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\nI walked into Heart Of Gold thinking I was going to watch a documentary about Neil Young. Instead, I witnessed a self-serving tribute to the arrogance of aging baby boomers who have lost their edge and forgotten their roots. Highly rated by aging baby boomer critics, directed and performed by more aging baby boomer artists, Heart Of Gold is a bore-fest from start to finish, that is if you can manage to sit through the entire near 2 hour movie. Neil Young and crew have long lost their edge and want the rest of us to join them on a cushioned rocking chair of middle-of-the-road mediocrity. What happened to the raunchy guitar of his earlier solo efforts? I guess all of his fuzz boxes rusted out and his over-driven vacuum tubes exploded in the hot air of his generation. As far as Demme goes, this is the daring director of Something Wild & Melvin And Howard? A student filmmaker could have made a more daring film than this poorly visualized surface performance film. Don't waste your $$ on Heart Of Gold and go straight to The Last Waltz and Gimmie Shelter. And if you really want to dig deep into the personality of a rock and roll icon, scrounge up a copy of Chuck Berry: Hail Hail Rock And Roll which is sorely out of print. And baby boomers, don't bother squawking about how this review is jaded by someone younger. I too am one of those baby boomers who listened to Cinnamon Girl on acid and danced in the streets to the Stones' Street Fighting Man. Go back and watch Don't Look Back or Gimmie Shelter and then come back and tell me that Heart of Gold has any worth as a document.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie has some good performances, as others have pointed out, but suffers (as others have pointed out, except for the people who apparently are either friends of the filmmaker or the cast to otherwise explain why they would deem this a \"10\") from some self-conscious and self-absorbed film school padding and excess plots. This is the type of plot that Sex In The City could handle in a half hour episode, so there was no reason for it to be even an 88 minute movie. A perfect example of wasted footage is the fast forwarding montage in the first third of the movie. Some of the back story is merited, but too much time, for example, was spent on Daria character with the anal sex boyfriend and on the back story for Paulie, who was not a realistic character, although the actor did a decent job with the lines he was given.
The worst aspect of the movie was the level of amateurish parts: from typos in the typed material, to bad jumps and edits, poor camera positions, angles, lighting problems throughout and, most glaringly, a poorly written script with a badly developed concept. If the writer (also the director and lead) had collaborated with someone, he might not have ended up with a 100% rotten score on Rotten Tomatoes, which further belays the ability of anyone to truly believe the people who gave it a 10 on the rating system here.
\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\nJulien Hernandez is certainly an attractive and likable on screen persona. In fact, his character pretty much carries this whole film, or what's worthwhile about it. The problem is, with the exception of his gal pal (played by Marisa Petroro) and Paul Lekakis (as a trick/date/ boyfriend for some of the characters) no one else even comes close. Hernandez plays a 30- something director of Cuban heritage, and unknown sexuality, who comes to L.A. and gets a job making a gay documentary. In the process of meeting a group of gay people while finding subjects, he comes out...but very s l o w l y. Even at 88 minutes, the film has obviously been stretched out and padded with various film-school devices, most of which only end up pointlessly interrupting the narrative (which ain't much to begin with) or pointing out the overall amateurish-ness of the film-making.
Which is a shame, because there's a love story in here somewhere, and the final three minutes, when Hernandez's Sebastien finally clicks with a wealthy West Hollywood party- thrower (nicely underplayed by Lonnie Henderson) and they share some sexy soulful kisses, it works despite all that came before. But we don't really care about any of the other characters or their situations: Why would handsome Dante have a Eurotrash priss for a boyfriend? He wouldn't. And don't even get me started on Sebastien's friend Paulie's \"rules\" for dating -- no gay man I know, hell no sane person, period, would put such constrictions on himself or others. And please tell me how Sebastien gets a peeled banana (which is normally fairly shmushy, right?) stuck up his butt and has to go to a doctor to get it removed?
I noticed Hernandez won an award for this film as a \"short\" -- it probably should have stayed that way. All this said -- I'd look forward to seeing Hernandez on screen again, in a better scripted comedy with more assured direction.
\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 really wanted to like this film but it barely eked out a 3. It's surprising that equal amounts of the votes were 10, the other half 1. All the characters were entertaining and even talented but as a whole the film didn't pay off. Sebastian Hernandez is appealing; charismatic and likable (he even physically resembles Marc Anthony in a more approachable yet ultimately conscious sort of way...) but even he couldn't save this mess of a movie. Scenes dragged on far too long and points were ultimately beaten to death. The banana scene fringed on self-absorption, seemingly showing how much movement was in his boxers. But in his defense it was his first movie as director (that I'm aware of) and I appreciate his labor of love. It just left me empty despite what was trying to be said. Ultimately I think the story would have been better handled by a more experienced director. From what I've seen of the 'extras', there is a real story behind this and, perhaps when I finish watching them, I'll appreciate this attempt more.
