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\nYou know you've got a bad film when you hear that the soundtrack is performed completely on a single cheap programmable synthesizer, without any melody or sense of rhythm.
It's hard to see how anyone could take this film seriously, even while giving it a bad review. This film is way beneath 'bad'.
The continuity of this film is outrageously butchered. In one fight scene, we the hero (wearing bluejeans and undershirt) turn a corner with two revolvers in his hand; he doubles back, only now he has two semi-automatics in his hands; he turns another corner and now he has an automatic rifle in his hands; he chases down a hallway and comes out (suddenly dressed in standard army fatigue jacket)with a shotgun; after which he exits the building with yet another automatic rifle. Or here's one for the books - a bus slams into a car at high speed; the car goes flying, thrown by a gigantic explosion - cut to the bus which is completely unscathed from the same explosion? The narrative continuity suffers from an equally numbing sense of unreality; the bad guys really want to kill the hero - obviously - but every time they knock him out or otherwise get him in a vulnerable position, they suddenly decide they want him \"to live to see this!\" Huh? One of the funnier moments of the film is when the hero is released from isolation because his lawyer has come to see him; then the bad guy decides he's not going to let the two meet after all; and this despite the fact that the the villain, the hero and his lawyer all know what's going on anyway, so the hero writes a note to the lawyer and next we see the note being passed to the lawyer by another prisoner, even though we never see the hero give it to him. (This lawyer, BTW, has complete access to the Offices of the ATF in California, including its confidential computer files.) Huh? Well, but it's a mindless action movie - so how're the action scenes? Not bad, surprisingly; unfortunately they happen to be stoled from about a dozen Hong Kong films made five or ten years previously. The opening scene, a shoot-out in a junker garage, actually has shots the composition of which are stolen directly from \"Hard Boiled\" - so clearly so that it's a wonder John Woo didn't sue for plagiarism.
Other Hong Kong films stolen from include \"Prison on Fire\", \"Island on Fire\", \"Burning Paradise\", \"Police Story\" I, II, and III (aka \"Supercop\"). I thought I recognized a couple Sammo Hung clips here as well. In other words, the actions scenes are exciting only to the extent that they are successful duplications of action scenes from other films.
There's nothing one can do with this film unless one shoots smack and just needs a lot of visual stimuli that needn't be make any sense.
Very funny film, for all the wrong reasons.
\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 do not know which one was first released earlier in 1970 . Cannon for Cordoba is an \"Europen Western\" It was made in Spain. This means this is fairly inferior to Sergio Leone's so-called #Western Spaghetti and to the Real American Masterpieces of John Ford, Sam Peckinpah, Howard Hugues,John Sturges and Anthony Mann, in my order of merit. This order is not to be interpreted as all John Ford Westerns are better than all by Sam Peckipahn's. I think IMDb's 100 Sort them out all pretty well.
The worse about this firm is the Casting. George Peppard is fit for a sergeant's role, Raff Valone for a \"Maffia Capo\" and Giovanna Ralli to a \"puttana\" in \"Piazza Vennezia\" in the sixty's in Rome.
\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\nAfter slightly over 50 years of avid film watching, I've come up with some simple rules for making good movies.
1.\tIntroduce your main characters early, certainly within the first half hour 2.\tKeep your characters to a minimum. If adapting a novel, combine characteristics and actions of minor characters
into one person 3.\tMake sure your characters actions have credibility; if necessary, create additional scenes to establish motivation 4.\tKeep the action clear. Violence does not have to be explicit, but it must not be confusing, either 5.\tGet the best music money can buy. Frequently it matters more than acting, photography, etc. 6.\tUsually if a movie isn't very good within the first 10 minutes, it's not going to get any better
`Cannon for Cordoba' is a textbook example of what happens when these simple rules are not followed. Elmer Bernstein's score is rinkydink, one of the worst I've ever heard in a modestly budgeted movie. This is altogether surprising considering Bernstein's credentials (`Man With the Golden Arm,' `The Magnificent Seven,' `The Great Escape,' `Sons of Katie Elder'). Paul Wendkos' direction is lackluster and confusing. Performances vary from very good (Don Gordon, Peter Duel) to terrible (Raf Vallone, Giovanna Ralli, Gabriele Tinti) with the usually reliable George Peppard falling somewhere in the middle. This should not be surprising, considering the mediocre direction and amateurish script, which breaks rules 1, 2 and 3.
Don't waste your time. I give `Cannon for Cordoba' a `3'.
