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\nThe only thing more full of holes than this movie's premise is its script. Flatliners is the ideal showcase for Joel Schumacher's glorious, flamboyant, brazen lack of talent. The plot is totally illogical but super fake-ponderous and everything is art-directed within an inch of its life in the most clichéd, overheated way. I love how the med school autopsy room is a cavernous vaulted marble mausoleum low-lit in red with huge Rembrandt paintings hanging from the walls. I love how Keifer Sutherland drives a canvas-backed army jeep. No one in Joel Schumacher's movies lives in an un-eccentric manner. It's always an alternate universe where everyone is young and painfully hip, but hip strictly and obsessively according to an out-of-touch middle-aged billionaire man-child's idea of hip. And holy crap! The part where Baldwin brother #16 dies and comes back to life and then is haunted by all the women he's slept with who intone \"I'll call you\" and \"I just need some space\" is the funniest friggin' thing in the whole universe!!!! What kind of a world do we live in where Joel Schumacher gets to keep having people throw money at him? \"Flatliners\" made me want to review the man's entire oeuvre solely for the kind of high-quality yuks contained therein.
\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\nGreetings All,
Isn't it amazing the power that films have on you after the 1st viewing ?
I was so delighted by the first viewing of this film, I couldn't stop talking about \"Flatliners\" to all my friends for weeks - mind you I was a very impressionable 18 year old back then and my taste in films have become a little more conservative since then.
Then somehow I forgot about this film until I saw the DVD in my local department store and remembering how great it was I thought \"Right ! I'll pluck you off the shelf when they bring out the Special Edition\".
Last week, I was overjoyed when my best friend invited me over to watch Flatliners on DVD. The expectation was that I would love this film even more on 2nd viewing.. How wrong I was !
Verdict: after 11 years my view on this film had changed from a very scary 1st class movie to total junk which overplays on the religious and supernatural side of things ratherly superficially.
I have never been a big fan of Julia Roberts' acting (excepting for Erin Brockeridge in which she deserved her Oscar) I think the problem with this film definitely lies with the director and a so so mediocre script. I left this film feeling it had no real substance or potential, and just a couple of scarey cheap thrills which weren't very well done at all. Not even the score by James-Newtown Howard, who I rather like as a film composer, could captivate and thrill me.
In 1990 I would have given this film 9.5 / 10; but in 2001 I'd be lucky to give it 2 / 10 at best.

\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\nFrom 1936-1939, Peter Lorre made a string of highly successful Mr. Moto films. While technically B-films, they were much better made than typical films of the genre. However, Lorre tired of making these highly repetitive films and told friends he wanted out of the series. When it was canceled in 1939, Lorre was thrilled but his plans of getting more complicated and satisfying roles did not materialize when he moved to Columbia Pictures. ISLAND OF DOOMED MEN is one of these films and it's pretty obvious the studio isn't putting much effort into the movie, as I think the plot was written by penguins. Talented penguins, perhaps...but still the movie made little sense at all.
It begins with a guy agreeing to be an undercover agent for the government. He is to infiltrate an island in the US where something strange is amiss. Now they easily could have just got a search warrant to do this. But, given that penguins were writing the film, the agent takes the rap for a murder he didn't commit and spends a year in prison for this. He apparently hopes that he'll be paroled to this island, as many parolees are sent there when they finish the term.
There are some more serious problems with this idea. First, they only have him serve a year before getting paroled--but he was convicted of MURDER and he refused to divulge who he really was. They would never parole anyone in a case like this. Second, what if he wasn't paroled to the island? He would have spent an entire year in jail for nothing! Third, why not just have scuba divers or paratroopers or cops in boats come to the island?! Talk about a contrived plot!
Once on the island, the agent discovers that evil Peter Lorre has set up his own private prison and staffed it with guys on parole as slave labor. What about the men having to report to their parole officers? This was never explained, but Lorre was using them to mine for diamonds and they were treated abominably. Now, another question I had was that if Lorre was discovering huge diamonds there, he was a very wealthy man. So, why not just PAY people to mine for the diamonds?! Why set up your own version of Devil's Island and savagely beat and kill the men?!
Eventually, Lorre gets what's his and the island's slaves are released. Unfortunately, by then, I really didn't care. Overall, watchable but rather dumb. Lorre's career only took a turn for the better when he moved the following year to Warner Brothers. With films like ISLAND OF DOOMED MEN, I could see why his stay at Columbia was short.
