it's all lavished on even more difficult to bear. To quote Paramount chief Robert Evans, \"24 million dollars worth of film and no picture\".
\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 tough sell: British playwright Ronald Harwood adapts his autobiographical stage drama into loud, bellowing film about WWII Shakespearean theatrical troupe saddled with an aged, blustery, brilliant-but-unreliable star at the end of his tether. The actor's effete assistant works diligently to get his master coiffed and costumed for a production of \"King Lear\" (during an Air Raid!), yet both men are losing their grip on their unraveling situation. Based on the waning years of actor Donald Wolfit, whose dresser was Ronald Harwood, this acclaimed production would seem to be a welcome haven for scenery-chewing thespians. Unfortunately, Albert Finney (at this point in his career, not at all elderly) seems too robust and quick-thinking to play the actor; Finney (and Oscar-nominated director Peter Yates) cannot modulate Sir's moods and bouts of coherency in a way that makes sense to us, so that in one scene he's stopping a train with the commanding echo of his voice, and in the next he's curiously falling apart. With such a wreck of a human being in the midst of failing health and aptitude, one would assume a dedicated assistant would go to great lengths to protect his boss (and his future), yet servant Tom Courtenay prods and badgers and goads Finney to carry on rather than rest. Courtenay, who played this part on stage (and was nominated for an Oscar alongside Finney for Best Actor), is far more attuned to his role, and eventually his bleating commands and confusion achieve the only real feeling in the film. These two, thankfully, do not peck at each other's heads, and scenarist Harwood is careful not to fall into a love-hate pattern (which could possibly be perceived in the film's first act); but, without a juxtaposition of servant vs. celebrity, there's nothing much to behold in this portrait except for the deterioration of narcissism, the hint at what once was. *1/2 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\nI wish I knew what to make of a movie like this. It seems to be divided into two parts -- action sequences and personal dramas ashore. It follows Ashton Kutsher through survival swimmer school, guided by Master Chief Kevin Costner, then to Alaska where a couple of spectacular rescues take place, the last resulting in death.
I must say that the scenes on the beach struck me as so stereotypical in so many ways that they should be barnacle encrusted. A typical bar room fight between Navy guys and Coast Guardsmen (\"puddle pirates\"). The experienced old timer Costner who is, as an elderly bar tender tells him, \"married to the Coast Guard.\" The older chief who \"keeps trying to prove to himself that he's still nineteen.\" The neglected ex wife ashore to whom Kostner pays a farewell visit. The seemingly sadistic demands placed on the swimmers by the instructors, all in pursuit of a loftier goal. The gifted young man hobbled by a troubled past.
The problem is that we've seen it all before. If it's Kevin Costner here, it's Clint Eastwood or John Wayne or Lou Gosset Jr. or Vigo Mortenson or Robert DeNiro elsewhere. And the climactic scene has elements drawn shamelessly from \"The Perfect Storm\" and \"Dead Calm.\" None of it is fresh and none of the old stereotyped characters and situations are handled with any originality.
It works best as a kind of documentary of what goes on in the swimmer's school and what could happen afterward and even that's a little weak because we don't get much in the way of instruction. It's mostly personal conflict, romance, and tension about washing out.
It's a shame because the U. S. Coast Guard is rather a noble outfit, its official mission being \"the safety of lives and property at sea.\" In war time it is transferred to the Navy Department and serves in combat roles. In World War II, the Coast Guard even managed to have a Medal of Honor winner in its ranks.
But, again, we don't learn much about that. We don't really learn much about anything. The film devolves into a succession of visual displays and not too much else. A disappointment.