\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\nHis significant charisma and commanding presence are about all that keep this afloat, but Fred Williamson has done far better urban action films including many of his later, vid-released fare. The big studios' Williamson films of the early-to-mid 70's rarely had the punch of their mid-level counterparts, and this is a prime example. Clumsy action, little violence, and the PG rating is nowhere near questionable. Worth a look for Hammer completists in any case.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBLACK EYE (2 outta 5 stars) Unimaginatively-filmed '70s action movie looks like it was made for TV... only the occasional cuss word and a subplot about lesbianism tip you off that the movie was actually made to be shown in theatres. Fred Williamson plays a tough guy ex-cop who becomes a tough guy private eye. He stumbles upon a couple of murders and attempted murders linked to a mysterious cane. There are some fistfights, a Bullit-inspired car chase, a fairly original elevator scene and even time for Williamson to confront the rich, lesbian lover of his girlfriend (Teresa Graves). There is also a scene with Williamson bullying a poor old man by tearing up some priceless old autographed photos in his memorabilia shop. Yeah, way to go, tough guy... maybe you can find a cripple to beat up later? Obviously meant to cash in on the success of \"Shaft\" (this and about six thousand other movies), this movie doesn't have enough edge or enough originality to make much of an impression.
\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\nAhem.. I think I'll be the only one who's saying this but yes, I was a lil bored during the film. Not to say that this is a bad movie, in fact it's a very good attempt at portraying the innermost emotions - dilemma, sorrow, love.., esp it's the director's debut (read from somewhere, is it true?). I felt that something's not quite right, maybe it's just me, I'm not drawn to the characters enough to immerse me in their world. This is a simple story, about ordinary people, ordinary lives. Through simple and short dialogs, the director tries to relate a simple guy's life, and how copes with the news of his illness by laughing it away every time. Oh ya his laughter was kinda cute at first but gradually it gets to me, such a deep hearty roar for a gentle man! I must say, I didn't feel the impact that most readers felt, in fact I was more drawn to the trivial scenarios like spitting of watermelon seeds with his sis that clearly shows that they're comfortable with each other, the granny who came back for another shot - this is kinda melancholic, the thoughtful gesture of writing down the procedures for his dad - hmm but this is predictable.. Don't misunderstood that I'm an action-lover, independent films are my cup of tea! Perhaps I just have a really high expectation after watching many deep films that have stronger imagery. Some Asian films worth the watch:
Tony Takitani (depicts loneliness) Wayward Cloud (only 1 dialog) My Sassy Girl (I like it!) 4.30 (loneliness as well) 15 (gangsters lives in local setting) Before sunrise and Before sunset (I just have to mention these even though they are not Asian films. Fans will understand!)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf I were to rate this movie based solely on the acting/script/production, etc., I would give it one star. All these elements are awful. I can partially forgive this, in light of the film's $250 budget. The movie does contain many entertaining scenes, mostly those of the unintentionally funny variety. Some of these include: a 14-year-old kid stealing and driving a bus, teenage hooligans (one of whom is sporting a Joy Division t-shirt) getting scared away from harassing the film's protagonists by a woman brandishing an obviously fake firearm, and an encounter with a plastic bull's skull in the Arizona desert.
I would have given it 5 stars just for the entertainment value were it not for the presence of that horribly annoying, morally pontificating old granny. I had to dock one star just because of her. Who the *bleep* makes a wedding cake with black frosting, anyhow?
\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 cannot get over how awful this movie was. My eyes want to jump out of my head and my ears are gushing blood from the horrible awful one song soundtrack. There are four kids and dog and they run away from a hospital then get away with stealing two cars and a bus. No one gives them any punishment or anything to correct them. The acting is just so awful it sounds like an instruction video for social studies class. I cannot think of one thing that I like about this movie. Nothing. Even the kid that loses his dog made me want to vomit. He gets his dog back without the lady even seeing the dog run out the door. Maybe the dog was trying to escape out of this movie. Then there is some horse manure in the whole mix. It was torture watching this movie. Then at the end the oldest boy says something like staying together isn't a crime and they all hug him and love him. Stealing gas is a crime. Stealing two cars and a bus is a crime and he should have went to juvenile hall or something. Avoid this movie at all costs and especially if you want to keep your family together.
\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\nItalians movie-makers love to rip off American movies. All of our movies, and as often as possible.
I'm not stating that as a slur against Italy as a whole, but I would like to further observe that the Italian film industry does itself great harm by allowing travesties like this to go overseas to be seen by the world at large. That's all I'm saying.
And no more grave injury do the Italian people subject themselves to than by not sticking a harsh penalty upon those who made the world watch \"Shark rosso nell'oceano\" - which is, admittedly, a ripoff of the far-superior \"Jaws\" (as if you didn't know).
