empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI made the mistake of watching \"Dark Star\" (1974) late one night many years ago. It was one of the stupidest movies that I have ever watched:
1. Bad acting.
2. Bad writing.
3. Scientifically stupid plot. (Destroying an entire planet because its orbit is unstable or in the way will only make matters worse: instead of having one large, easily avoidable object, you'll have thousands of smaller, but equally lethal and more difficult objects to track.)
4. Completely unrealistic characters. A painted beach ball as a space alien? The writers must have been doing too many drugs.
Not surprisingly, the majority of actors that starred in \"Dark Star\" never did anything else. Of those that did do anything else, the majority never acted again after Dark Star. Therefore, having Dark Star on one's acting resume was a death star to one's acting 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\nThis sequel is quite awful to be honest. I'm a fan of kung-fu movies and this is by far the worst I've seen. Bride with White Hair 1 was actually quite good and this is a huge disappointment. BWWH 1 was brilliant in some ways with an unique odd-ball evil bad guy.
The couple from the first movie played a small role in this movie. Instead the movie revolves around a bunch of uninteresting characters trying to seek revenge on their fallen clans. But there's no antagonist in this movie so the revenge is mute.
The worst part to this movie is the kung-fu or lack there of. They literally had a street style knife fight. The character at the end refused to fight because there was lack of choreography.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis was a real let down for me. The original Bride with White Hair is a great kung fu fantasy film but this one was pretty weak. I didn't care at all for the new characters who unfortunately dominated the screen time and the story wasn't well developed. While the first film was tragic and involving this one was tedious (as I merely counted the time to the end when the ill-fated lovers would actually meet). The action was poor in this one as well. The fights were not choreographed very well and there really wasn't much kung-fu at all. Just a few weak sword fights between the highly dis-likable Lui and one of Lin's henchwomen. Lin herself mainly uses a sort of telekinesis to throw people into walls and sometimes her hair, a far cry from the impressive showing with the whip and kung-fu she displayed in the previous film. I still gave this movie a 4 because at least it was fast pace and I did want to see what was going to happen at the end, though I (as most anyone who watched the first one) predicted it would go down the way it did and after seeing it I found it anti-climactic and wished they had either made a proper sequel or just left the story alone. I really recommend the first one but as for the sequel only fans of the genre and those who really want to see Lin as the bride one more time need apply.
\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\nUnfortunately this is not one of those movies which at least make you laugh at their unbelievable stupidity. It has no entertainment value at all. It just plain sucks. I don't know where to start to explain how much this movie annoyed me. I think what really takes the cake is the unbearable soundtrack. It sounds as if someone took a simple beat and then, for the rest of it, let a 5 year old child run amok with a synthesizer and taped it. It's really that awful and as if that's not enough, there's not one scene in the movie without \"music\" (=noise). By the end of the movie, you're either deaf or already cut off your ears earlier. Which would at least keep you from falling asleep, since there is nothing happening in the movie to keep your attention. Just a lot of bad acting, a few cheap and unconvincing kills, no story at all (it just jumps from one scene to another and you as the viewer can try to make any sense of it) and in the last 30 minutes or so you can witness some of the worst \"special effects\" ever. It's extremely boring. Do not watch this movie! You could do something much more entertaining like staring at a wall or reading the phone-book. Did I mention how much the soundtrack sucked?
\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 so bad and so cheap and so corny, I found this movie to be one of the most boring slow paced early 80's movies that I have ever seen. I like most 80's cheap horror movies but I would never rent this one again. It just did not make any sense. A family that lives in the woods invites their son, his wife and their daughter to spend time with them for the holidays and during the movie for some reason the mother and daughter- in- law do not get along well. We never figure out why until almost till the end of the movie but until then, all we see is the fact that the mother has some form of ESP and the daughter- in- law is having nightmares and flashbacks of a catastrophe of what will happen to unfortunate victims to this \"thing\" that we have no clue as to what \"it\" looks like, all we see is a bright light signaling his approach and all we hear is a cheap interpretation of Darth Vadar voices and a soundtrack stolen from various horror movies. Then when we finally find out what and who it is all I did was laugh. This \"killer\" turns out to be some kind of alien Japanese warrior from WW2 who has apparently come back to life to claim the mother and her family. And all the mother does is stand there in front of the living room shaking with her hands on fire or something like she's going into some kind of convulsion. This movie is pathetic! Avoid it, it's not even worth renting.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNo wonder a lot of us hate classical music; and what are the children to think? With \"educational\" PR like this, serious music will soon slip from life support to the morgue. Kids know when they're being talked down to, and this is no exception; why can't someone good do a movie about classical music for kids? I must admit, I enjoyed the actor who played Beethoven, he took to the role with enthusiasm and a keen balance of the poignant and humorous aspects of Beethoven's character; he obviously did his research. Otherwise, this is a third rate rehash of the old ABC Afterschool Special format, with none of the occasional charm those short films had. Sorry about the rant, but this is an important subject for young people to know about, and it could have been done well; I wonder if musicians or filmmakers were responsible? Either way, the kids are hipper than you think, folks...