\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\nAlas, another Costner movie that was an hour too long. Credible performances, but the script had no where to go and was in no hurry to get there. First we are offered an unrelated string of events few of which further the story. Will the script center on Randall and his wife? Randall and Fischer? How about Fischer and Thomas? In the end, no real front story ever develops and the characters themselves are artificially propped up by monologues from third parties. The singer explains Randall, Randall explains Fischer, on and on. Finally, long after you don't care anymore, you will learn something about the script meetings. Three endings were no doubt proffered and no one could make a decision. The end result? All three were used, one, after another, after another. If you can hang in past the 100th yawn, you'll be able to pick them out. Despite the transparent attempt to gain points with a dedication to the Coast Guard, this one should have washed out the very first day.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWow, another Kevin Costner hero movie. Postman, Tin Cup, Waterworld, Bodyguard, Wyatt Earp, Robin Hood, even that baseball movie. Seems like he makes movies specifically to be the center of attention. The characters are almost always the same ... the heroics, the flaws, the greatness, the fall, the redemption. Yup, within the 1st 5 minutes of the movie, we're all supposed to be in awe of his character, and it builds up more and more from there.
And this time the story ... story? ... is just a collage of different movies. You don't need a spoiler; you've seen this movie several times, though it had different titles. You'll know what will happen way before it happens. This is like mixing An Officer and a Gentleman with Backdraft, but both are easily better movies. Watch Backdraft to see how this kind of movie should be made ... and also to see how an good but slightly underrated actor, Russell, plays the hero.
\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 seems ever since 1982, about every two or three years we get a movie that claims to be \"The Next Officer and a Gentleman.\" There has yet to be one movie that has lived up to this claim and this movie is no different.
We get the usual ripped off scenes from OAAG (\"I want you DOR,\" the instructor gives the Richard Gere character his overdose of drills in hopes he'll quit, the Gere character comes back for the girl, the Gere character realizes the instructor is great, etc.) and this movie is as predictable as the sun rising in the East and is horribly miscast on top. Costner plays his usual \"wise teacher\" character, the only character he can play, and you really get a sense of his limited acting abilities here. Kutcher is terrible in the Richard Gere character, just miscast with acting skills barely a notch above Keanu Reeves.
The main problem with this OAAG wannabe is the two main characters are so amazingly one-dimensional, you never care for either in the least and when Kutcher's character finally turns around (just like Gere did in OAAG) you just go \"so what? The movie leaves no plot point unturned and seems to never end as if to say \"oh wait, we forgot to close out the girlfriend story, or the what happens after he graduates story, or the other six plot points in the movie...\" What's more baffling is the great \"reviews\" I see here. The general public's opinions never cease to amaze me.
\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 pale imitation of 'Officer and a Gentleman.' There is NO chemistry between Kutcher and the unknown woman who plays his love interest. The dialog is wooden, the situations hackneyed. It's too long and the climax is anti-climactic(!). I love the USCG, its men and women are fearless and tough. The action scenes are awesome, but this movie doesn't do much for recruiting, I fear. The script is formulaic, but confusing. Kutcher's character is trying to redeem himself for an accident that wasn't his fault? Costner's is raging against the dying of the light, but why? His 'conflict' with his wife is about as deep as a mud puddle. I saw this sneak preview for free and certainly felt I got my money's worth.
\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\nOnce again Mr. Costner has dragged out a movie for far longer than necessary. Aside from the terrific sea rescue sequences, of which there are very few I just did not care about any of the characters. Most of us have ghosts in the closet, and Costner's character are realized early on, and then forgotten until much later, by which time I did not care. The character we should really care about is a very cocky, overconfident Ashton Kutcher. The problem is he comes off as kid who thinks he's better than anyone else around him and shows no signs of a cluttered closet. His only obstacle appears to be winning over Costner. Finally when we are well past the half way point of this stinker, Costner tells us all about Kutcher's ghosts. We are told why Kutcher is driven to be the best with no prior inkling or foreshadowing. No magic here, it was all I could do to keep from turning it off an hour in.
\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 in two minds about FOLLOWING , the film debut of Christopher Nolan . Part of me admires it for costing 6,000 dollars to make but part of me hates it for being too art house . In many ways it reminds me of the cult movie PI , a film I disliked , and I can`t get my head around the central plot of a man who wants to be writer following people around . Wouldn`t it be more logical for someone wanting to be a writer to sit in front of a keyboard and write ?