Let's dive into the plot (Get it? Haw-haw...): this huge monstrous swimming thing that looks like a cross between an octopus, a shark and Steven Tyler attacks many innocent Americans (ie: Italians) off the coast of Florida (ie: Italy) and the intrepid, beer-swilling Peter (Sopkiw) sails out with his anorexic, beer-swilling girlfriend and other beer-swilling people whose main purposes are to be eaten by the creature, killed by mysterious forces who want the creature left alone or just stand around and be otherwise useless (and swill beer)...or be the doctor in this film who defibrilates dying patients repeatedly (20, maybe 30 times in a row) without waiting for his paddles to recharge (must be one heck of a good battery there, doc).
Then there's the monster...brother, if you thought the \"Jaws\" shark was fake, look herein and have your mind changed IMMEDIATELY.
This is a movie that was directed as an afterthought (by a Bava!), edited with an onion chopper, acted by ambulatory (beer-swilling) pieces of driftwood and written by (PRESUMABLY beer-swilling) people who should never ever ever ever be let near a typewriter, movie studio or major city in the world ever again. If this is how the people who made this film think real people act in such a situation, they've obviously made one too many of them zombie movies. Or swilled too much beer.
Need I say this movie is bad? It is: bad like green cottage cheese; bad like a Hawaiian shirt at a formal wedding; bad like the \"Bad Theatre\" skits Dan Aykroyd used to host on \"Saturday Night Live\"; bad like Calista Flockhart Weight Gain Tablets - get it? Good.
Mike and the SOL gang slap this beer-drunk beauty upside the head repeatedly and reveal this \"horror\" film as what it is: horrible. Though, with a certain European charm: it's charming, when watched by a European - preferably a beer-swilling one.
No stars for the waterlogged, dead fish known as \"Shark rosso nell'oceano\"; six stars for the MST3K version. ...and now, anyone for a beer?

\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 sure what the director and editor were thinking when they were editing this poor excuse for a film, but whatever they thought of didn't help this movie, it only hurt it, and it hurt this film badly. The acting, for once, isn't the problem, it's the horrible editing, scenes will end for no apparent reason, while in the middle of an action sequence or people will be cut off in mid sentence. I'm not sure what the story was, but it didn't really matter, since what I did see was fairly uninteresting. Just bad all around, a huge \"Jaws\" rip-off and not a good one at that. The MST version was funny though. 7 for that, none for the film itself.
\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\nSometimes it's hard to judge how bad a film made in Italy or Spain really is, because they all seem to use the same stable of 9-10 ESL trained voice actors to supply the English voices for release in the US. And things are always lost in translation anyway -dialog, character shtick and plot elements written for the expectations of European audiences may not go too well with our American ideas of what is funny, hip, or dramatic. I imagine that the team responsible for making the translation for the sound track of this movie to English had about 3 days to do it from start to finish, and they probably each earned the equivalent of an installment payment on their used Fiat to do it. In other words, pure hackwork, tossed off in one or two takes and never reviewed or redone by someone with a real ear for the American language.
Watching \"Devil Fish\", I can imagine that if you were an Italian watching this presented in your native language, you might find it a mildly amusing little piece of fluff. You'd laugh at the 'in jokes' and the amusing drunk, you'd gasp at the monster and the villainy of the bad guys, and you'd ogle at the attractive pair of Peter and not-quite-Daryll Hannah as they couple on the beach for no apparent reason in the middle of a search for clues about a man-eating monster who has already killed one of their friends.
But since the jarring voice acting and tin-eared dialog keep yanking we Americans out of the film experience, we can't help but notice that the editors had serious Attention Deficit Disorder, that no one on screen can really act so much as project an Attitude, that the stated reason for the creation of the monster makes absolutely no sense, that the action sequences have all the impact of a cereal bowl full of cooked oatmeal and that the director, screenwriters and producers really hate women.
Don't even THINK about buying or renting this movie - watch only on cable TV on Saturday afternoon with one of several beers in your fist, or with the help and protection of Mike and the Bots on MST3K.
\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\nboring, horrible piece of Italian euro-trash about a scientist who seems to spend most of his time guzzling beer(this is what makes him American, right? Our scientists spend most of their academic life soused out of their minds, sure. That's where all the really great theories come from), who's studying something(dolphin calls, fish migration patterns, who knows). He hears a weird sound through his headphones, proving that his radio is picking up a station in Jamaica. At the same time, a Jack Skellington girl with one of the worst, most bleached manes of bad 80's hair that it has ever been my pleasure to witness is trying to calm down the dolphins in the Seaquarium she works at, as they're apparently upset about the amount of fish she's been doling out lately. The beginning of the film was a really badly colored storyline about two annoying, very Italian people who's boat is attacked by something unseen under the water. The whiny woman is never seen again(best part of the story), and the guys' corpse is found with no legs. The dim, alcoholic scientist(who has an inexplicable, English- American- Italian accent) and the stick girl with the hay hair begin to theorize that there's some kind of giant monster lurking under the seas off the coast of Italy...err..Florida.