\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\nThursday June 9, 6:45pm Broadway Performance Hall & Saturday June 11, 1:45pm Broadway Performance Hall
Bless the independent filmmaker. Without them we'd see nothing but Spielberg the Farrelly brothers and films based on old sitcoms. They are the risk takers. They reap the rewards of success and suffer the failures. Max and Grace is most definitely a failure. Credit is deserved by Michael Parness for getting out there and making his first feature which he claims drove him to bankruptcy. He might be better off sticking to the stage if this film is any indication of what to expect in the future. Even though everyone warned me I went to see Max and Grace anyway, hoping I might discover something they did not. It starts off well enough, a party for Max in his parent's house shot in warm subdued light, the camera floating into interesting angles. As soon as we see Max has hung himself, an obvious rip-off of Harold and Maude, the whole thing goes right in the tank. How could he do this unnoticed in the middle of a birthday party? For that matter how could two mentally ill and committed psychiatric patients decide to get married and do it with the blessings of all parties concerned? In the Q&A after the film David Krumholtz suggested the entire story was the surrealist dream of his character Max. This story is so badly written the comment sounded more like an excuse. The film doesn't look as though it was made on a shoestring, all the more reason to be so disappointed with the results. What's intended as funny isn't but instead is offensively bad. The continuity is sloppy the lighting is dreadful and the effects look cheap and forced. BPH seats under three hundred and was surprisingly full but I saw at least thirty or forty walkouts within the first half-hour. At one point Grace, played by Natasha Lyonne, laments her inability to die. I found myself thinking the same thing since I never walk out before the credits. If Krumholtz really thinks this is \"one of the best scripts\" he has ever read it sounds like he needs to catch up on his reading. A terrible waste of talent and resources, this is the worst independent I've seen since Bubba-Ho-tep.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched about an hour of this movie (against my will) and couldn't finish it. I'd rate it as a 0. The writing was bad, the plot predictable and one that's been done far too many times. The most annoying part of this movie was the acting done by Melody Thomas Scott. This part did not call for someone appearing snobbish, but she managed in every single scene I saw to look like a (sour) snob or someone who was about to spout something extremely sarcastic or cruel.
The two romances which seemed to develop into something serious almost upon the couples meeting was a bit too much.
I should know better than to watch made for TV movies. If there is absolutely nothing on the telly and this is the only choice, read a book.
\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\nWhen I think about TV movies, I always think of this film, I have watched it a few times on Sky Movies, it was terrible.
Its been a long time, since I have seen this film, was just browsing, and came across it on here :-S.
A microbiologist (Linda Flemming), goes on holiday, with her son (William Flemming), at this holiday resort kinda place, they meet up with Paul Johnson (taxi driver / owns a bar?), and Kathy Johnson.
Its like a weird romantic thing, William starts to fall for Kathy, and Paul falls for Linda.
Some guy passes out in a street, he has some mark on his arm, Joseph (Joseph was a deep sea diver, who on some dive, saw a light, or something, and converted to religion), says he will take care of this person, there is a gap in my memory, then there is a wide out break of the virus, I think Linda offers her help, to come up with a cure, Kathy gets infected (William notices a mark on Kathy's arm), with the virus, also does Joseph.
Paul says some lines to Joseph, then Joseph stumbles away, the next time you see Joseph, he is cured some how, that information is used to cure the infected, then there is a beach party, the end.
\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 think i would rather have my piles clipped with a pair of rusty clippers than bear another 5 minutes of this movie. In fact i cannot even be bothered to go in to detail! Not sure how they managed to get the needles into the wooden actors to cure them! Better off for all concerned if they had just nuked the island after finding out about the virus, that way it would have lasted as long as the commercial break, and we could have moved on with our lives. Plus one more thing was this rubbish commissioned by the god channel? As all they seemed to do was praise the bleeding lord most of the time. Avoid like the plague! In fact i would prefer it!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI ticked the \"contains spoiler\" box, in case I say anything that is a spoiler and don't realise I've said it until I re-read it after I've posted. So it's just in case.
Anyhow, back to reviewing this film.