Medtner
\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\nBeethovan Lives Upstairs is a very bad movie. In my World History class, our teacher had us watch this movie and Amadeus to be able to compare the two composers or something. We watched Amadeus first and it was a very good movie, but when she had us watch this movie directly after that, I couldn't believe what I was seeing. The acting was horrific, the costumes were ugly (the little boy's was especially ugly and girlish), and the cinematography was z-grade. My Friend compared it to a home movie without the date display in the bottom right corner. I understand this was a T.V. movie from Canada and probably cost $10 to make, but please, they could have done better. I have seen a few good T.V. movies in my time, but this was not one of them. The biggest thing that I don't understand is why my World History class couldn't just watch Immortal Beloved or something. How is it possible to compare composers when given the movie Amadeus, for Mozart, and Beethovan Lives Upstairs, for Beethovan? It's not possible to do that when this is the choice of movie for Beethovan. I give Amadeus an A- (9 out of 10) if anyone cares to know, but Beethovan Lives Upstairs gets an F (1 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\nIt has been a tradition since my first VHS recorder for me to collect several of the incarnations of the old chestnut by Charles Dickens, and I taped this one and \"Karroll's Christmas\" this year. Fortunately, when this one was run on the Hallmark Channel at the unGodly hour of 3 AM, I was spared having to edit commercials from it. This was, however, it's only saving grace.
The writing was excruciatingly dull with almost no clever scenes to save it from being anything more than a teeny-bopper soaper like Beverly Hills 90210. In this one, a good man who was cast aside for her celebrity seems the only logical explanation for her transformation into a Scrooge-like TV talk show hostess. It wasted Dinah Manoff who just plays bitch goddess to the other bitch goddess Tori Spelling (who, by the way, had more coats of paint on her face than some colonial houses) and Bill Shatner is perhaps one of the few fun things in this otherwise dreary adaptation.
Some of the best opportunities are wasted like the entrances of the ghosts. Aunt Marla's entrance could have been spectacularly funny in the hands of a decent writer, but this Christmas turkey didn't have one, evidently.
Tori Spelling may be a lovely person, but she has all the acting skill of a mannequin, and that makes for a bad show all by itself.
Yes, it was good to see Gary Coleman work again, but the script gives him nothing to do really except roll his eyes and spout truly lame dialogue.
And what is most infuriating was that the transformation from Scroogedom to Tori \"sweet and light\" is as convincing as a passionate conservative. Now, if anyone wants to write the ultimate Scrooge tale of a George Bush and Karl Rove, we might have a refreshing change from the usual bad Christmas Carol Clones.
I suppose if you're a fan of Ms. Spelling and/or 90210, this might be your cup of Christmas cheer. I'd prefer a stiff shot of scotch and a cold beer to wash it down myself. This one I just may cast away before it is with me here for a long long time.
God save us everyone!
\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 first saw this DVD in a bargain bin for three dollars, I really couldn't believe my luck: a Christmas movie starring Tori Spelling, William Shatner, AND Gary Coleman??? Needless to say, I snatched it up immediately and considered it a worthwhile investment.
The movie itself was just as bad as any movie you'd expect to be combining Christmas and the three aforementioned \"celebrities.\" The dialogue was inane, the characters were one dimensional, and Carol's character arc was completely unbelievable. The movie itself was a lifeless piece of boring that refused to end and made me feel used as a human being when the end did finally come.
My advice: Don't watch this movie unless you have to and then only under the influence of some serious holiday eggnog.
\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\nGiven that Roger Corman attached his name to this production, I had high hopes for this film. Corman directed many memorable low budget horror flicks in the 1960's. I particularly enjoyed his adaptations of Poe's stories such as `The House Of Usher,' and `The Pit And Pendulum' and `The Raven' which starred the late great Vincent Price. These films had solid acting, atmosphere, suspense, strong characterization, intriguing plot development and delivered some chilling moments. Sadly, `House Of The Damned,' for the most part, sacrifices these qualities in lieu of cheesy low budget special effects, gratuitous nudity and mindless gore topped with cliche fast edits and camera angles.