They enlist the help of an electrician to set up an underwater mike, so that the monster can sing karaoke. This guy has a beautiful girlfriend, who's only drawback is that she pronounces Peter \"Pey-tah\", but for some reason he's sexually drawn to the anatomical skeleton with the frizzly hair, a situation that leaves one blinking.
The dubbing is awful, the editor a spaz, and the storyline generally a yawn. There's a bit about how this weird scientific corporation genetically engineered this monster giant shark-squid-barracuda thing for some reason that makes no sense, and a really unpleasant greasy haired guy goes around killing women, again for no apparent reason. A stupid sheriff and his bulked up deputy are along for the ride, along with a female scientist(who we know is smart because she wears huge glasses). At one time the woman scientist takes on the huge, terrible monster(yeah, right, Ed Wood's giant octopus was more believable) with only a small handaxe, and she wins the contest. Hooray for skinny little women, who obviously make the best monster hunters!
The solution to the problem of the giant thing is to blow up half of the Everglades, leaving a dead zone for several miles in every direction. To Hell with ecology and the environment, right? We have to kill this giant monster! At the end, the electrician and his broomstick love ride off into the sunset on her Vespa, which is o.k. since she's gotten over her colleagues' death and he's not very upset that his girlfriend got whacked by the crazy guy with the greasy hair. Hooray for true love! Wait a minute, isn't there something fishy about all this...
\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\nWARNING: MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS
The ripples in the wake of the first \"Jaws\" movie were still prominent in the 1980s as well as beyond. Movie monsters went from being radioactive monstrosities to unknown and voracious beasts lurking in the unexplored corners of human experience (ie: the ocean, deep space, genetics). Although \"Jaws\" was a milestone in this particular realm of film horror, few films have been able to match the visceral impact of the original. \"Shark rosso nell'oceano\" (aka Devil Fish or Red Ocean), is a dutiful follower of the original \"Jaws\" formula. After several hapless boats and seagoers are brutally murdered by some ocean creature, there is an initial drive to discover the beast, then a failure to study it without horrible results, and a final push to destroy it. Although the filmmakers attempted to inject some fresh life into the equation by adding elements of technology and corporate conspiracy, the result is nothing short of disastrous. This movie sinks under its own weight of ghastly editing, brittle acting, and cheap scares.
The most sickly compelling feature of \"Devil Fish\" is its cookie-cutter editing. From the onset of the film when 3 different scenes are mashed together, the viewer gets a sense that the film lacks any technical credibility. It appears as if the editors cut the scenes around a set musical score instead of cutting the film and then making necessary changes to the music. Furthermore, every cut is an intercut and it would appear as if the editors had never heard of the terms \"fade\", \"wipe\", or \"dissolve\". The impact of scenes can never settle in because they are immediately cut short after a final line and a new scene begins. Silly camera tricks abound such as when two of the principle characters share a private moment on the beach and a sort of time-lapse image of their act is composited over their bodies.
The music is equally bland. The creature theme is a hopeless duplicate of the \"Jaws\" theme with slight variation. Although I like to keep my reviews devoid of MST3K influence, Mike most aptly described the somber score as \"soft core porn music\". Failing to produce tension in a film that relies so heavily on it is a death blow to \"Devil Fish\". The acting is stale, the relationships baffling, and the whole conspiracy is laughable. The question remains that if genetics had advanced to such a level to create a huge chimera of a sea monster to protect oceanic interests, why couldn't a more practical use be administered to better mankind? One of the few positive aspects of this film is the idea of the monster, even though its film presence is less than stellar.
Overall, this movie is bad enough to dip below mediocre. If \"Jaws\" had never been made, then the film could be described as average because its subject matter would be new and exciting even if it was executed ineffectively. Sadly, as a carbon copy of Spielberg's original thriller it sits most comfortably on a garbage heap of cheese.
\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\nNever before has such a large cast of ugly people gathered together to make an equally ugly film.
Something huge and horrifying is loose in the waters off the Florida coast, something that leaves half chewed up bodies behind in its wake. Unshaven beer dependent Bob thinks he has caught the Thing's \"evil voice\" on tape. Bob's assistant, the amazingly unattractive and painfully skinny Stella, decides to enlist the help of slimy ladies man Peter, an electrician whose equipment may be able to help them locate the mysterious creature. But anyone who sticks their nose too far into the mystery winds up dead, killed by a baboon faced hit-man with a bad perm. What is the terrible secret behind the Sea Killer?