I saw this film on skymovies earlier on this afternoon, and by the description Sky gives you (these people must be on acid) it sounded pretty good, but then when I actually got about 30 minutes into it, I was appalled. This film, in my opinion, has the worst scriptwriting and actors/actresses - ever. The young girl who falls in love with the boy from L.A after about 3 hours, is a really stupid, lame character, who has an annoying, whiney voice, and boff hair. -.-. Then there's her lover, who's an idiot, and is also very whiney. Actually, maybe they suit each other. Then there's the boy's mum, who's with him on holiday, and surprise, surprise - she's a doctor, and - oh my god, wait, there's even more unsuspected surprises! A virus suddenly breaks out on the island and she knows all about viruses! =O. SHOCK HORROR! Yeah, right. Lol. Then there's this insane religious lad, who keeps going on about \"'erbs\" or something, and how the Lord knows all. Everyone on the island seems to love him, yet he's actually a stubborn, arrogant, steroid-pumped (you really need to watch this film just for the scene where he comes out of the sea after a swim, his head is like tiny, and his body is MASSIVE. it's hilarious) buffoon who's had way too much to drink.
Anyhow, after all these weirdo characters, including a stoned-looking taxi driver, the religious lad finally gives in to the doctor, and she takes a blood sample, and they get straight to work on finding the cure from that, because for some reason he's dramatically been saved, all down to \"'erbs and God\". AND OH MY GOD. YES, THERE'S ANOTHER Surprise!! YOU'LL NEVER GUESS WHAT!! Just in the nick of time, with 11 minutes to go before everybody on the island drops dead in-fact, including her son and his girl, she finds the cure, and injects everybody, and it's all resolved!!! What a pathetic film. I mean, I knew it sounded an obvious ending from when I first started watching it, but I actually though it'd be good and have some sub-plot twists somewhere, but no-no, it was just boring and dry.
Don't watch this film. You'll end up like me - stunned for 3 hours and then demanding the hour and a half you spent of your life watching it back.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBefore I saw this masterpiece I never would have guessed that a devastating and hideously contagious virus could be defeated by the use of Lutheran prayers... and \"erbs\". Ralf Moeller's performance is gargantuan; the realism incandescent. I was so inspired I'm flying straight to Zambibwia tomorrow to crack out the pesto and get my hands together for third world prosperity. God bless this film.
Seriously, I'm going to have to watch Troll 2 and Anus Magillicutty just to believe that it is possible to concoct more hamfistedly clichéd dialogue. It's so tortured that taking a cheesegrater to your knuckles might well be preferable to sitting through it. The only subtlety it manages to achieve is in its thinly disguised racism, as the poor islanders turn to ineffectual dumb-ass collective prayer which achieves nothing until the übermenschlich, linen-shrouded Teutonic hero Moeller, with his direct line to Yahweh, can provide a blood sample which the horn-blowing yankee scientists can get to work on and save the hapless natives. This movie sucks.
\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\nUnbelievable. I never saw something like that. Everything is bad; really bad. From photography (lots of scenes without focus!) to the acting (the young female is terrible). And what can we say about those helicopters made in Paint Brush...? Really amazing B, I mean, Z film.
The plot are bad, cliché and bad wrote. Basics conveniences to the screenplay seems to work. I can't even think a young student of cinema making this movie. Nothing justify it.
I recommend that you don't even think to see this movie. Sleep or play solitary are best choices. ;)
xxx
\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\nStandard \"Disease outbreak in remote area; expert who happens to be vacationing in the area takes charge\" movie. There are only a few deviations from the norm. One is that the kids involved are pretty reasonable from the outset. Usually they are monsters who repeatedly gum up the works until they redeem themselves in the end. Another is that the local medicine man/witch doctor who is normally an impediment early on is never completely discounted or redeemed in the end. Perhaps since this seems to have been made for the faith oriented PAX channel, they didn't want to seem too judgmental about the faithful. Finally, there were no evil local politicians/leisure industry bigwigs trying to cover the whole thing up. The lack of these stereotypes was refreshing -- if we have the PAX channel to thank for that I may have to sample a few more of their offerings. Aside from that, however, this was pretty standard stuff. You've seen it all 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\nCartoon-like special effects, horrible acting and dialogue, and dry plot! This movie has it all! My friend and I went to blockbuster to find a horrible movie that we could make fun of, but this was just too much. The movie begins with a women and her son vacationing on a made-up island in the Bahama region. The women, who just happens to be a doctor/virologist is in the area when a man collapses. He has a strange wound on his arm, and she immediately knows that it is a contagious virus. The story goes on to show startlingly fast romance between the two teenage leads (this is justified by the girl saying \"I know it's fast, but it just feels nice.\" ????) Anyway the entire island gets infected with this virus and the CDC is brought in. We are told that within three months, if the virus is not treated and contained that it will spread to the united states and kill millions of people. This information does not stop the CDC from leaving the island to save themselves. Thankfully the cure to this horrible virus is found just in time, and the entire island is saved. To celebrate the death of there loved ones, the island people have a smashing party where everyone is dancing, having fun, and forgetting about the horrible epidemic that just occurred.