Oh well I guess FOLLOWING gives indie film makers hope that just because they made a no budget movie costing $6,000 over two thousand IMDB members will vote for it and over five hundred members will comment on it , but you have to wonder if this movie would be so well regarded if it wasn`t made by the director of MEMENTO ?
\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 usual disclaimer - I do not give 1 star ratings to movies which are harmless, bad, low budget and silly, although they may deserve it. These films are often funny, and get rated 2-4 based sheerly on entertainment value - not as a representation of their exemplary film artistry. This film fits this model perfectly. It is a Mexican monster movie, riddled with voice-over narrative and extremely weak not-so-special effects. The makeup is not that bad, and the acting is sometimes quite entertaining, but this film is almost as silly as Aliens vs Predator and the script isn't half as slick (Aliens vs Predator might get a 1 from me, but I want to see it again before I commit).
The plot is ridiculous, but deliciously convoluted. If you've read this far, you must really want to know... A group of remarkably unscientific scientists comprise the main characters. Most of them are heroes - sort of - but one is (of course) mad, and quite perverse. This mad scientist invents a laughable nuclear powered robot (who looks a bit like the tin man from Wizard of Oz, but has a human face inexplicably located inside its head). An Aztec mummy, discovered by the same 'scientist' whose wife just so happens to have been an Aztec princess in a past life (don't ask), is pitted against the robot for the big \"climax\" the fight scene alone is enough to put the most stoic movie watcher on the floor in belly laughs.
For what its worth, given the budget and the utter silliness of the script, this is a very entertaining low budget goof ball monster movie. If you're into that sort of thing, go for it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have watched this movie twice in the past six months (what I go through so you don't have to).The first viewing left me half crazed and babbling.The second viewing at 5am on a rainy morn was a little better.I only screamed in agony once.
Seems Pocona (The Aztec Mummy)had the hots for a certain Aztec Princess who was\"supposed to keep her maiden\".Obviously they gave each other the business and were put to death for it.(Now that is severe!).But before they are the film tries to put us to death with a screeching Aztec ceremony.The singing will make your ears bleed.
Anyhow there is the usual reincarnation nonsense. Not to mention a treasure map on a breastplate & bracelet guarded by that swathed slob,Pocona.By this time Pocona looks like he's been on a 2000 year bender and is after the defilers of his tomb.His groans & moans sounds like he has a bad case of Montezuma's revenge(or he read the script for this movie).That will make your breath stink.
An evil Dr Von Krupp appears wanting the Aztec treasure(possibly to finance acting lessons & screenwriting classes for cast & crew).He is called The Bat because in The Curse Of The Aztec Mummy he wore a bat like cape, hat and something like a ski mask over his face.Guess it's better than the Laughing Fat Man.
The Bat in typical mad scientist fashion wants to rule the world. He stresses this by rolling his eyes,laughing maniacally and chewing the scenery.He has cobbled together an invincible robot.Looks like the 'bot was made from a garbage can, a chandelier and the grill of a 1957 Buick.This will make your eyes bleed.A company even takes credit for making this tin can!
Well the mighty showdown between Pocona and the Robot takes place in the Mummy's new crypt having been made homeless earlier.
About half of this movie is culled from \"La Aztec Momia\"never released in the US in its original form but in a chopped atrocity from Jerry Warren(see my review on \"Attack Of The Mayan Mummy\") and \"Curse Of The Aztec Mummy\".The robot is frankly stupid as are most of the characters.If that and the plot doesn't make you howl with laughter nothing will.
My first impression was so bad it would have gotten a one. But after seeing \"Mayan Mummy\"(which is a movie deserving of being burned) and watching \"Robot\" again, it garners a 3.You have to watch this with no expectations at all. Then it can be naively pleasant.
\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 should have been billed as three movie-summaries linked together to form a full-length feature film (including lots of shots of people slowly walking down dark corridors and streets). BE WARNED! The first hour of this movie is simply a re-hash of the first two Aztec movies as told by the main character. The actual movie doesn't start until the thing is almost over. I must say, the overacting on the part of the Bat is quite hilarious.