Ugly scientists have torrid affairs, inept cops and doctors puzzle over the increasing numbers of corpses, Stella and Peter make out on the beach and characters we don't care about are killed off or munched up. The Sea Killer, a weird combination of an octopus, a shark and a pair of large dentures, never really seems as threatening as it should. The conspiracy behind the monster's creation makes no sense whatsoever. None of the characters are particularly likable, and the ones who might be are killed off immediately. This is a poorly shot, badly dubbed, plot less mess. The whole thing is so scuzzy and smelly it made me long for a hot bath. I've had sushi plates scarier than this film. Avoid it, unless it's the MST3K version.
\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 \"40 foot long\" giant mutant squid with five tentacles, razor fangs and the ability to reproduce it's own cells terrorizes a small Florida town. Various marine biologists, doctors and cops plot to kill it. Meanwhile, a human monster named Miller offs people who discover the \"Devilfish\" is a manmade creation used for the greedy benefit of some evil doctors! Miller attacks a female researcher, strangles her, drowns her in the bathtub, tosses in a hairdryer, then rips the panties off her dead body!
Lots of false alarms are set when our heroes Peter, Stella, Janet and Bob set out on a high tech (high tech for 1984, anyway) \"Seaquarium\" boat to catch the creature, who is frequently seen in close up or hilariously obvious speeded-up film to seem more menacing. And only fire can destroy it, which leads to a flamethrower-armed posse vs. aquatic beast finale.
This JAWS cash-in is pretty tame (other than a legless corpse and a decapitation) but watchable and benefits from an excellent Antony Barrymore score and a decent (again, for 1984) monster design. Luigi Cozzi and Sergio Martino wrote the original story.
Score: 4 out of 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\nThis stupid, anti-environment wannabe \"Jaws\" is sad, pathetic, boring, poorly dubbed, and stupid. There is nothing redeeming about it.
Plot follows some shark/octopus creature-thingy that appears off the coast of Florida and kills some people (including a boring, stupid couple with a whiny wife and a silent husband who stabs himself with a fork for some reason). His ascent to the surface is always represented by a vague sideshot of something bumpy over and over. It makes no sense, it's horribly boring, and it's conspiracy plot sucks.
There are moments of camp that cannot be ignored: the same shot of the boat of the couple of the opening sequence THREE TIMES; the doctor slamming a dying patient's chest twenty times with a difibulator without stopping, even though he's clearly dead; the porno-esque soundtrack; the shot of the couple making love on the beach, with three different thems (\"That us is getting ahead of us!\") doing this; the ancient computer that sounds like Kermit the Frog; a beer-guzzling scientist screaming \"I know!\" a la Dr. Smith; the list goes on and on.
Oh, and everyone drinks at least thirty bears in the course of the movie (much noticed by Mike and the 'Bots) . . .
The MST3K version is their best episode, but it's certainly better than the movie itself. \"This is how I like to go fishing, guys . . . with a flashlight and a flamethrower . . .\" - Crow
One star for \"Devil Fish\"; seven for the MST3K version

\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\nmovie I have ever seen. Actually I find it one of the more entertaining episodes of MST 3000 I have seen. Not that it was good, but for anyone who has seen Manos: the Hands of Fate knows this one wasn't two bad. The monster in the movie looked terrible, everyone wore upsetting swim suits, and the plot was laughable. I still don't have a clue as to why they made the monster, they never really gave a good reason. The lead female had to be the scrawniest gal I have ever seen. They would have done better if they cast the gal that was killed at the beginning as the lead. On the plus side the dolphins acting was great!!!
\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 had something more positive to say about Devil Fish, but I honestly can't seem to come up with much. I can't even come up with many of those \"so bad, it's good\" kind of moments. Devil Fish is just plain old bad. The plot is completely derivative (Jaws, anyone?), the acting is wooden, the characters are uninteresting, the special effects are beyond bad, and the score is annoying. Add to that the seemingly inept direction of Lamberto Bava and you've got one stinker of a movie. I think, however, that the film's biggest sin is its lack of a budget. It doesn't appear that Bava had much to work with. By 1984, the Italian film industry was in full decline  especially as far as genre films go. The funding available to Bava was most probably very meager. Film's like Devil Fish that rely on special effects just never had a chance to be good. It's not the only Italian film to suffer this fate. There are a number of Italian movies made in the mid-80s whose ideas and concepts far exceeded what anyone could realistically have expected given their budgetary limitations.