\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\nGenre: Cartoon short with no dialogue, African girl and lion.
Main characters: Inki, the lion and the minah bird.
What happens: A lion wants to eat an African girl called Inki. There is also a rather confusing Minah bird. Is he on Inki's, or the lion's side..?
Message: Erm
My thoughts: I agree with Lee Eisenberg, this is rather mean on poor African people!! :-( I like how the main character, Inki (who is an African girl) is quite a nice main character, but they still portray her rudely and make a younger audience not like her very much just because she's HUNTING!! GRRR CHARLES M. JONES!! I don't like the lion very much and I think the minah bird is ALL RIGHT (I suppose). Personally I prefer Charles M. Jones's Looney Tunes cartoons in the future.
If you want to watch this anyway, then I recommend the website YouTube. Just type in \"Inki\" on the space in the main page and you're there.
I wish Charles M. Jones had been nicer to Inki in this short. So there.
Recommended to: People who are interested in old cartoons and/or people who are just messing around on You Tube.
\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\nSilly Disney film about a college student who accidentally discovers a potion that makes things invisible. Not a bad idea and some of the special effects are pretty good. Still, the script is VERY bad...all the jokes flop and the acting is lousy. Everybody's trying to be funny and they're not. A real boring, stupid Disney film. But it was fun seeing Kurt Russell so young.
\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\nMiserable film. Not even to be compared in one breath with \"To Kill a Mockingbird,\" or \"In the Heat of the Night.\"
Yes, there is racial prejudice but the film is at most ridiculous.
Come now. Would you really have Elizabeth Patterson, of all people, guarding a jail so as to avoid a lynching? Patterson, in her day, played everyone's mother and was the landlady in \"I Love Lucy\" before Fred and Ethel Mertz bought the building.
Imagine exhuming the body so that it will not come out that the black man's gun killed a white man?
Claude Jarman Jr., who was so fabulous in 1946's \"The Yearling\" appears in this mess. He still had those sad eyes. My eyes would be sad too if I appeared in this awful film.
To me, this was nothing more than a Faulkner flop all the 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\nVirtual Sexuality proves that Britain can produce romantic comedies as vapid as those from America. The only differences are an ending that ties up the loose bits differently than an American film would and a cameo by Ram John Holder, which is always welcome. That's enough to make this a watcher on a cold winter's night.
\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 British teen movies which centres around a girl (Justine) accidentally creating her dream man (Jake) in by the use of a virtual reality machine, there is only one problem (well.not just one) she gets trapped inside his body with a geek as the only person who knows the truth and the only person she can trust. It sounds a lot worse than it is, I found it more watchable for the reason that Laura Fraser was starring in it more than the film content, indeed she looks stunning throughout especially when she dresses in a red lycra dress in order to impress Jake, WOW!!, If only I had a virtual reality machine
\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\nJustine cannot find the perfect mate to make her first time the perfect one. With geek friend in tow, she enters a virtual machine to improve her appearance. When she sees the opportunity to create her perfect man, an explosion occurs and the results are left to your imagination. Problem is, how many obvious sex jokes are left anymore? How predictable can these kind of movies get? A few funny moments here and there, but nothing too outrageous or different from jokes in other movies or even normal life. If you liked WEIRD SCIENCE or jokes about the 'fish out of water' combined with 'gender identity crisis', then by all means these 90 min, you could enjoy.
\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\nLaura Fraser creates her ideal man on a virtual reality machine and he's suddenly brought to life, of course. Oh what jolly japes don't ensue in a Britcom flop so Day-Glo bright yet so dismal it manages to make the execrable 1980s American teen flick Weird Science look almost decent. The sex-obsessed script is by The Sun film critic Nick Fisher, a former teeny-mag 'agony uncle' who's obviously never watched an episode of Smack The Pony in his life; shame, because then he might at least have been in with a shout of writing female characters that were recognisably members of the human race. This knicker-twisting lot have all too clearly emerged from the virtual brain of someone who imagines they're amusing. Suddenly, the thought of new-wave Iranian cinema is somehow attractive.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOh dear. this was quite possibly the worst film i have seen in years. I mean what more can be done with the old \"woman inside mans body\" storyline? it was full of cliches, eg the nerd coming into his own sequence, the \"lad\" getting whats coming to him etc. im not calling these spoilers because any one could guess what happens!! the only thing it had going for it was Laura Fraser, who gave an average performance. and as for the \"dream\" boy, that was the wettest piece of acting ever. even the bad guys were instantly forgettable.
terrible movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie plays out like an English version of an ABC after school special, with nudity. It makes you wonder who the target audience was supposed to be. It's not as though the writers were too preoccupied with selling a plausible plot either. While it does possess a certain watchability, Virtual Sexuality is fluffier than dandelion meringue. It's a good movie to watch if you're snowed in, the cable's out, and it's the only tape you've got.