\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 unwittingly walked into this \"trap\" of a movie.
If I could turn back time or simply get a refund I would be happy.
It was 7:30pm and Cinderella Man didn't start until 10pm so I rushed into the theater to catch the movie that started at 7:20pm...and I dare say God reached out his hand (or retracted it) and allowed me to punish myself for my film gluttony by sitting in for this film.
It may be unfair to criticize a movie that was not targeted at my heterosexual male cohort, however, there is no excuse for lousy sound and video editing. This movie was at most worthy of a highschool project budget...and I think I've seen better in those play acting French shorts that we used to do about Louis Laloupe.
Maybe it's because I'm Canadian and this film was for the LA fudge-packing crew and their sympathizing dames. Woe was me when I realized that then entire audience save me cracked up at all the jokes and entendres...I fully understood the hinted humor...but I just could not relate.
This show did show me, supposedly, how Gay men date and build relationships. However, even if it was their purpose of the movie, I feel that the \"Gayness\" was focused on too heavily....the humanity seemed lacking....but again, maybe that was the point...simply to be avant-gard...and to make a splash.
I guess with a low budget and poor equipment, you have to make your movie as \"loud\" as possible in order to get crowds and cash return. I really wish I had simply read my Sheldon Van Auken instead. Hehe...I was totally the wrong audience.
\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\nGreedy land baron in the tiny western town of Prairie City wants all the ranchers off their land, using intimidation tactics and arson to get them to vacate; seems the town is swimming atop oil, and when a Swedish farmer refuses to leave, he's mowed down by the baron's hired gun. The farmer's seafaring son soon arrives, slowly realizing what he's up against and attempting to rally the rest of the residents to fight. Another lawlessness-in-the-West story, with everybody under the thumb of the villain (who naturally holds all the cards). Derivative and uncomfortable at times to watch, with a long wait before our stoic hero finally gets his dander up. Sterling Hayden's half-hearted Swedish accent is a big problem, though he cuts a sturdy, sympathetic presence on the screen and almost makes the picture worth-watching. Director Joseph H. Lewis stages most of the scenes stiffly, like a TV western, and Gerald Fried's bugle-heavy score is no help, though the rich black-and-white cinematography by Ray Rennahan is excellent. An independent production released via United Artists, the film has a bizarre start (beginning with shots from the finale, followed by shots from the movie's midsection), yet it does have a certain needling power which most assuredly gets the viewer on Hayden's side. ** 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\nBig (and we mean plus sized big) baddie Sebastian Cabot is trying to run salt of the earth farmers off their land in order to get the oil rights. When sea faring Sterling Haden's pop is killed, how will Haden put an end to TERROR IN A Texas TOWN, armed only with a harpoon?
First off, this isn't a B-western. There are no singing cowboys, no daredevil stunts, no interesting action sequences. It's just an independent movie -- you know, the ones that use unimportant actors to say \"important things\" and cover the general low budget vapidity of the goings on with Interesting Camera Angles.
Second, this movie, to avoid compromises (one expects) that would cause the elimination of Trumbo's Important Statements about Justice in America, and the rather sick relationship between the chief henchman and his girl, IS really low budget. The main problem that causes is that the acting is really, really bad. Sterling Haden is decent enough in tough roles, but he is the last guy you want playing a sensitive Swedish sailor gone to find his fortune in the West. Sebastian Cabot tries to do a Sydney Greenstreet as (very) bloated plutocrat. It's not a bad idea, but Cabot does not have the acting chops for it. The guy who plays the hired gun with the missing arm and soul (Johnny Crale) has the best role in the film. He does nothing with it.
Third, the script really isn't all that. Trumbo gets some digs in about the immigrant isn't going to get a fair shake from the sheriff in a corrupt town, and the people, when up against real oppression tend to back down. This is a pretty stale movie message by 1958 -- High Noon, Bad Day at Black Rock, Devil's Doorway -- are all Westerns that deal with the evils of Western society with an eye to the evils of 50s America. Trumbo, in '59, certainly had every personal reason to agree with those sentiments, but he isn't doing anything new or interesting with them.