However, having said all that and noting the film's many weaknesses, I can't bring myself to rate Devil Fish lower than a 3/10. I've even considered rating it higher but can't because I realize how bad a movie it is. Why don't I rate it lower? Well that's hard to explain. Despite the many problems found in the movie, there's something about Devil Fish that I inexplicably enjoy. It could be as simple as my love for low-budget, cheesy, Italian movies. Maybe my taste in movies is horribly skewed, but I enjoy what I enjoy.
The Mystery Science Theater 3000 treatment of Devil Fish is actually very enjoyable. I rate Devil Fish a 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale. The guys do a fine job of poking fun at the movie's many flaws. One very astute observation comes very early in the commentary when Tom Servo notes, \"Just because you can edit, doesn't mean you should\"  highlighting yet another of the many weaknesses to be found in Devil Fish.
\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 cheapo exploitation flick is some genuinely insipid stuff, courtesy of spaghetti land director Lamberto Bava, who wisely left his name off this junk.
The basic crux of this outing concerns the discovery of some brutally mutilated individuals being washed-up on shore in the Caribbean. Authorities initially believe them to be victims of shark attacks, but as the investigation unravels, turns out to be something much more sinister.
All of this ultimately amounts to very little however, we have here - poor dubbing complimented by similarly weak script, which often consists of nonsensical jabbering, and is really of little consequence for the most part. Acting can only be described as sub-par, which is par for the course in this instance. Truly lax direction doesn't help things either.
Special effect mainly is for numerous close-ups of various gory bodies missing limbs, and so forth. Of course, there is the obligatory creature which periodically emerges at feeding time, which looks something like a big monster octopus thing, where its animation only consists of its pointed teeth ascending and descending in rhythmic articulation. Overall, the end result is none too convincing, sure, but admittedly is almost entertaining in a cheesy kind of fashion.
It seems what the film makers were going for was a sort of low-rent hybrid of Jaws and Piranha, but the final product is just a bloody shambles, much like the corpses incessantly shown throughout this picture. I find it difficult to think of any redeeming attributes to warrant viewing this, so moreover, strictly for incurable monster movie addicts.
\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 as I have admiration for Italian rip-off cinema (especially Jaws rip-offs!), but the simple fact of the matter is that Monster Shark isn't very good. All the signs of this being a great piece of trash are there; we've got one of the kings of trashy cult cinema, Lamberto Bava, in the director's chair - one of the best ridiculous cult actors, Michael Sopkiw, taking the lead role, and a central creature stupid enough to give even the best that this sort of film has to offer a run for it's money, yet somehow the film still manages to be rather stale. The fact that the 'monster shark' doesn't feature too often is probably a good thing given the creature design, but there's never enough elsewhere to pull the film through without it. The plot focuses on a resort off the south coast of Florida (or rather, somewhere in Italy) where several local people have turned up in the water with arms and legs missing. It's not long before the local authorities decide that this creature has never been seen before, and it's up to a motley crew of various sea experts to catch it alive!
The main problem with this film is that it always feels very pointless, and since there is little in the way of characters or plot development, even the least demanding of viewers are likely to start getting bored before long. This sort of film is hardly famous for being brilliant, although the fun element of films such as 'The Last Shark' and 'Killer Fish' is unfortunately absent for most of the running time. The thing I love about lead actor Michael Sopkiw is that he always seems like he's taking himself seriously no matter what film he's in (although he only ever made four). This is certainly the case here, although Bava never really allows him to completely dive in, and often he feels as much like a spare wheel as the rest of the film. Much of the runtime is spent watching the various characters sup American lager, and it's not very fascinating; although Bava does manage to come good by the end with an entertaining flurry of action as the central monster finally gets to wreak havoc upon its would-be captors. Overall, there really isn't much to recommend this film for. As mentioned, I really like this sort of stuff and even I found myself bored on numerous occasions. For hardcore Italian horror fans only!