\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 normally write reviews, in fact, I never write reviews. This film was so atrocious it actually inspired me to start. Virtual Sexuality attempts to be a light hearted and cheeky teenage comedy regarding the usual trappings; virginity, boys etc. except the main character apparently turns into her perfect boy that she has created using the help of a machine at a technology fair.
Sound interesting? Well, it isn't. The acting is the most half-hearted and appalling I have ever seen. The unfortunate thing is they appear to be genuinely supportive of script and movie, which probably explains why I have never seen them in any memorable production since. I have not bothered to learn the actors names, nor their characters. The lading lady does not enrapture or charm you and, thus, you do not care for her whatsoever. The leading lady's male friend raises no sympathy even when the script is vociferously screaming for you to pity him. The only rise he will get out of you is one of extreme anger and sudden violence. The only half decent actor was the blonde leading man, who, despite his miserably weak role, really gave it all he could, which wasn't much in the light of such a horrendous piece of work. I will not even talk about the acting abomination that are the 'bad guys' of the plot. But then again, what plot?
I watched this film unfold incredulously, as I had absolutely no idea how anyone would have the foolish audacity to write such a script, nevermind produce, act in, and direct it. I can only wonder. The only reason my companion and I continued to watch such a mangled example of film was the disbelieving laughter it managed to arise out of us as cohesion, logic, class and even impotent storyline were disregarded within half an hour into the film. I have completely no idea why anyone wanted to violate the movie industry by releasing this to the public. This is a joke of a film and is best left to gather dust in warehouses for the rest of eternity. 1/2 out of 10. If that.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI think this was a HORRIBLE mistake on Disney's part. First off, Kuzco does NOT need to pass \"emperor school\" to become emperor! That's never happened before. Secondly, the new voices don't sound like the originals at all. Very poor redo. And while I adored the movie The Emperor's New Groove, the New School is just stupid. Like all the jokes are the same, and many are from the movie. The plot gets redundant, always Yzma (is that how you spell it?) trying to become empress, Kuzco stopping her, etc. Or Kuzco learning to become a better person. I think Kuzco gets annoying with his constant complaints and questions. He is a spoiled brat and it bothers me. I do not think this is worth five minutes of your time, much less a half 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\nI cannot believe this show was okay-ed. First off J.P. Manoux does a horrible job filling in for David Spade and Pacha's voice is too deep compared to John Goodman's. The theme song is so annoying and the plots of the episodes are so stupid!!! The only good thing about this show is that Eartha Kitt and Patrick Warburton remain as the voices of Yzma and Kronk. This show is a waste of money and a waste of your time. Half of the episodes are copied of the movie. In my opinion The Emperor's New Groove was one of the best children's movies in years, but they complety ruined by making Kronk's New Groove and this show. You should watch such shows as Spongebob, Fairly Oddparents, Danny Phantom, or Kim Possible but not this show.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAll this show is, is the same plot. Kuszko (spelling?) is in danger of failing school, he needs to pass to become emperor. He needs to learn something, which he thinks is stupid, he then uses it/ learns more about it and realizes it's not so stupid. Eezma, posing as the principal, tries to transform Kuszko into some animal to stop him. Every episode.
Jokes from the movie are copied (Eezma's incredibly complicated plans, Kuszko breaking the 4th wall constantly, squirrels.) They should try hiring some writers.
2/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm new to Argento's work, and if this and Suspiria are any indication, then Argento is much more a filmmaker of experience than story. In his films, characters are placed in grueling and mesmerizing horror contexts that literally saturate the logic of the world around them. The camera literally flows gracefully through sets as the characters run, stumble, and choke their way to an eventual horrifying conclusion. It worked, REALLY well, in Suspiria. For some reason it didn't work here.