So, given all the negatives, why does this movie get a 4? Mostly because there are interesting quirks throughout the movie. (The relationship between Crale and his girl is, um fascinating.) And Trumbo, while a mediocre writer when pursuing his political affectations, is very good in creating both interesting characters and intelligent interactions between them. Just when one is ready to pass out from Indy movie boredom, will come an exchange of dialog or simple quirkiness that gets one realize that guy writing the script was not simply a hack.
If you don't like Trumbo or westerns, give this one a miss. Otherwise, try it. You might like it more than I did.
\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\nSebastian Cabot is a rich jerk who wants to buy up all the land because there is oil--though none of the locals are aware of the oil. With the help of an evil gunfighter in black, they kill and terrorize everyone. When the son of a murdered man arrives, he refuses to back down and stands up to these forces of darkness.
Wow. As I watched TERROR IN A Texas TOWN, I felt as if I'd seen this film many times before and would probably see something like it again. That's because aside from a few novelties (such as Sterling Hayden using a harpoon on the bad guy), it has a plot that is too familiar. Once again, we've got a rich guy who is trying to drive out all the farmers in order to gain control of all the land. And, to do so, he's brought in hired guns to force people to sell or kill them. Been there, done that in just too many films.
I love Sterling Hayden in films, but just couldn't recommend this as anything other than a poor time passer.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst of all, let me just say that after watching this movie I felt like I'd been sold a bill of goods. Mind you it's not the movie's fault that IMDb has it listen as a comedy first and a horror second (although I don't know how that's entered...maybe some moron from the film's crew put it in). Being a fan of the horror/comedy genre, I checked it out based on that and I'm so, so sorry I did. Where to start? First of all, to touch back on my beginning, there's no comedy in this movie. It tries once or twice, but never gets more than a chuckle at best. My reaction was primarily rolling my eyes and wondering why someone thought such tired material would be funny. Also, there's no horror here. Not a second of tension can be found. You think I'm exaggerating...I am not. No tension, very little blood, and not much violence on screen (sorry, but in a horror flick cutting away just as the good stuff starts is a major foul). Hell...there's even zero nudity. Call me a purist or juvenile...I prefer some in a horror flick if it can't come up with an original plot/premise. And that tired as all hell \"reality TV show gone wrong thing\"? It's been done before and a lot better. Like Wrong Turn 2 or...ummm....whatever that movie was called with Edward Furlong. That's how bad this movie is. I don't even remember the name of that movie, but it was better than this. I also enjoyed the one comment claiming the timing for this was good because \"reality TV is taking over\". Did someone from the past post that with a time machine? Are you freaking kidding me? This thing is trash...and not in a fun way.
\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\nRealty television crew are assigned to cover a small town high school hockey team running into a serial killer wearing a black mask and hoody. Lots of interviews where the members of the crew(and some of the locals who live in the town of White Plains where most of this film is set)talk into the camera about each other, those they encounter in the town of White Plains, their current situations, and the showbiz side of their lives. The screenplay is often acidic, cynical, and caustic and Killer Movie essentially pokes fun at realty television shows, featuring a cast of characters one might find on The Real World. If this plot is attractive to you, knock yourself out. I found the characters tiresome and the satire is old hat. Out of the cast, Paul Wesley, the director needing a big break, encountering more than he could possibly bargain for, Jake Tanner, is a nice guy, coming off very likable and tolerant of the crap he must contend with, considering the prima donnas and immature people in his entourage who often cause nothing but migraines. Particularly irksome is his producer Lee(Cyia Batten), a tyrant constantly barking orders to everyone, her poisonous attitude creating much tension..she's the type of producer who wishes to capitalize on a small town eruption regarding the killer, using the hockey team cover story as a front to exploit the tragedy occurring in White Plains. Those familiar with Kaley Cuoco know that by now she has perfected the pampered princess, got it down pat because it's the only role we ever see her in most of the time. As Blanca, she's polarizing the way she demands attention, milking what little celeb status she has to the hilt, manufacturing much friction as she becomes a source of frustration, and has quite the potty mouth(Cuoco may've taken the part just so she could escape her usual television sitcom roles, allowed to spout profanity without restriction) Cuoco, along with the entire cast, services Killer Movie as eye candy, but it's hard to find any character you wouldn't want to see hacked to pieces with a meat cleaver. Jason London is the sound/equipment guy, a real creep with a sour attitude, often tormenting the others with his foul comments that are uncalled for. We witness lots of personality clashes, watching how these self-absorbed Hollywood types in the cast snipe at each other. The killer's identity shouldn't surprise anyone, it's quite blatantly obvious. Some minor gore, but most of the violence is shot off-screen. Despite some tame lesbianism, not even this is satisfying. Leighton Meester pops up in the film as a cute victim. Director/writer Jeff Fisher assembles quite an attractive cast, but I wouldn't be able to distinguish this from the innumerable slashers that have stocked the horror shelves over the last ten or so years since SCREAM. While I've never liked any of Cuoco's characters, I never tire of looking at her, but eventually she needs to come up with a role that doesn't consist of her preening, with smug arrogance, always whining and complaining.