\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 man (Goffredo Unger) is found floating in the sea among the wreckage of his destroyed boat, just off the Florida Coast. A helicopter winches him up only to reveal both of his legs are missing below the knees. Dr. Stella Dickens (Valentine Monnier) and her partner Dr. Bob Hogan (Lawrence Morgant) are marine biologists of some sort and are conducting research in the sea regarding Dolphins. While out at sea Hogan hears a strange high-pitched noise. Intrigued he and Stella hire Peter (Micheal Sopkiw) and his assistant Sandra (Iris Peynado) to create a device to locate and track the source, or something like that anyway as it isn't made particularly clear. Meanwhile a scientist named Florinda (Cinzia De Ponti as Cinthia Stewart) who works at a rival organisation called the 'West Ocean International' is brutally murdered when she threatens to expose someone within the organisation. More people are attacked and Sheriff Gordon (Gianni Garko as John Garko) is on the case. Peter, Stella, Hogan and Sandra all set out to sea. Soon enough they find evidence that something monstrous and very unfriendly may be lurking beneath the surface. Together with rival scientist Professor Donald West (William Berger), Sheriff Gordon and the United States army they set out to destroy the monster, but there are other sinister forces at work as someone doesn't want the genetically engineered creature to be exposed at any cost! Directed by Lamberto Bava as John Old Jr. this is a far cry from the classic Italian horror and splatter films of the 70's and early 80's. The script by Gianfranco Clerici, Herve Piccini and Dardando Sacchetti is drearily slow and will put most people to sleep well before the 90 odd minute run time has elapsed. The monster is barely used, large portions of this film are made up of footage of boats and helicopters. Large chunks of the first half concentrate on the not so mysterious 'who's behind it' part of the story. There isn't really any gore to speak of, a guy with both his legs bitten off and someone with one arm is about it. The special effects on the monster itself are generally poor and it is shown in very quick flashes, disappointing. The cast of virtual nobody's don't help make this any easier to sit through. There really isn't much to recommend this film so I won't. Don't bother, you can do a lot better.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nYikes.
I've seen quite a few bad movies in my days, a lot of them in the company of Mike, Tom, Crow and the others from MST3k. So was the case with this one as well and even though I found the movie in itself quite funny, it wouldn't have been nearly as fun without the MST3k commentary.
The movie is a prime example of really bad movies coming out of Europe during the eighties. Horrible music, horrible acting, horrible plot (what little there is), horrible dialogue and really, really, REALLY, horrible editing. Cripes.
This might be called a turkey if it weren't for the fact that it's not unique in any way whatsoever. It's pretty much the same kind of film that almost every italian hack of a director cranked out.
So, try and get the MST3k version. It's a pretty fun episode with Mike and gang in quite good form.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat could possibly go wrong with a movie that includes a bunch of Italians pretending to be Flordians, and some vague-lava-octopus-crustacean-thingy as the hell-induced hellspawn-devil-fish?!?!
Everything is what goes wrong I tell you!
This is a very good MST3K episode because the heckling in right on the ball, which without fault, is easy to do considering this movie is a piece of junk with a lousy and boring plot.
9/10 for MSTied version. 1/10 for un-MSTied version.

\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 lousiest of all lousy Jaws rip-offs was regretfully made by one of my all-time favorite directors; Lamberto Bava (here under his John Old Jr. pseudonym). You know how it goes in these cheap European imitations, right? They only want their monstrous animal to be be bigger, sicker and more threatening, but this more than often results in the opposite effect. Bava's creature is a humongous sea-devil and it's more than just a shark! We're seemly dealing with a prehistoric monster here, with the jaws and appetite of a Great White, but it also has tentacles like an octopus! It's up to a couple of dolphin-loving oceanologists to discover how this monster was able to survive all these thousands of years and why exactly he only started his killing spree now. The script of \"Monster Shark\" makes few to no sense and most of the action takes place on the mainland. The shark itself is an unintentionally laughable creation and it was a wise decision of Lamberto Bava to only show it vaguely and in quick flashes. The acting performances are above average and the underwater photography is surprisingly clear and well-handled. The twists in the plot are predictable and you'll probably have the most fun spotting detailed facts about the characters. For example: count all the cans of beer Dr. Hogan drinks throughout the whole 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\nThere's really not a whole lot to say about this. It's just really, really bad. The acting is bad, the script is bad, and the editing is probably one of the worst jobs ever. It's so sloppy and choppy that it serves only to confuse the audience. There's no real to plot to speak of, mostly it's a really fake looking monster fish attacking Europeans trying to pass themselves off as Americans. Pass on this one.
\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 perennial fixture in the IMDb Bottom 100, upon viewing this it's not hard to see exactly why for it proves to fail utterly miserably in just about every bloody department going!
Take the editing for a start; to call this choppy would be overly complimentary! Indeed, had the makers of this got drunk one night and sliced and diced the film reels with some scissors and children's glue, then the resulting mess could hardly have been any worse than what we actually have here. Added to this, the inane story drags on mercilessly for what seems like a torturous infinity before we finally reach the decidedly lacklustre climax.
Aside from the ever game Michael Sopkiw, poor performances from most of the rest of the cast don't exactly help matters any either and the actual beastie that is causing all the troubles is somewhat less than convincing to put it mildly. Yay verily, all in all this is a complete pile of crap if ever I've seen one.