As for the robot, I thought a robot was a mechanical device that may or may not resemble a human. The Bat's \"robot\" consists of a radioactive reanimated corpse encased in a lead robot-body. As Tom Servo put it, \"He's not that impressive; he doesn't even have knees!\" That, and it takes the robot about an hour just to lumber across the room. But once he catches you, WATCH OUT! He'll disintegrate you with a touch (powered by radium? Pluh-ease!).
This is a great movie when accompanied by Joel and the Bots. Otherwise, you're just a glutton for abuse.
\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\nDespite having a very pretty leading lady (Rosita Arenas, one of my boy-crushes), the acting and the direction are examples of what NOT to do while making a movie.
Placed in southern Mexico, Popoca, the Aztec Mummy (real Aztecs, by the way, DID not made mummies) has been waken up by the lead characters and starts making trouble in Mexico City suburbia, during the first movie (The Aztec Mummy). In this second part, the leading man and woman want to find th mummy and put it in its final resting place (a fireplace would have been my first choice...)
Into this appears The Bat, a criminal master-mindless stereotype of a criminal genius who creates a \"human robot\" (some idiot inside a robot SUIT) to control Popoca and (get this) take over the world. The final match between the robot and the mummy is hilarious, some of the worst choreography ever witnessed. The funniest part is that this movie was made and released by a serious Mexican movie studio!
The acting is just as awful hearing the movie in Spanish as it is in English (they dubbed the over-acting!). You should watch this movie through MST:3000. The comments are even funnier.
\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 bad horrors, cheap horrors, b movies, and all that bottom 100 movies, and I do not deny those are the worst stuff ever to enter the big screen, or even your home video for that matter. Some of them, e.g. the infamous Manos The Hands of Fate, are truly bad, and watching them, especially on your own without any friends and beer around, is a torture for a good cinema taste.
La Momia Azteca Contra El Roboto Humano, however, was not that bad. Well, of course it's BAD - it's silly, dated, corny, cheap, etc., there's an Aztec mummy, a tin robot, a fat masked villain, a mad scientist, Mexican mobsters, etc. the montage is poor, the lines, well, let's say the lines are not theatrical, the FX and SFX are the best what the Mexican low budget production could've offered, etc. etc. Still, the movie is FUN. it's so bad it makes you laugh cheerfully for an hour time. Sure it depends on one's sense of humor, however I'm pretty sure La Momia should teach any newcomers to this kind of cinema how to enjoy it. Please note: the movie lasts for about an hour, and I think it's just enough time of silliness one is able to easily digest.
There's also another thing - watching La Momia can give you a clue what was the whole SF/Horror genre concept back in the fifties, when you compare it to the present day Matrix era of cinema entertainment. I think it also shows how both the industry and the audience evolved, due to the fact the watches like La Momia still attract full house in the theaters for some special shows (movies like this are special alright), and very often receive a standing ovation.
\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 on Mystery Science Theater 3000, and even that show couldn't really make this movie bearable. I could make a better movie with a broken camcorder and action figures. Of course, you expect terrible special effects with a movie this old, but I've seen silents that were better. The storyline has enormous gaps that leave you trying to figure out why they are even at certain scenes. The cameraman apparently doesn't know what a tripod is, and had too much coffee, or something harder maybe, because the camera is ALWAYS shaking around. I couldn't even follow the plot, but suffice it to say, this is the absolute worst movie I have ever seen in my life.
UPDATE: I saw \"Epic Movie\" a while back and have decided to give this movie a 2. It's NOT the worst movie I've ever seen 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\nAh, such an original title for a very shoddy film. The dubbing is hilarious since the voices and mouths never seem to match. As a result, I had no idea what was going on as I watched this mess unfold. There are flashbacks within the flashbacks and no real time takes place until towards the very end. The Aztec ceremony had me laughing. I rewinded it twice and got the best ab workout ever. The singing Aztec lady is comic naturale and the dancing and costumes are a hoot. Some guy gets a face full of acid, there's a lot of fighting, you have no idea who any character is (not that I really cared), and it's a whole noir mess. Oh, and the actual fight doesn't happen for awhile, so during the movie feel free to get up, take a nap, take a trip. You won't miss anything exciting.