\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 still remember when Frog Baseball first aired on MTV. In some sort of odd, surreal manner, the cartoon captured the stupid actions that I think every boy growing up in America engages in. I cringe now thinking about how I burned a crippled grasshopper using a magnifying glass, but it was interesting at the time for some reason. Growing up in the 1980s we all knew \"stoners.\" These were the kids who wore Iron Maiden t-shirts to school, grew their hair long, had immature moustaches and were at least two inches taller than everyone else because they had flunked a grade or two. We laughed at them because they were so stupid even when not stoned. So it was easy to understand Beavis & Co because we already knew them, some of us were even them. To the extent that GenXers like myself would spurn the excess of the 1980s and embrace the grunge movement of the 1990s, Beavis & Co were sort of a strange post-modern anthem for us. Strange because like Beavis & Co we didn't care if we had an anthem. It was just an inside joke that we all immediately got even if it was 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 don't care if this show is suppose to be communicating profound messages about human existence.
The show is crap....how can anyone derive pleasure from watching it? Yet it was received so well. This reflects a sad state of affairs for Joe Moron out there.
I tried watching this program when it first came out as friends were talking about it. The inane laughing between the two main characters and the pitiful dialog made me want to cry.
It is beyond belief that people can watch this show. Yet I guess the creators had the last laugh....making themselves wealthy by taking the p.ss out of the very people that would watch a show such as this.
I would wager they are laughing all the way to the bank.
\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\nAccording to Milan Kundera, a porcelain-cat holding a red rose is denying the crap. Well, those criminals guilty of making this series probably wanted to show how to make a total opposite of the porcelain-cat holding a red rose. Because teenaged sleazoids Beavis and Butthead are enthusiastically from the place where the sun doesn't shine and their crappiness infects the whole stoopid series. MTV has received a LOT of bad-mouthing from it's half-nude stripper beauties, while THIS is gathering positive reviews in IMDb. Well, newsflash to everybody - your butt is cool too, if you go out showing it in the middle of the winter - something these two probably would do. Still, there is no need to make a film about your butt - and yes, these two probably would do that, too.
\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\nSeriously... I'm amazed at all the good feedback this show has here. All we have in this show is two stupid kids who keep doing an annoying laugh and they do OCCASIONAL funny things only in like... 2 of the shows, while most of the others sucked... as then they comment on music videos which I cannot stand personally while they either love or like.
In most episodes, the only things you will hear are the repitive \"let's go score with some chicks\", or \"I'll kick your ass beavis\", or the better yet and usually used quote \"that was cool\", and above all, their annoying laugh.
If you want a good animated show, try The Simpsons, Ren and Stimpy, South Park, this show is just not worth the time or energy it takes to watch this awful MTV series truthfully.
\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\nDreadful film about a doctor who goes fishing and winds up catching a mermaid when he is thrown overboard. She traps him into bringing her back with him.
Glynis Johns, in the title role, is really a silly individual with a tail hanging out.
Margaret Rutherford is the nurse who is supposed to be so eccentric but we see no eccentricity here. In fact, Miss Rutherford was not allowed to use her true comedic gifts.
Nice to see David Tomlinson in the film. He would get together with Johns in the far superior \"Mary Poppins,\" 16 years later.
Miranda causes mischief in that two guys, a neighbor's fiancée and chauffeur (Tomlinson) fall for her.
Ask any mermaid you happen to see, what's the best tuna, Chicken of the Sea! As for this film, forget 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\nYumiko (Wakana Sakai), the pretty adopted daughter of a recently-deceased Japanese businessman, inherits control of her father's company; her uncle Kazuo (Shun Sugata), miffed that he wasn't left the business to run, orders a hit on his niece. When jug-eared chef Kensuke (Takashi Okamura) enters the wrong hotel room by mistake and knocks out hit-man Invincible (Jung Yuen), he is mistaken for the killer and sent to kill Yumiko. Instead, he falls for the pretty heiress and ends up vowing to protect her. However, she is kidnapped by Kazuo's men while Kensuke is preoccupied playing an arcade game with cop Daniel (Sam Lee).