`House Of The Damned' starts off interestingly with some beautiful location shots in Ireland, but it's straight downhill from here. Unfortunately, instead of spending some time building atmosphere, creating characters we might care about, or building suspense - the director opts to begin running up the body count. After a brief introduction to the lead characters, a young couple and their daughter, the audience spends the balance of the film being bounced from one `spooky' event to another which, in this film, substitutes for coherent plot development. The lead characters are so ill conceived and are so badly acted - the audience doesn't care what happens to them. To make matters worse, the `spooky' events are either utterly cliché or unconvincing due to low tech - low budget special effects. The soundtrack has been lifted from `The Omen.' The plot, what little there is, borrows heavily from `Poltergeist' and `The Legend Of Hell House,' but lacks any of the qualities which made these films convincing.
If you interested in seeing well done haunted house flicks, I recommend you check out classics like `The Haunting (1963),' `The Innocents (1961) or look into Corman's early American International films and pass on `House Of The Damned' unless you're masochistic or mindless.
3 ½ out of 10.
Rob Rheubottom
Wpg, MB. Canada
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis was a letdown in many ways. The location filming in Ireland, though quite beautiful at times, cannot save this uninspired flick. Greg Evigan and Alexandra Paul, as the married couple trying to get their marriage back on track and who inherit a haunted mansion, just aren't interesting characters. Paul, towards the end of the film, becomes incredibly annoying and one wishes she would just close her mouth and shut up, as it seems she is screaming as if it has just become an Olympic event! Other problems with this film are odd segments that have nothing to do with the core of the film, such as the opening sequence with two cleaning women and the woman in a bed with a severed hand climbing over her writhing, naked body. Although the woman is quite adequate doing this it does nothing storywise. One is left thinking the production team needed to pad out a short running time and just tossed in some padding and a bit of T and A. The CGI effects are cartoonish as well and the fiery finale rivals co-executive producer Roger Corman's much earlier and far superior film The Fall Of The House Of Usher in all its ineffective cheapness. Any attempt at true tension and suspense, and as a result chills, are thrown out the window in this low budget bust. If you like images of Ireland you might find something here but you would do better renting or buying a travelogue. Skip this unless you are undiscriminating and think plot is secondary. Rent another low budget ghost story(if you can find it) titled The Woman In Black and see how good and scary a movie can be. This was a wasted opportunity.
\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 clumsy mishmash of various ghost-story and suspense-thriller conventions, none of them fully realized and all of them rather irritating. The script was perfunctory. The acting, ditto. The scary FX were mostly laughable except for one exquisite seat-jumper moment that scared me even though I saw it coming a mile off. Now, explain to me someone why you would need ghosts, AND black magic, AND arcane ritual objects, AND Count Crapula CG boogeymen, AND psychic investigators, AND family curses, AND Irish superstitions, AND bowls of milk left out for the supernatural beings, AND possessed dollies, all in the same movie? With all that you would expect more than one good moment of horror, but this movie is lame, lame, lame.
\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\nNew Year's Day. The day after consuming a few too many vodka martinis and Cosmopolitans mixed with a bunch of bubbly at midnight, my wife and I discovered the local cable company is offering up the digital specialty channels for free for the month of January. We had a choice - do we make use of the freebie channels or do we start watching the eight seasons of X-Files on DVD that we received from our daughter for Christmas?
We elected for the digital freebie since the DVDs are going nowhere and we need something like ten twelve-hour days to watch all the X-Files beginning to end. The Drive-In channel was offering a horror classic three movie marathon: Asylum (1972), House of the Damned (1996) and The Pit and the Pendulum (1961). Asylum is well-reviewed here and the Pit and the Pendulum was on too late for us to watch which meant we could really only be properly critical for House of the Damned.
To be honest, we tried to be serious about the movie since its stars have reasonably good acting credentials - Greg Evigan (William Shatner's over-written Tekwars) and Alexandra Paul (the only Baywatch babe who could act although she has the body of a ten-year-old boy). Unfortunately, we soon dissolved to giggles, under the influence of a little hair-of-the-dog, as we each shouted out the names of movies from which this dog borrowed its scenes: Poltergeist, The Shining, Hell House, House On Haunted Hill, Ghost Busters!