The problem I see with this movie is that even though the protagonist \"gets help\" by way of contacting the police and asking for help from her friends, it still feels as if she refuses to \"get help\" in terms of actually trying to find a solution to her problem. The entrapment in this film is that she's trapped in the killer's little game, one that she could easily get out of by... not setting herself up so easily? In a weird way it seems like the character wants the torture the killer gives her, which in a way is the point and could have worked except that the whole psychology of it is thrown about mostly due to whatever Argento feels like doing.
As a loving homage to \"The Phantom of the Opera\", it's certainly an interesting and unique take. For all his worth, Argento delights in operatic movements as well, which well highlights the action. It just doesn't make much sense, especially as it delves further into a completely useless ending (yes, I know it's a reference to Harris' novel \"Red Dragon\". No, it didn't work). Why the character should go from one horrifying experience of entrapment to a willing one with the director is beyond me. It felt almost self-serving on Argento's part.
Overall, a fun experience, and between this and Suspiria I'm more than willing to follow up on more Argento productions. But this is not a movie I'd want to return to or remember.
--PolarisDiB
\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\nObviously it seems many people really enjoyed this movie, and that's wonderful. It is certainly a very well-intentioned film, and I appreciate that in an era of heartless or emotionally damaging films. Unfortunately, the film has a lot of problems and it was not something I enjoyed watching.
The primary problem is the writing. It is just not very funny. When something tries to be snappy or witty and fails, that is far worse than when it hasn't attempted wit at all. This film is to a great degree a series of \"snappy\"-but-gentle come-backs between adult family members, none of which seem imaginative or apt. There is also a few central premises in the film that seem like too much of a stretch of coincidence or character motivation to be believable or really work. Some of the back story seemed more intriguing, and did serve to decorate the story around the edges fairly well, but it couldn't make up for the moment-to-moment flatness that pervaded almost all of the movie.
The directing/editing doesn't support the film well, either, although I don't know to explain how exactly. Somehow things always seemed to me rather fake, and that the actors were forcing there way through unnatural material for the most part. They tried, and I don't fault any one person here. There were also too many small and charmless roles in it outside the immediate family.
Not a good rental in my opinion, though, again, apparently a number of people found it very charming (I am 38; I suspect that perhaps people over 60 might enjoy this film 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\nThis movie was, unfortunately, terrible.
Clichéd, hackneyed, stilted dialogue and acting make it almost unwatchable.
The feel-good finale is laughably lame.
There is a reason Judge Reinhold's career has vanished.
If you don't live in New York, and aren't Jewish, several of the jokes will be inscrutable.
I, too, found the need to have the unacknowledged lesbian daughter go straight at the end quite insulting.
I simply cannot fathom how this film was so popular at film fests.
It is, without a doubt, one of the worst films I have seen in quite some time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nScott's collection of 80's icons cannot save this teen disaster. But then I suppose that's why it was only a TV movie and not a major motion picture. William A. Schwartz (writer) comes up with something closer to \"Stewardess School\", except this movie is more boring. This movie isn't really stupid, just boring and completely plotless. The only reason to see this might be to see Tina Yothers in an actual role after Family Ties. After this movie and equally dumb \"Class Cruise\", I guess Mr. Scott wised up and went back to directing sit-coms, which was his best move yet. 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\nAfter Loomis gives a quick recap of Micheal Myers we flashback to 1989 where Jamie is kidnapped by the Man in Black before the burning police station explodes. Micheal returns to Haddonfeild once again to find Jamie and his baby. In this version the Loomis character gets more scenes and seems much more pro-active than he is in the final cut. The Score is much better, more in line with parts 4 and 5, none of the electric guitar BS. And the ending makes a tad more sense. For these reasons coupled with the fact that this cut has more characterization and suspense, and cuts back on the gore factor (Halloween, unlike say the \"Friday the 13th\" Franschise, was never about blatant gore) is why I prefer this bootleg Producer's cut. Not to say that the cut magically turns a turd into gold, it just polishes the turd a little bit and makes it more comprehensible. The whole cult plot is still very stupid, as is Micheal fathering a kid
My Producer's Cut Grade: C-
My Theatrical Cut Grade: D-
\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\nTaste is a subjective thing. Two people can watch the same movie with one of them loving it and the other one hating it. As it concerns 'Halloween:the Curse of Michael Myers' I fall into the latter category.
I'm of the opinion that John Carpenter, in 1978, made one of that decade's finest fright films, which despite its flaws, still holds up well into the 21st century. It reused many of the old horror film devices but utilized them in original and effective ways. It had no pretensions that it was anything other than a movie about an escaped mental patient stalking babysitters on Halloween night. And yet there were 'ideas' in the film but they were subtly introduced and not hammered into your skull. It juxtaposed the myths of the macabre festival with the reality of what was taking place in the story and it did this with a wonderful ambiguity.