Uncle Kazuo keeps Yumiko in a hypnotic trance, and takes control of the business, but runs into a spot of bother himself, when his gangster pals threaten to reveal his illegal activities unless he allows them total control.
Meanwhile, Kensuke teams up with two martial arts experts, Lam Kau (Yuen Baio) and Lam Doi (Candy Lo) who are hunting Invincible. He learns Kung Fu and attempts to free Yumiko.
A mixture of broad slapstick humour, spoofery and fight scenes, No Problem 2 is a disappointing film considering the talent involved: 80s kung fu superstar Yuen Baio manages a few fight scenes but is getting a little old for acrobatics these days; director Kar Lok Chin delivers the kind of dumb parody schtick I'd expect from a Scary Movie film; Jung Yuen resorts to mocking his character in Operation Scorpio; and Sam Lee well, Sam Lee is as annoying as always!
On the other hand, Collin Chou, as gangster Ben, impressed me; he has an obviously strong screen presence which has not gone unnoticed by Hollywoodhe has since starred in two of the Matrix movies and is soon to appear in D.O.A., directed by Corey Yuen. I was also impressed by Wakana Sakai, but for an entirely different reason: this beauty is easy on the eye and should go much further in the film business.
There is some fun to be had from working out what movies are being parodied, but at 104 minutes I found this film a real chore to sit through. If people pulling funny faces accompanied by silly sound effects makes you burst your sides laughing, then No Problem 2 might appeal to you. Otherwise, I would leave well alone.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nUnless there's some huge ironic conspiracy going on, my jaw dropped when I read the positive reviews of this film; I cannot believe that this film was even released, it's so bad.
I admit it is not my kind of movie, but I tried to watch it objectively anyway, you know, so bad it's funny, and was still offended at its sheer awfulness.
The acting is atrocious, they can't have watched the rushes and I'm guessing there was one take per scene, it really is that terrible. It is the worst film I have seen in many a year, in fact, I wouldn't even call it a film, it's a tragedy. The gay black friend, whom no-one actually calls \"gay\", it's just implied because he's so crazy? Homophobic. This is not good, in fact, this is downright vomit inducing. The jokes die on their pathetic arses, the music is so bad it defies belief. The person who compiled the soundtrack essentially chose the most ear-mutilatingly bad songs they had ever heard and put them in this waste of film stock. Oh my good Christ I can't believe the 80's produced utter garbage like this, I grew up through them, and I cannot find one thing worth of note here, it must have been a dark time to be a cinema-goer.
If you even contemplate watching this film go see a psychiatrist, he will then accordingly slap you, you sick, sick person.
\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\nNearly everything that Stephen King has ever written seems to have been turned into a film or TV series; in fact, I'm surprised that no one has tried to make a mini-series from the guy's grocery list. Let's face it, if they did, it couldn't be any less interesting than Children of the Corn.
Based on one of King's many short stories, this 1984 horror flick sees Linda Hamilton and Peter Horton playing a couple on a long car journey who run into a spot of bother when they chance upon the sleepy Nebraska town of Gatlin, where all of the adults have been murdered by children who worship an ancient evil that lurks in the corn fields.
Although director Fritz Kiersch does manage to build a fair amount of atmosphere at the beginning (after Hamilton's silly song and dance, but before we get to meet the freakish Isaac, leader of the killer kids), he completely blows it with endless unexciting scenes in which Hamilton and Horton are hunted down by the town's homicidal half-pints. Courtney Gains, as violent redhead Malachai, manages to appear genuinely menacing, but the rest of the children are not the least bit threatening; as a result, many of the film's 'scary' moments fail to work.
Towards the end of the film, when we finally get to see the malevolent force that inhabits the field surrounding Gatlin, the film descends into a glut of terrible 80s visual effects that probably looked pretty ropey almost 25 years ago, but look positively laughable nowadays.
Children of the Corn might be of interest to King fans keen to see how the writer's work has been translated to the big screen, but your average horror-film fan will be most unimpressed.
\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 must admit, ashamed though I am, that as an impressionable young teenager this below par horror-chiller was one of my favourite all time films. Nine years after first viewing Stephen King's frightening story however I have now come to my senses, and am able to assess Fritz Kiersch's work more reasonably.
Indeed King's tale of a small Nebraskan farming community that is turned upside down by a young demonic preacher boy and his sadistic sidekick is truly disturbing on paper, but it makes for a cheap, average horror show on celluloid. A lot of this outcome can be attributed to the fact that Kiersch almost allows the beginning of the film to become a hacker-slasher show, and then turns the finale into a hocus-pocus special effects nightmare.