\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\n2/3 of this movie is recycled footage of the previous movies, a fact that's sadly obvious even to someone like myself who hasn't seen the original movies. And somehow it feels like a rip-off even though I haven't seen the stuff before. It's like that episode of every TV show where the characters sit around a photo album or something and you just see recycled footage of other episodes. I've seen some producers do extended montages of recycled footage, but never anything beyond 5 minutes or so. This movie is mostly stuff that had already been seen by audiences, so you could mount a case that it's one of the biggest rip-offs ever foisted on the motion picture public.
I got to see it in the theater, in a 16mm print, which is good enough I suppose considering how rare this kind of material must be on film these days. I give the movie some credit for semi-convincing Gothic atmosphere and for unintentional humor, but that's about it. The Aztec mummy monster looks good, even has some mobility in his face which is better than most movie monsters of the period. But the robot is pitiful, although it's interesting that they made the human face totally visible. It's a \"robot human\" or something of the sort as they somewhat explain in the movie. I think that's considered an android. So technically in hard sci-fi terms this movie should be called \"Android vs. the Aztec Mummy\", but I doubt anyone was too worried about technicalities here anymore than they were worried about quality. In fact the movie is so sloppily put together that it makes television look good. Even the dubbing from Mexican into English is lazy and weak -- for example at one point the hero says \"I might as well begin at the beginning....\" what the heck kind of translation is that? Couldn't they at least have him say \"start at the beginning\" so that it doesn't sound repetitive? A high school newspaper editor could have fixed the screenplay of this movie. It's the epitome of utilitarian film-making, just absolutely nothing is in this movie that doesn't need to be there for the basic commercial purpose of the film. They put no more effort into making it than they had to, and considering the extensive recycled footage I would doubt that they actually spent more than a week making this movie.
I will now cease posting about it on the principle that I don't want to expend more energy in the process of commenting than the creators of the movie actually expended while making 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\nThe first 2/3 of this film wasn't that dissimilar to the American mummy films of the 30s and 40s. Two lovers in ancient Mexico dared to defy the law and were doomed to die. One became an Aztec mummy whose job it was to guard the sacred treasure and his lady love. And the lady was reincarnated in the present day and the mummy was naturally attracted to her. So far, it's all the typical mummy film...though it's quite a bit slower and duller than the American versions. Oh, and of course the Aztec mummy looked really, really crappy.
However, into this standard but boring film there is a super-villain. Why? I dunno--it sure didn't make any sense to have one. It seems this villain wants the treasure and he manages to hypnotize the lady and have her show them where the Aztec treasure is buried. Why does he need the treasure? Well, to buy the equipment needed to make an army of atomic robots, dummy! But first he has to construct a single mummy to defeat the mummy, as the mummy has so far been unstoppable.
You've got to see these \"human-robots\" as they look like the enormous clunky robots from Flash Gordon and other serials BUT they have a rubber head of a supposed dead guy inside! They really look hilariously funny and seeing the conclusion when there is a huge battle between the lethargic mummy and the equally slow robot is worth sitting through the rest of the dull movie. Both battle in super-slow-motion like they are bathed in taffy... and it's done in such an artless and silly fashion that it is bound to elicit chuckles--certainly not thrills.
Overall, the film is dreadfully dull and a muddled mess--especially at the end. However, for bad movie fans, it's a must-see--it's bad but unintentionally funny and great to watch and laugh at with friends.
\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\nFollowing the pleasingly atmospheric original and the amusingly silly second one, this incredibly dull, slow, and uneventful sequel comes across as a major letdown. Once again the nefarious criminal mastermind the Bat (hammy Luis Aceves Castaneda) is trying to steal valuable jewelry from the Aztec mummy Popoca. The Bat builds a hilariously clunky lumbering robot with a human brain in order to achieve this heinous goal. Flatly directed by Rafael Portillo, with a talky and tedious script by Alfredo Salazar and Guillermo Calderon, cruddy continuity (for example, the Bat was clearly killed at the end of the previous film, but is miraculously alive and well here!), an excruciatingly sluggish script, an excessive amount of stock footage from the first two flicks, a meandering narrative, a crippling lack of action and momentum, largely dreary going through the motions (non)acting from an understandably disinterested cast, and a poorly staged climactic battle between the mummy and the robot (the movie finally bursts to sidesplitting stupid life with said big bash, but alas it barely even lasts two lousy minutes and thus proves to be much too little far too late to alleviate the severity of the general overwhelming boredom), this numbingly dry, drippy, and draggy snorefest rates as a complete washout.