Deary, deary me....and to think that Lamberto Bava directed this to....tut, tut indeed.
Note: This was released in the UK under the alternative title of Devouring Waves, although bereft of most of its gore scenes, which ironically are just about the only reason that this may have been worth watching.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is a pure disaster, the story is stupid and the editing is the worst I have seen, it confuses you incredibly. The fish is badly made and some of its underwater shots are repeated a thousand times in the film. A truly, truly bad film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMuscular 'scientists', unpleasantly thin females in swimsuits, lots of beer drinking.. Yet it's too long to be a beer commercial. Oh, okay, there's some plot about a big shark-like monster that's killing people and stuff. But it's nothing you haven't seen before.
\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 has the worst editing I've ever seen. This is yet another film to avoid at all costs unless you view it via MST3K. On their website, they wonder why the Coast Guard cooperated with this film. I mean, they let them use a helicopter!
\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 perfect example of why many people say the 90's sucked when it comes to horror-movies. A boring voodoo-on-campus tale of terror starring the once so promising Corey Feldman (STAND BY ME, THE LOST BOYS, etc). There might be just enough stuff happening to keep you from falling asleep and it doesn't look too cheap, but this still is horror aimed at an audience that were in their very early teens during the 90's. I might have been part of that audience, but still I got as good as nothing out of it when watching it now. And nowadays, teens are used to a lot more and better already, and I can't imagine any of them knowing or caring about who Corey Feldman was. Or, \"is\", actually, as the dude's still making films. But the only thing still linking him to his days of glory, is the LOST BOYS 2: THE TRIBE sequel that got made recently. And I imagine even that one isn't going to encourage anyone to seek out VOODOO. Just another movie that got lost in 90's horror for obvious reasons.
\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 perfect example of the 90's mainstream horror crap.Nothing is scary here and the film is almost bloodless.Yes,there is some violence,but everything is politically correct like in a TV movie.This is not a completely bad picture,I can safely say that I found it quite enjoyable.However a lack of the originality really hurts \"Voodoo\".All in all if you are a part of the mainstream audience and pseudo-horror movies like \"Scream\" are your favourite then you'll love \"Voodoo\",but if you want something very gruesome avoid this film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nJoe was first released in the US in the summer of 1970. Despite respectable notices, reasonable box office and an Oscar nom, it vanished shortly afterwards and remained forgotten about throughout the 1980's, before being enthusiastically reappraised, somewhat unjustly, in the US in the late 90's. Thanks to this lengthy unavailability, its reputation has gone on to see it placed (inexplicably) alongside the likes of Michael Winner's original Death Wish. Although revenge is a theme, a film about vigilantism this most definitely is not.
The plot isn't worth synopsizing. Its a flabby, hammy and bizarrely stagey ramble about an accidental murder and the unlikely relationship that blossoms out of it. That relationship and the largely class-based quirks of its two leads are exaggerated into ridiculous caricature; these two, and their situation, bear absolutely no relation to reality.
Almost everything about the film is cantankerous and begrudgingly antiquated, which makes the whole thing completely fascinating. Hippies are depicted as snide and exclusive misanthropes, hard drugs either make you sleep or dance around maniacally with lipstick on your face, and most young women are prepared to have sex with strangers in exchange for marijuana at the drop of a fly. Its very much a film of the 60's rather than the 70's, so why some industry luminaries have begun to include it in retrospective conversations about the beginnings of the Hollywood New Wave is a complete mystery. Martin Scorcese of all people even got involved, though probably only to give a nod to the dank, lavatorial hues of the grim urban cinematography, which almost certainly influenced Taxi Driver four years later. But Joe seems very much like a furious tirade against the likes of Easy Rider and Bonnie And Clyde, rather than a continuation of that same insurgent cinematic ethos.
It isn't a film of any real artistic significance - despite Joe's incontinent fury at everything in his world, it remains a story about absolutely nothing - but its value as a cultural museum piece is unprecedented. Shot on and around the streets of New York City during the darkest hours of the Vietnam war, and at a time when America (and, significantly, its cinema) was being revolutionized to the horror of the old guard, the film ends up, in its own completely oblivious and accidental way, saying more about that period of history than numerous infinitely superior movies that directly endeavored to capture it.
But as a film? Despite a really surprising and effective shock ending, this is basically a Michael Winner film, but not as well made. How does that tickle your fancy? ** Incidentally, if you are, like me, a fan of spotting arbitrary background lookalikes, then check out Harold Steptoe at 1:22:11 in the hippy art gallery.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"