The cast are reasonable, but they can only portray as much credibility as this rather incredible, over the top movie will allow them, and the soundtrack by Jonathan Elias is spookier than the pictures.
A real shame that George Goldsmith's screenplay turned Stephen King's haunting short story into a shocking horror. Isaac, Malachai and all the other \"Children of the Corn\" aren't really all that scary.
Sunday, August 7, 1994 - Video
\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\nWhile this is horribly dated, I MUST insist...PLEASE, NO REMAKE! Frankly, it just won't help, as there's nothing which could be added or changed, contemporarily, to make this cinematically better.
The novel upon which this is based, was atmospheric, well written, truly spooky work, but on film, it just doesn't translate. Most of King's written masterpieces fail to translate to film. I'm not sure why this is, but when you view this work, if you view it, you are likely to see just what I mean.
The book? It's wonderful. It's not a masterpiece, but it's more than just entertaining.
The movie? Do something else. You can thank me later.
It rates a 3.1/10 from...
the Fiend :.
\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 sorry, but for a movie that has been so stamped as a semi classic and a scary movie, but seriously, I think when the director has me laughing unintentionally, that's not a good thing. The characters in this film were just so over the top and unbelievable. I just couldn't stop laughing at Issac's voice, it was just like a high pitched whiny girl's British voice. Not to mention Malicai's over dramatic stick up his butt character.
Children of the Corn is about a town where all the children have killed off the adults and worship a God that commands them to sacrifice any 20+ aged people. When a couple has a bad car accident they come to the town for help, but of course they get caught in the kid's trap and are getting sacrificed! But Malicai has other intentions when he is sick of following Issac's orders.
Children of the Corn could've been something great, but turned into a bad over the top movie that you could easily make fun of. As much as I love Stephen King, I'm sure this is not what he intended and it was a pretty lame story, or at least the actors destroyed it. Like I said, for a good laugh, watch it, but I'm warning you, it's pretty pathetic.
3/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA traveling couple (Horton and Hamilton)stumble onto the town of Gatlin, where kids have slaughtered the adults and are always eager to slaughter more, along the way they're separated and Peter Horton of course must save his wife from these tiresome, er terrible tykes in this very bad adaption of one of King's best short stories. In the original story King managed to create tension and draw personality of his characters, however all of that has been zapped from the production and all that is left is a repetitive bore which is far too predictable to be all that suspenseful. Also the effective ending used in the story is in favor dumped for a happy ending which makes the overall impact mute. There is some atmosphere and stylish directing but no plot to back any of it up. The kids are woefully unconvincing also.
1/5 Matt Bronson
\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 word i can find to describe this movie is Awful.
This movie is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. First of all is the plot a very thin plot (Wont comment further on this part) and a plot which a lot of movies from this genre is following. This makes the movie so bad, because you know whats going to happen. Secondly does the movie contain a lot of questions which never is revealed. One of the questions (and this is no spoiler) is: WHAT THE HELL ARE THE KIDS DOING IN THAT CORN!!!!!!!!!! Thirdly is the characters very bad, not only because the movie is bad, but also because of the sorry actors. They are bad as they can be.
The last thing that make this movie bad, is that its a horror movie. You are supposed to be scared of the killings or the sudden shocks, but you are not scared, you a not horrified because you know whats going to happen.
Conclusion: The movie is as bad as the movie about the killer ants! I hoped that it was a very great movie but because the story is bad, the actors are bad, the film raises a lot of questions and because its not scary, the movie is best unseen.