\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** The third and mercifully last of the Aztec Mummy trilogy in the fact that the series major star-besides the Mummy- actor Ramon Gay, as Dr. Eduardo Almada, was gunned down by the outraged husband of a woman he was having an affair with on May 28, 1960! Still that didn't stop Gay, in him being edited into them from his previous films, from being in a number of future Mexican horror movies made over the next four years after his death.
In \"Robot vs the Aztec Mummy\" we have the once again mad scientist Dr. Krupp trying to get his hands on the Mummy's golden breastplate and bracelet in order, by having them deciphered, to find the Aztez treasure that's been secretly buried somewhere in modern Mexico City over 500 years ago. \"Robot vs the Aztec Mummy\" is not much as a movie in itself in that its made up of stock footage of the previous Aztec Mummy films that take up over half of the films running time.
After getting introduced to the movie's cast members, some who have been killed in the previous Aztec Mummy films, we get down to the real nitty gritty in it involving the evil as well as criminally insane Dr. Krupp also know as \"The Bat\". Dr. Krupp-who looks like a wild eyed and crazed Orson Wells-is a man with boundless visions of grandeur in him not only uncovering the long lost Aztec treasure but now, unlike in the two previous movies he was in, creating life and using it in making an army of human robots to take over the world. An idea he must have gotten from watching Ed Wood's 1955 \"Atomic Superman\" classic \"Bride of the Monster\".
Unable to handle the Mummy in his two other encounters with it, where he ended up getting thrown by it into a snake pit filled with deadly rattlers, Dr. Krupp had created a robot, with a human cadaver stuffed in it, to the job, of doing in the Mummy, for him. With he Mummy sleeping in its tomb at a local Mexico City cemetery Dr. Krupp has his Robot-Man brake into the Mummy's crypt to do battle with it and destroy it with its bolts of deadly radiation.
***SPOILERS*** The big built-up to the Aztec Mummy Robot-Man confrontation turns to be a big let-down with the Mummy having no trouble at all dispatching the \"Tin-Man\" in less then 30 seconds together with its creator Dr. Krupp. All this while both Dr. Almada and his friend and assistant Pinacate, who came to the Mummy's aid, have nothing at all to do but sit back and watch the action. Now without the mad and off-the-wall Dr. Krupp annoying it the Mummy can go back to its eternal resting place without ever worrying about the problems of the modern world at large, like Dr. Krupp, that it has really no interest in.
\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\nWith the dialogue in the dubbed version of this film, I don't think that Shakespeare is in any great danger. This is the story of an ancient Aztec mummy who has been disenfranchised. His stuff has been taken and this really ticks him off. He seems to know who's doing this even though he's a gyrating, raving entity. I loved the two dull men who tell the story of how the mummy was found and the doctor who is determined to destroy the creature. There are all these scenes in this ridiculous graveyard, full of cheap crosses and other junk. There's a mausoleum where the mummy is kept. I can't begin to reproduce the idiocy of this, including a snake pit where the good doctor is thrown (there is a door next to it so he can crawl out) to the robot, a mass of metal cans with a guy inside. The dialogue is awful. There are long pauses between speeches as if someone offstage is feeding them their lines. I love the scene where the two little kids accuse their mother of going out at night (she goes into this zombie state or something). Nonetheless, if your looking for a film that you can laugh at and never takes itself seriously, watch this. Have a couple beers first. Like a direct line from the mummy's tomb, \"Watch this and your eyes will bleed and your breath will stink.\" What more can I say?