The acting, especially by Evigan's real-life daughter, wasn't too bad considering the silly script they had to work with. The CGI, for 1996, was hilarious - at its worst point in the final scene when it should have been the most horrific it was so bad my wife and I dissolved in laughter.
Overall: Acting 4/5, Script 2/5, SFX 0/5
\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\nStrange things happen to Americans Will (Greg Evigan), Maura (Alexandra Paul) and their young daughter Aubrey (Briana Evigan, Greg's real life daughter) when they move into a large, newly inherited house in Ireland. Crusty corpses are found in the cellar, a turkey squirts blood, furniture moves and the ghosts of a dead child and a cackling old lady show up to scare the little girl. Paranormal investigators are eventually called in to banish the evil spirits, but Maura becomes possessed anyway and chases everyone around with a meat cleaver.
This film is full of cliches, but there's a standout performance from Alexandra Paul... too bad it doesn't belong in this movie (nor any other I can think of off hand)! She can barely keep a straight face and her over-emoting and hysterical screaming tantrums are a joy to behold. In any case, she's a lot more interesting to watch than anything else in this movie.
Score: 3 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\n\"House of the Damned\" (also known as \"Spectre\") is one of your low budget haunted house horror flicks, filled with mediocre performances and cheap effects. It is about a family that inherits an old Irish mansion, and after moving in begin to experience strange phenomenon and ghostly apparitions, including the ghost of a young girl who was murdered and buried within a wall in the mansion's basement. The couple's young daughter is then whisked away into some other dimension and they seek help from a group of paranormal investigators for help.
The ideas this film borrowed from the 1982 haunted house film \"Poltergeist\" are obvious. I will say that this movie does have some slightly creepy sequences, but it is sometimes very, very boring. The acting here is nothing special, the mood is alright, the score (which was mostly this dramatic Irish opera music) was somewhat annoying, and the CGI special effects are really horrible. I mean, it was 1996, you would think they could have done a little better than they did. The ending where the house was on fire was the poorest special effect I've seen, very very cheap. But hey, this was a cheap movie.
Also, the translucent monster wolf thing that their daughter sees looks horribly fake. And what was it's significance in the film anyway? What the heck does a wolf-monster have to do with a haunted house? The special effects in here are what really ruined this movie. The acting was pretty bad too. I usually enjoy many low budget horror films, but not this one. \"House of the Damned\" is nothing special at all, only consider watching it if you have nothing better to do. But you'll probably want to pass on it. 4/10.
\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 saw this Film one midnight and I can say that it worse than other horror film about a Haunted House.Alexandra Paul is not one of the best actress but she can do the role better,The little girl get worse this is a example about a Bad actress,she has not got future in the great world of films. SENTENCE FOR HOUSE OF THE DAMNED:BAD
\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 has got to be the worst movie I have ever seen. The part where they loose there daughter? with the poltergeist overtone rip off? just pushes it over the edge with stupidity. I watched it on showtime so it still had the cheese soft-core porn scenes in it. I have to say it made me laugh my ass off. The 80's 3d effects were very out of place. Included an invisible cat and a spinning vortex. Wow I wonder if the people who made this actually feel accomplished in life. The actress who plays the wife looks familiar but sucks anyhow. Her screaming could be used as a torture device in hell for more than retired Nazis. Anyways thank you showtime for the super crappy horror movie. I will always enjoy the time I watched the biggest waist of time and money I have ever seen.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nButter Battle is an entertaining story about two fictional cities and their arms race. It is also as misguided allegory about the Cold-War and arms races in general. Yes, it is a children's book, but like so many of Theodor Seuss Geisel's works it hits people over the head with its moral.
And that moral is what, exactly? Sure it is laudable to encourage us to concentrate more on what unites us than what divides us. It is even a good thing to encourage international cooperation. But to equate the differences between the Warsaw Pact nations and the Nato west to a difference in butter application is just plain wrong. To point out the obvious, many Warsaw Pact nations enjoyed intermittent periods of shortages of butter and bread -- they would have been happy to eat it butter sideways if it were available. On a less literal level, and whatever your political inclination, Soviet socialism versus Western (particularly Anglo-American) democracy is not a mere question of preference and custom.
To make the point even clearer, nuclear weapons were not developed in a Cold War with the Soviets, but in a hot war with the Axis powers. There is no doubt that Germany was developing nuclear capability during the war. Should the US have refrained from nuclear weapons research putting their trust in their (less than inevitable) victory in the conventional war? Once the weapons were developed they were used against the enemy who attacked us at Pearl Harbor. What does a nation do at this point when the genie is out of the bottle? Furthermore, hindsight is 20-20, which is to say that there was no way of assuring another half crazed dictator wouldn't crop up with his eyes on developing nuclear weapons. The second Gulf War has shown the incredible difficulty in ascertaining credible threats and neutralizing them.