\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\nHaving loved Stephen King's novels and short stories for many years, I, like most reviewers, have been consistently disappointed in the adaptations to film from his printed works. A few notable exceptions are \"Stand By Me\" from \"The Body\", \"Carrie\" from the novel of the same name, and \"The Shawshank Redemption\" from \"Rita Heyworth and Shawshank Redemption\". This movie is by far the worst thing that has ever been produced with Stephen King's name attached to it in any way. It is no surprise that Mr. King has pretty much disavowed any connection with it. I feel the thing that most offended me about this poorly acted, cheaply filmed, hideously directed piece of garbage is that they had the audacity to COMPLETELY change the ending Don't waste your time or money on this amazing bow-wow of a movie!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\ni found this movie to be a complete waste of 96 minutes. jones was a weird kid and is severly messed up! According to my memory which might be wrong, wasnt he only 16 or 17 years old? **Spoiler** why did he leave college and rent an apartment with a two crazy girls who feud over boys for a pasttime? and the cowboy who lives underneath jones creeped me out too, how he knew what happened in the apartments didnt float past me for a minute. i do not understand his thinking about the girl that took pictures for fun and stayed in her room when mandy moore was always over and is was quite obvious that she wanted to be more than friends with him. i dont really find this movie funny or artsy or dramatic or anything, i found it to be stupid and a complete waste of time (D- F+)
\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 could be some SPOILERS AHEAD but I doubt it. I have no idea how the screenplay for this one made it past the shredder. It's horrible. Completely unwatchable. I hung in there for 45 minutes (about half the running time) and just couldn't stand it anymore. I was an Elijah Wood fan in the '90s (see \"The War\") and I learned to enjoy Mandy Moore's shifts from bubbly to serious this year (see \"Chasing Liberty\" which is surprisingly entertaining). I've seen bits of \"Run Lola Run.\" So with three leads I liked this should have been fine. It wasn't. Nobody turned in a good performance. Wood's Jones was flat. For an aspiring writer he had next to no imagination (his violent fantasies looked like they were ripped off from \"A Christmas Story\" and his lustful ones were--huh, a cross between boring and alarming). Potente is absolutely unlikable from the first second and I'd only know that she was supposed to be \"THE girl\" by reading the box. Speaking of the synopsis--whoever they employed for that job made the film sound funny, quirky, romantic, and quite enjoyable. Whoever that person was, he or she should have been employed to rewrite this script. By the halfway point, I didn't care about ANY of the characters anymore. Moore's Lisa is an aspiring actress who's bubbly and a little conniving (for no apparent reason at all) but her ludicrous period play (which is supposed to be funny in presentation) is on a par with the rest of the script. There is supposedly a happy, romantic comedy ending to this turkey--given the character material they had to work with, I just can't envision it. Save your money. Warn your friends. DON'T watch this movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNo spoiler needed to steer you clear of this...well, bizarre film. Canada becomes part of the USA. OK. So, I guess I'm unusual, but I expected something about the implications of Canada becoming part of the USA. Silly me. Continue with this movie and you are off to cloud coocoo land. The opening premise has nothing to do with the rest of the film in which you will (trust me) not care a squat for any of the characters. Slings and Arrows and Due South have to be among the most imaginative series ever. But in this case, Paul Gross, I'm so very sorry to say, didn't have a clue about making a coherent film and wasted a lot of talented actors in the process. A real 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\nI wasn't sure where this was headed until the ending. when it turned out that this was all a liberal conspiracy to hand the world over to European wimps and the United Nations. What a load of right-wing crud! Incidentally, the bit about Canada joining the US didn't really have much to do with the plot at all and the idea was never developed. The only point of it seems to be that it made the main character eligible to run for President(but they could have just made him American and dispensed with that). In any event, this was a load of bull and not worth your time. If you wan't to see this kind of thing done well, check out the brilliant BBC political thriller \"State of Play.\"
\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\nMGM hodgepodge of Jimmy Durante throwing a big party for everybody in Hollywood. No major stars show up--we get the Three Stooges, Laurel & Hardy, Durante and Lupe Velez. I didn't recognize anyone else--they were probably unknowns (for good reason). The movie contains annoyingly unfunny jokes and some truly dreadful songs and choreography. The only things that save this from being a total disaster are Laurel & Hardy's \"battle\" with Lupe Velez and a wonderful color Disney cartoon called \"The Hot Chocolate Soldier\". It's a beautiful, very colorful cartoon that gives the movie a huge boost. Otherwise, the movie is a colossal bore. There's no director credited--what does that tell you?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nPoor Bela Lugosi. Just another day at work. A group of saboteurs attempting to disrupt the American war effort from the inside. It's pretty hard to figure out at first because, while we know these guys are up to something, their method of operation just isn't very clear. I won't spoil it, but the ending in pretty amazing. There are a series of murders perpetrated by our hero. A police force that doesn't know what is going on. What a coincidence that all the victims seem to come and go from the same house. There are comments like, \"A true patriot would do this or that.\" It's obvious while suspicion abounds most of the world wouldn't know a spy or a subversive if it jumped up and bit them. I also was surprised to see Clayton Moore (the Lone Ranger) in a romantic role. I never realized that he ever did anything other than sit on a horse. There is, of course, the smugness of the criminals as they think that they are immune from the killer's guest list. Anyway, Bela is sort of a good guy and a bad guy rolled into one. The best scene in the movie is at the end, but I won't spoil it. As a curiosity, and a period piece, it may be fun to watch for some people.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film is truly a sorry excuse for film making. The pacing is poor, the budget must have been depressingly low, and the acting is cut-rate (that is, except for Bela Lugosi). The audio at this point in time is also terrible, with so much extra noise in the background that it sounded to me as though a jet were taking off for the entirety of the movie. If these things bother you at all, don't watch this film.