The 'filmmakers' of this 'film' probably wouldn't even understand that previous paragraph. That's why we're saddled us with this miserable and inept piece of disposable celluloid. Direction, script, acting are of the lowest strata imaginable. This is the type of film that is so mind numbingly dull and nausea inducing as to make you want to crawl back into the womb and die. It is also truly, truly sad to see veteran British actor Donald Pleasence wasting his acting abilities with this saliva puddle of a movie. He seems drained of all his energy and resigned to the fact that this may be his last film. Maybe that's what killed him.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAll ambiguity about Michael Myers has withered away thanks to this series' chronic habit of arseholing about with its continuity and pulling relatives out of nowhere. This entry introduces the potty angle that he's not just a psycho killer but is actually controlled by runes, which appear as a star constellation every Halloween, and a cult is using him to... erm, well, this film is far from coherent and I lost track of the plot after a while. The movie hemorrhages credibility so profusely it doesn't have a drop left by the end. Why does Michael put one victim's clothes in a washing machine? Why does an otherwise empty corridor have a deadly spike sticking out of the wall? Does getting electrocuted really make your head explode? And so on. It's left to Donald Pleasence, in his penultimate film role, to produce some wonderful little moments from the pile of dreadful dialogue he's given.
\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\nMan, the '90's really were an horrible decade for movies. The movies are lacking in a good style and also the storytelling is often lacking.
This 6th entry into the long running Halloween-series is certainly a bad one. You just never really get into the story because it isn't a very well constructed and build-up movie.
It's simply a poorly done film, that also suffers from its imagine-less writing and non-compelling characters that are in it. Dr. Loomis seems to be in it just for the sake of being in it. It's a real shame that this had to be Donald Pleasence last film-role. It's nice and also sort of suiting that his last role is in an Halloween movie but he definitely deserved to be in a better one.
There is never a sense of real danger in the movie and the character of Michael Myers just never comes across as threatening or scary. Perhaps it's because he's featured too prominently throughout the movie, from pretty early on already. He does his usual stuff again but without too much class or originality. Also the attempts to uncover Myer's past don't really work out, for the main reason that it just doesn't get explained very well. It's obvious that the script went through various re-writes before- and also very possibly during filming. Several scenes even got re-shot or added after the first cut turned out to be far from pleasing.
The movie more often looks and feels like a made for TV one. This is also due to the lack of some real good gore. As an horror movie it really is lacking in basically everything to make this a good or even original one to watch.
So far the worst out of the series!
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\nScanning through the comments, there doesn't appear to be a lot of love for this movie, and it's not very hard to see why, it's rubbish.
Now, I will start by saying that the finished product was hurt, in any number of ways, by the death of Donald Pleasance (Dr Loomis) in post production. This required a re-jigging of the film's conclusion with Loomis buying the farm and took away what was supposed to be a double twist at the end with Micheal swapping places with mysterious \"Man in black\" and I do not mean Johnny Cash.
Now to the story. The fifth movie ended rather unsatisfactorily with Micheal Myers escaping from jail with the mysterious man in black. It turns out (aggh) that this man knows the origin of Micheal's evil and is also a colleague of Dr Loomis named Dr Wynn. They also kidnapped Jamie Lloyd (played by Danielle Harris in parts 4 and 5 but here played by JC Brandy). Jamie, pregnant, escapes from Dr Wynn's lair and so Micheal follows her and kills her. But she'd had the kid so now he needs to track the baby down so he can kill his great nephew.
We hear some ludicrous explanation to Micheal's evil involving Gaelic curses down bloodlines and mysterious symbols. A radio show is broadcast from Micheal's home town for some reason, which gives Micheal some more hapless victims.
In the end the movie, just like this review is vague, confusing and directionless with a very anticlimactic ending.
Some sex scenes and nudity. Poor plot, passable effects, with some good run of the mill slasher kills, but severely lacking in motivation. For what was supposed to explain everything, this only stirred up some new questions, made parts 4 and 5 pointless and was a poor way for a great actor in Pleasance to end his life and career.