In any event, the cartoon is little more than simplistic propaganda which does little to explore the nuances of the ethical questions behind nuclear armament and instead tries to inculcate fear of weapons technology into children.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt just so happens that IVAN THE TERRIBLE, PARTS I and II both had entries in the 50 Worst Movies book by Harry Medved. Now, I do think that declaring they are among the worst movies ever is an overstatement, though they are still both pretty poor films--particularly the first one, as it featured more eye rolling and \"googly eyed looks\" than I have ever seen before!! Director Eisenstein and an awful lot of other people out there thought this made the film \"artsy and profound\"--and since I am legally sane, I must say that I hated this first film!! The second, while still very incomplete-looking, is a vast improvement, as eye rolling is minimal, though overacting and long boring scenes are present in this film just like in part 1! While part 2 looks pretty incomplete and needed at least another hour (especially since it never gets to Ivan's insane behavior later in life--like killing his son and heir while in a fit of anger). Since both parts 1 and 2 were commissioned by Stalin to both excuse his own murderous reign and glorify him, it's no surprise that Ivan's life story is left very incomplete. Even without all the truly awful behaviors of Ivan, apparently the supremely evil Stalin STILL didn't like the film and wouldn't allow its release during his lifetime. Maybe he didn't allow this because he was more worried people would see what a HUGE waste of money and resources the film was instead of seeing Stalin as a crazy guy just like Ivan!
By the way, there was one segment of this tedious film that was just so cool that the film merits a 4 (without it, a 2)--and that's the scene with Prince Vladimir at the banquet! It is well-done and pretty funny in a dark way. And, the scene was done in a Russian version of 2-color Technicolor. This is VERY odd, by the way, because by the mid-1930s, a vastly improved true color process was developed by Technicolor that no longer made everything look all orangy-red and greenish-blue. So, this film during the color sequences looks a lot like a silent or early sound color film. Very odd indeed for the 1940s.
\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 generally appreciate light-weight attempts at creating humourous stories, which means that \"Anita no perd el Tren\" cannot score very high for me. The story is good: a middle-aged but still good-looking woman finds a new love. But the attempts at making this film as a romantic comedy only managed at times to be somewhat comical.
Rosa María Sardà has ably demonstrated that she can be a serious actress in such productions as \"Amic/Amat\" (qv), \"Todo Sobre mi Madre\" (qv), \"Las Amargas Lágrimas de Petra von Kant\" (qv) and \"El Embrujo de Shanghai\" (qv). However the powers that be have over the years dished her out a lot of trivial stuff, for the cinema and for TV. Something similar could be said of José Coronado: perfectly able to produce serious performances. María Barranco belongs safely in this grouping.
Such that, in the end, I was left with the feeling that I would be real pleased to see a new making of this film, in a serious tone, which would allow the actors to really show their performing skills. And the curious thing is that it should be done with exactly the same leading actors. Wasted talent on a rather silly film that could have been very promising indeed.
\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 picked out this DVD out of the cheepo bin at Walmart because the cover showed one of the planes I flew during Viet-Nam (C-123k). I did not fly for Air America, but knew being a C-123 pilot, I knew a lot who did, including those who flew in my Reserve Unit back home. I am not a movie critic, but wonder about the subliminal motivation of Directors and Writers who make movies like this. The best part of this movie has to go to the cameraman. The flying shots and stunts (although totally cartoon like) are excellent. The movie begins with Hollywood's favorite fall guy in 1969. But the fact is, Nixon did not start Air America, he did not begin the lies. Johnson was responsible for Air America and Nixon inherited the lies, the war, and Air America. Its not fair or accurate to portray Nixon as a liar on the subject of Air America. All President's have inherited the lies of their predecessors. Nobody smart enough to fly a C-123 was dumb enough to not know what they were joining. That makes the Downey character unbelievable. A C-123 was a rugged airplane. It could easily fly on one engine, or the two auxiliary jet engines. The three stooges shooting a duck with one shot is more likely. Pilots who flew with Air America were civilian employees of the CIA, they were not reckless soldiers of fortune. They had a good reason to behave and believe in a future, if they survived their extremely dangerous job. They were given double time towards a retirement pension. They weren't required to sell dope or guns to get a good pension. Dope was legal and a way of life in SEA, as it still is today in Afganistan. If individual pilots tried to make money on the side, it was not CIA policy. The CIA was fighting a war on communism, not drugs. The writer based his story on \"war stories\". Pilots love to BS anybody who will buy them a beer and listen. The writer and Director who had an ax to grind about Viet-Nam and Nixon. See the movie, and remember how it starts - it blames Nixon for what existed for years. Remember, he didn't become President until Jan 20, 1969.