If you can get past this, however, you will find that the idea behind the film is a very good one. A German plastic surgeon (Bela Lugosi) was hired by the Japanese to operate on several Japanese agents and turn them into the likenesses of upstanding American businessmen whom the Japanese have kidnapped and killed. After completing his work, he was betrayed by the Japanese and thrown into prison. He later escapes and travels to America to seek revenge on his patients through a series of highly-publicized murders.
It seemed as though Bela Lugosi was the only decent actor in the film, and, to be honest, the rest of the actors were completely forgettable and stodgy. The leading actress ended up being rather boring and stereotypical, while the police officer assigned to her case was the common, chauvinistic and always correct dominant male that is found in many films of this time period.
I also found that the camera work was completely uninspired, often taking the exact same angles of the exact same rooms time and time again. After a while, this tends to drag the film down, setting a very slow pace for the \"action,\" which is more or less non-existent anyway.
To me, the idea is a fascinating one, and with a better writer, director, script, equipment, and actors it could become an excellent film. Sadly, these handicaps keep the film back for now, and I can't recommend it to anyone but the most open of movie lovers.
\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\"Black Dragons\" is a second feature WWII propaganda film popular at the time. It's not as bad as some would have you believe.
A secret meeting hosted by the respected Dr. William Saunders (George Pembroke)is interrupted by a mysterious stranger names Monsieur Colomb (Bela Lugosi). Shortly thereafter the participants at the meeting begin to turn up murdered, their bodies being placed on the steps of the Japanese embassy in Washington. Colomb is suspected. Federal Agent Dick Martin (Clayton Moore) is assigned to the case and meets Saunders niece Alice Saunders (Joan Barclay) who tries to assist him. The reasons behind Colomb's actions are not explained until the final reel. Until all is explained at the end, the story is hard to comprehend.
Lugosi who had by this time been reduced to appearing in a string of low budget quickies, is actually quite good in this one. He is not allowed to over act as much as he ususlly did and credit for this has to go to director William Nigh. Lugosi's character slinks through the shadows and is reminiscent of his Dracula even to the point of the full close ups of his piercing eyes.
Clayton Moore, a one dimensional actor at best, would become TV's Lone Ranger in a few years. Joan Barclay makes a good heroine.
Although a little dated now, \"Black Dragons\" is not a bad way to spend an hour.
\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 strange film. A bit horror and certainly film noir. Some fifth columnists meet and mysteriously start dying off with a Japanese dagger in their hands after Monsieur Colomb (Bela Lugosi) shows up.
Soon the Lone Ranger arrives in the person of FBI Agent Richard 'Dick' Martin (Clayton Moore). Martin is ineffective in finding the killer as he is more interested in the niece (Joan Barclay) of a missing doctor, who is part of the gang.
After the last man dies, and the doctor is horribly disfigured by some strange serum, the true story of the group comes out and that is where it gets interesting and weird. I won't spill it.
Lugosi was marvelous as the skulking killer.
\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 probably have to blame myselfbut I sure as hell expected more from a movie that goes by the title \"Black Dragons\" and revolves on secret WWII conspiracies, Nazi plastic surgeons and revenge. This film is a dull failure with an incomprehensible structure. The actual plot (which basically is rather ingenious and intriguing) only becomes clear during an explication near the end, but the problem is that you stop caring a long time before. We see how horror icon Bela Lugosi infiltrates in a society of prominent American politicians and kills them one by one. The story is timed right before WWII and  especially after witnessing the ending  it surely is a premise with lots of potential, so it's quite a shame it isn't elaborated more proper. There is however one great dialogue that I can't resist sharing! Man towards woman: \"Do you want to marry me?\" \"Why?\" \"So I can beat you upit's the only way you'll leave this place!\" It's the only highlight in an overall very boring movie. Bela Lugosi is lovely  as usual  but his spooky performance alone is hardly worth purchasing this film. If you're interested in seeing other ghoulish performances of his (in movies with decent screenplays), check out \"Invisible Ghost\", \"The Corpse Vanishes\", \"White Zombie\" and of course the 1931 Dracula version.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"