\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\"Curse of Michael Myers\" is a very frustrating piece to deal with for a fan of the Halloween series. After a very disappointing letdown in Halloween 5, the series reached a near ebb in plot lines, with a silly devolution into witchcraft and a teenage cult dedicated to the worship of Michael Myers. \"Curse of Michael Myers\" ups the ante in blood and gore, but really represents a decay in the series' integrity. It's too bad to, as this is the last movie for Donald Pleasance as the character of Dr. Loomis. Pleasance has some good screen moments (precious ones if your a fan of the series) as the now very aged and as he says \"very retired doctor\". Sadly he died before the movie was completed, and it is very apparent at the conclusion of the film that the stories original climatic scene was never realized. Right from the beginning credits, Halloween 6 has more of the feel of a made-for-TV movie then that of the block-buster horror flick that it started out as in 1978. Any loyal Halloween alumni should have demanded more from this film,... Dr. Loomis and Donald Pleasance deserved 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\nIf Halloween 5 was a cruel joke to the fans of the series, than Halloween 6 is a like a vicious insult. The storyline has gone to the dogs everyone. Michael is used as a helpless pawn in this film and he isn't at all scary. He reminds me of an over-weight alcoholic man than the boogeyman that struck fear in our hearts back in the original. There are almost no redeemable qualities about this feature and i'm so glad H20 came out because it would be an insult to fans to have this be fresh on our minds.
Halloween 6 had about 2 aspects that I liked. Having an adult Tommy Doyle in the film was a nice touch and it linked it to the original. Donald Pleasance is here(in his last performance...what a bad film to end an otherwise nice career on). When he's on screen he makes you remember the good old days when Halloween was actually scary.
That's about it my friends. The stalk sequences are unoriginal. One of them being a blatant rip-off of the Laurie/Michael chase in the original. The other characters are terribly under-written and just aren't likable. The music, on of Halloween's highlights even when the film is bad, is tortured in this film. we get a silly rock version of the stalk/chase theme. What were they thinking when they made this film.
*SPOILER*
Their biggest mistake was killin off the character of Jamie(Now played by another actress who isn't worth mentioning)We watched this character escape death in two films. We rooted for her and when she is killed in this film you cant help but feel sorry for her and realize that the filmmakers don't care when good characters are established in a film.
*END SPOILER*
The less said about thi embarrassment the better. I wish it didn't exist. I suggest skipping this film, and even 5, and just going straight to H20 because if you watch this you may not want to see another Halloween film again.
\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[possible spoilers]
The sixth \"Halloween\" film is an utterly depressing affair, but unfortunately not in the manner envisioned by the filmmakers. By now, everyone knows the story of how it was butchered and released in such a sloppy, incoherent form. The second half, in particular, makes little to no sense, as plot elements are introduced and dropped, seemingly at random. The very ending left me scratching my head. What the hell happened? Is Dr. Loomis dead or what? This is what you get when you put a shameless hack in charge of a motion picture. It's not a pretty sight.
On a related note, this is the most graphically violent entry in the series. I have no problem with gore if it's in the right place, but this movie takes it to absurd levels. The infamous exploding head must be a new low for the series. Michael himself even seems to be enjoying the act of murdering another human being, inconsistent with his efficient, methodical approach in the John Carpenter original.
I'm not quite sure who was responsible; director Joe Chappelle or the producers, probably a combination of both. I'd be perfectly happy to grant a pardon to all concerned if only they'd release the legendary \"Producers' Cut,\" a more complete version of the film that is a vast improvement from every account. From what I understand, it's like a different movie altogether. I offer to pay full price to purchase the DVD if Miramax comes to its senses and releases it.
There are a handful of good elements, however. The idea of Michael being controlled by the Druids is intriguing. Paul Rudd is solid as Tommy Doyle, whose appearance is a neat tie-in with the original. The slick visuals help make the proceedings a bit more watchable. But these meager offerings are overshadowed by the overload of drivel we have to put up with.
Finally, \"The Curse of Michael Myers\" is noted for being Donald Pleasance's last film. Many of his scenes were excluded from the final cut, and when he does appear, he seems frail and unhappy. The movie is dedicated to his memory, a blatant (if unintentional insult) if there was ever one. The fact that a talented performer should end his career like this is too depressing to even think about.
*1/2 (out of ****)
Released by Dimension Films
\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 very bad. In fact, the only reason why I've given it a 2 rather than a 1 is because it made me laugh. Without giving anything away, a man's head actually explodes in this film. It was so pathetic, I laughed. I don't believe the scene was meant to be funny but it's nonsense. Complete nonsense. The original Halloween is such a good film, it's a shame they had to go and make such a stinker.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"