My favorite scene is the landing up hill in the jungle. Air America pilots put planes in places the aircraft designers never thought possible. Their were plenty of funny stories that could have been shown. Instead, the Director chose to use the oversize rubber scene to show how dumb the CIA was. This scene shows that the Director and writer fell for some pilot bar talk and the joke is on them.
MDS Fort Valley Virginia.
\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\nSkilled professionals live it up in an exotic and dangerous location. They get drunk every night. They smuggle opium. They drop pigs in parachutes. They fly under impossibly hazardous conditions. They dress weird and act weirder. They're iconoclastic, outrageous. They violate every rule of command and have contempt for their employers at the CIA. They're irreplaceable.
Nope. It's not \"Only Angels Have Wings\" and it's not \"M*A*S*H.\" It's an uneasy mixture of the two that unfortunately comes across as more silly than funny.
It aims at shock, amusement, and education, but doesn't really achieve its goals.
As far as its shock value is concerned, well, we're inured by now, aren't we? Does it really shock anyone that a bunch of hard-living pilots flew secret missions in Laos in the 1970s? No, it's not shocking. It's not even educational now, under our current circumstances, when it would be interesting to learn that some paramilitary excursion was NOT buried in a file labeled National Interest, Defense de Toucher. That's okay. So we've been wised up a little and are no longer neither so shockable nor so dumb.
The problem in this case is that the film depends on those very qualities for its power to amuse. Without that, the film implodes. A group of shaggy drunken CIA pilots are sitting around in a cat house, goosing the girls, shooting out the lights with a silenced pistol, killing lizards with same. Asks newbie pilot Robert Downey, Jr., \"When you guys act like this does it mean there's something to celebrate?\" Replies another, guffawing, \"No, it means it's night time.\" That might be funny if we expected renegade pilots to be as upright as the rest of us. If we don't, the gag, like the movie, falls flat.
There are action scenes naturally. Everything that can possibly happen in or to an airplane in flight happens in or to an airplane in flight. People fall out of them, baggage is thrown haphazardly out of their hatches, engines fail, they sustain damage from AAA, the are torn apart during crash landings, but we've seen most of this elsewhere, often done better.
Some might find this funnier than I did, and the acting is pretty good. Robert Downey Jr. is especially effective as the straight man. Check out the other comments and if they describe a film that you might find appealing, then by all means watch it. There might be some laughs in it that escaped me.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nRoger Spottiswoode isn't the worst director, and he did a good job on the underrated sci-fi thriller \"The Sixth Day\" (a.k.a. \"The Box Office Downfall of Mr. Schwarzenegger\"). However, \"Air America\" has to be one of his most inept projects.
It comes across as an amalgamation between drama, comedy and war film - it's not a very convincing mix. In fact, I found it to be overbearing.
Robert Downey, Jr. (during his heyday) stars as a pilot recruited into a top secret CIA organization operating during Laos in the Vietnam era. Mel Gibson plays his co-pilot and he stumbles upon the knowledge that they're trafficking drugs, and what not.
The movie was hyped on release because it starred two famous faces and Aerosmith had re-recorded the Doors classic \"Love Me Two Times\" for the soundtrack.
The redo of the song is pretty poor, which suits the 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\nThat this movie has been stapled to the wall of a chapel as proof that God is truly dead. Am I the only one that really saw (rather sleptwalked) through this \"film\"? This is the only movie I've ever seen in the theater that I regret not walking out on and demanding my money back -- it was just that dull. And I even saw \"Highlander 2: The Quickening\" at the local cinema. From beginning to end, Gibson and Downey have absolutely no chemistry as two unlikelies, cast together by circumstance, who eventually work together as best buddies. The action (what little there is) is goofy and as dull as the skullbone of the writer. Thank whatever deity is chortling down at us as it observes our \"cinema\" that there's no chance for an \"Air America 2.\"
\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 normally a fan of Mel Gibson, but in this case he did a movie with a poor script. The acting for the most part really wasn't that bad, but the story was just pointless with flaws and boring. I thought I would like the movie a little but I didn't like it at all actually. I give it a 1 1/2 out of 5!