\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\nMexican 'classic' was the third entry in the Aztec Mummy series. As you will soon find out, this movie is anything but a classic, instead, it's more like a movie that deliberately tries to bore you.
Some scientist wants to steal Aztec treasure from a tomb, but guarding that tomb is that walking toilet paper commercial: The Aztec Mummy. Knowing he can't beat the Mummy, he then builds a robot, and a very bad one at that. We only get to see Mr.Robot in the last reel, as he clunks around, and does battle with the Aztec Mummy.
I have seen a lot of lousy Sci-Fi films, hell most Sci-Fi films I see are lousy, but this one, for it's entire duration of 64 Minuites, is the worst movie I've seen, with Fubar coming in a close second....
In conclusion: 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\nThere must be an error. This movie belongs with \"Plan 9\", and a lot others as a quite entertaining, silly diversion. You'll never accept you like it, yet you will watch it whenever it comes out on TV. It's as simple as that.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOh, man, they sure knew how to make them back then. Hollywood has forgotten the basic ingredients of bad movie making: cardboard steel and the god fearing scientist action hero!
This film was so close to a masterpiece, alas it was not to be, as it failed to feature ray guns and invaders from the Moon. The MST3K version tried to fix this by adding a pilot of a show called Captain Cody, where a guy with a rocket propelled jacket fights bad make-up people from the Moon, but it didn't quite add up.
Also, the comments of the guys in the theater were not nearly as funny as I expected them to be. All in all, a great disappointment.
\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, confusing bit of crap from South of the Border. I've now watched it twice and I STILL don't really know what was going on. It had something to do with a stupid looking Aztec mummy, a 'human robot' that's the dumbest looking robot I've ever seen bar none, and a woman who is the reincarnation of some ancient Aztec chick. Most of the story is told in a painfully slow and droning manner by an incredibly dull scientist. This guy is a marvelous sleep aid. His nemesis is a fat slob called The Bat, which is a pretty unimaginative name for an evil scientist.
I guess the boring scientist and his wormy assistant dug up the mummy, and what a shocker, the scientist's wife just HAPPENS to be the reincarnation of the mummy's girlfriend. They keep the mummy perpetually in a mausoleum for some reason, I guess so that the overacting bad guy can steal it. It takes him five years to do this, because he's inventing a 'human robot' to steal the mummy, or attack it, or whatever. He's after some treasure that the mummy has, so that he can be rich. But excuse me, if the guy had this huge an intellect and a strong drive to succeed, why didn't he just patent some of his ideas and get rich that way?
Oh, well, I suppose that would make too much sense. Instead, there is ridiculous fight between the mummy and the robot, and it's really hard to tell which one is faker looking or more cheesy. To tell you the truth, I watched this because I thought a film with a name like The Robot Vs. the Aztec Mummy just HAD to be fabulously cheesy. Instead it was just dully awful and mind blowingly confusing.
\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 Robot vs. the Aztec Mummy was one of the silliest and least believable films I've ever seen. O.K, I can buy that the woman in the film is a reincarnation of a virgin that was sacrificed to an Aztec God. What I can't buy is that the incredibly phony looking mummy and the even worse looking robot. When you want to watch a film like this, you want to see lots of fighting action. But the robot and the mummy fight for about a minute total! Probably worst of all was the dia de los muertos art they had in the credits. It's the worst I've ever seen. Avoid this one if possible.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nLike a lot of movies involving little kids, this starts off \"real cute\" and likable...and then, after about a half hour or so, becomes the reverse.
That's certainly the case here in this time-travel story (which I usually love) where an adult meets a kid who his really him at the age of eight! Great premise and a great lead actor in Bruce Willis, but.....
The kid \"Rusty\" is a smart-aleck and whiny brat and Willis Rusty grown up now as \"Russell\" gets abrasive with his constant yelling. That is entertainment? No, thanks.
Young Breslin has gone on to become a very good child actor, being involved in a number of films including \"The Cat In The Hat\" opposite a more famous child actor: Dakota Fanning.
Overall, a disappointing film, especially with all the good press this movie got when it was released.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"