\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 decided to watch this movie because it has been noted as the \"scariest movie ever\" so, that's what I expected. Unfortunately, what I found out is that the movie didn't have a single scary moment in it (and I'm the kind of person who jumps very easily). The movie was nothing but terrible clichés and every time there was a jump-moment it was incredibly obvious. The pros of this movie would be the music and the odd scene thats actually shot well (like the very last scene when she opens the door and you see Tun in the reflection and when it swings back to him you see the ghost on his shoulders). Overall, this movie really added nothing new to the J-Horror genre and all-around lacked creativity and scares.
\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 should explain that as far as this trend goes for ripping off Asian horror movies, this Shutter is a head above The Grudge, and Dark Water, while still not achieving the same amount of atmospheric creepiness that The Ring establishes.
Still though movies, like life, don't exist in a vacuum and are therefore up for comparison to other suspense/thriller/horror movies. Honestly, I'm not writing a lengthy synopsis here and will say that this movie attempts to rely on music induced \"startle\" scares rather than atmosphere and the \"ghost\" itself really isn't that remarkable. The plot is pretty basic and predictable and isn't anything to write home about either. While there are a few suspenseful scenes that border on creatively scary, most of the movie is pretty vanilla. If you enjoyed The Grudge and it's ilk then you might enjoy this.
Grade: C-
\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 know, but the movie was just too similar to other movies I've seen. The Ring, The Eye, Dark Water, they're all the same to me. Don't get me wrong, it's beautifully made, lovely camera work, great graphics, but that story is just too.. too common. In the end, it's the score that makes the suspense, you know: the screams, rumbles. The characters in the movie are also not reacting very naturally, moving very slowly, surprised by anything they see. I know some people that love this kind of film, and if you do, being a well made movie, I guess it doesn't hurt to watch it. But if you've seen the movie I've mentioned above and didn't like them, then I'd suggest you don't bother.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\ni have seen many Japanese horrorfilms and i have to say that some of them are really interesting but they are all pretty much the same. this one is no exception. the ghost is a black haired girl, that scares it's victims by doing nothing else than walk and look dead.. the difference is just the motive for the haunting. the rest is the same as every time: black haired girl, strange things happening with some media (photos), creepy acting. while watching this flick i constantly found myself asking why i was wasting my time watching stuff that someone else has done so much better before. some scenes where quite nice though, i'll give it 3 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\nOne of my co-workers recommended this one, implying that it was one of the most frightening movies she ever watched. I checked it out together with my girlfriend and we gave up after 50 minutes or so.
Yesterday, I had a long talk with my co-worker (we're still friends!).
This movie is as original as the latest film starring Steven Seagal. It brings absolutely nothing original to the table. The spooky parts have been done thousand of times before.
The biggest fault however is the painfully slow pace of this movie. The periods between the scares are completely wasted with meaningless dialog and a lot of.. nothing..
1 of 10 Molotov cocktails
\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 absolutely positively can't believe my fellow IMDb reviewers. All the praise about how \"original\" this movie is, it's like they've never seen \"Ring\" or the million of imitations that's come out in the 10 years since that movie. And some of them claim to be horror movie buffs! I think not! \"Shutter\" is okay. Average, I'd say. I give it 5 out of 10, but there's just no way it's original and great and \"the most frightening thing I've ever seen\" as one reviewer said. Puh-leeeze, people. This one is plain. It's predictable.
I swear, if I see another ghost movie where the hero traces the past of the ghost in order to find out why she's so mad and after them, I'm going to scream.
\"Original\"? Give me a break. You people need to get out more. Or at least stop calling yourselves \"horror movie fans\".
\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 me seriously doubting again whether Armando de Ossorio was a good filmmaker or not... His BLIND DEAD films are praised by many fans. This I can understand. But wanna-be Gothic vampire trite like MALENKA doesn't show any signs from a gifted filmmaker. And that also goes for SERPIENTE DE MAR. It features horrible acting, a dumb plot, stupid events, a lot of other things you can expect from a bad monster-movie and also veteran actor Ray Milland, who does his best to mumble his way through this film while not having much of a clue about what he's doing in it. Apparently Milland was already very ill while shooting SERPIENTE DE MAR (his last theatrical feature) and going out with a ridiculous stinker like this, makes it all the more sad. One last appearance alongside Peter Cushing in a made-for-TV film directed by Roy Ward Baker (also in 1984) doesn't change much about it.
But the sock puppet/sea serpent is a hoot to behold. Watch it swirl up a lighthouse and crush it. See it destroy a harbour with miniature boats. Look at it demolish bridges and munch on charming miniature trains.
Good Badness? Yes. 3/10 and 7/10
\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\nand abysmal, over-the-top acting, you might enjoy this rubbish flick.Apparently atomic bombs makes life mutate in about a day or two (or according to other viewers, wake them up). Or so it seems. And apparently massive atomic explosions off the coast of Spain doesn't make anyone ask any questions at all. Coming to think of it, the plot doesn't make sense in any way whatsoever (why would evil sock puppets attack lighthouses?), so the nukes going off for no reason at all doesn't stand out too much.
OK, getting past this, and the fact that the \"monster\" is a glorified thing you make of socks in kindergarten, you may actually be able to stand this. But for once the complete lack of gore doesn't help, leaving the monster attacks in all their naked rock-bottom-budget \"glory\".
I doubt you'll be able to watch this though, so better stay well away.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is the worst movie I have ever seen. A movie that is about a stupid looking monster from the ocean that threatens a small town which has to be filled with the dumbest people on earth.
SPOILERS IF YOU EVEN CARE
They can't even kill the damn thing by the end of the movie. The movie ends and they're like, \"Well, some day we'll have to kill it.\"
Avoid at all costs.
\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 has to be one of the most awfully scripted films I've ever seen. It's basically a remake of The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms (1953), but done with your standard snake-like puppet-monster instead of a sleek Ray Harryhausen creation. Combine the plot of that classic monster movie with the production qualities and acting level of The Creeping Terror and you have an idea of what this movie is like.
The movie is dubbed, although by the original actors (I think that the movie was originally dubbed in Italian for that countries audiences, then redubbed for US release), which just makes the movie seem weird...the sounds, like in a Japanese monster movie, just don't quite match properly to the action on the screen, even if the actors' lips are moving properly.
Poor Ray Milland...he's certainly come a long way down from The Lost Weekend or Dial M for Murder or any of the number of excellent movies he was in. Add this to his other sci-fi travesties (Panic in the Year Zero, X The Man with X-Ray Eyes) and you can see a once good actor fallen into a Boris Karloff syndrome...stuck doing really bad horror films in foreign countries just for the work.
\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 family movie set in 1950's rural America about a boy whose Uncle presses sheep killing charges against his dog Drum, starting not only a family legal feud but community discord as their town begins to take sides.
This is formula film that attempts to be very touching and sweet. Its biggest weakness is that the only people who could really act were Scott Bakula (Defense Lawyer), Ron Perlman (father/Drum's owner) and the dog. (John Shuck and Kathy Garver, \"Sissy\" from the original \"Family Affair,\" as the Uncle and his wife, were okay.) The children were not that good (basically they looked like they were acting) and that's a problem when the film really revolves around them (Aaron Fors, who plays the bully Donny makes me think of what the actor Russell Crowe must have looked liked as a child, only with no talent but a lot of ham).
Favorite line (spoken by the Prosecutor after Scott Bakula's Defense closing trial speech): \"We'll be lucky if they don't lynch us.\"
Favorite line spoken by Ron Perlman (after his son punches the bully): \"Now making him your friend, that will be the hard part.\"
Cute enough to rent/buy used.
\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 like J-horror, anime and even kinda dig the pink movement, which some have claimed this a member of, but this did nothing for me. I willing to go a step further and label this one of the biggest let downs of my film watching career.
Three young rockabillies go around getting their kicks out of raping girls. One of the group starts to develop a concisions about their pass-time when his kid sister nearly catches them in the act. Invariably, the group turns on itself as the once friends begin fighting with each other. It ends on a down note befitting the film as a whole.
Aside from watching the friends yell at each other, which they do a lot, there isn't a whole lot going on here. The film is littered with LONG continual shots that only exacerbate the issue. On top of that, even when the film starts to do something interesting, it suddenly gets bogged down in ethereal philosophy that never makes any sense. For instance, after one of the buddies has his change of heart about assaulting girls, he goes out and does it again, but then stops his buddies from taking their turns. Huh? The cinematography is slow and lighting is poor. The writing is OK, as is the acting, which makes this a sub-par cinematic effort from the start. Mix the lack of technical prowess with the flimsy content and you have nothing more than a waste of time.
Oh, and one more extra note, at least one of the girls that appears in the buff does not look old enough to be doing that kinda stuff.
3/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"