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\nIt's hard to believe that a movie this bad wasn't produced once, but four times! Most movies require a certain `suspension of reality' to enjoy, but this one takes it just too far. The basic scenario is an Air Force pilot who is shot down over a `Middle Eastern' country. The US government drags its feet in recovering him, leading the Pilot's son (Doug Masters) to attempt a rescue mission.
The problem I have with the movie is that it depicts the US Air Force as one colossal joke. In the movie you'll find that Doug and his friends on the air base manage to secure two F-16's, all the munitions, the fuel, the Intel for the mission, and so on. Security on this base seems to be a joke. Nobody seems to have a problem that a sixteen-year-old kid is fully qualified to pilot an F-16!
If that wasn't enough, you would think the producers would at least attempt to get the munitions right, since people like to see things `blow up'. Not so! Several times in the movie, Doug fires off AIM-9 Missiles on ground targets. AIM stands for `Air Intercept Missile', meaning a weapon used to strike targets in the AIR. He also fires off 15-20 missiles, where the maximum an F-16 can hold is 6 AIM-9's. The movie also lacks continuity. You'll see the aircraft configured with one set of munitions, and in the next scene, it has a totally different munitions package. Also, 20MM doesn't just completely destroy anything it touches! An F-16 will hold 500 rounds of 20MM, and it's mostly used for self-defense.
I could go on forever with plot holes, flaws, and outright wrong information from the movie, but I won't bore you. If you're in the mood to see a good Air Force movie, your choices are rather slim. Most military movies deal either with the Army, Navy or Marines. Until Hollywood can come up with an Air Force movie on the lines of `Saving Private Ryan' or `A Few Good Men', we'll be forced to watch movies like the `Iron Eagle' series.

\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 the proverbial 80s flick that shows the viewer that as long as he or she tries at something, they can be better than the pros. The main character, Doug, showed off his skills in flying a Cessna aircraft, which somehow equated to being fully capable of flying a jet aircraft and being able to kill people. We all would like to have a few million dollars to play with... maybe make a good investment, donate, buy a few things, but the directors of this movie decided to make Iron Eagle... not once... not twice... not even three times; yes, four times. The thing to look most forward to are the multitude 'hollywood endings' in this movie. Just when you think the movie is going to end after a cheesy end sequence, there's another cheesy end sequence. Then another. Definitely a movie one must watch to believe... and maybe own just to remind oneself of how awesome the 80s must have been.
\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 rarely laughed so hard at a movie. Notice that I laughed AT Iron Eagle, not WITH it, because this is probably the stupidest film I have ever seen (with the obvious exception of sci-fi monstrosity CyberTracker). You should also remember that this film is not a comedy!
Even overlooking the preposterous plot (the idea that a 16-year-old could walk into a US Air Force base, steal an F-16, fly to the Middle East and kill about a thousand people without anyone noticing is beyond belief), the film is full of ridiculous action scenes that make little or no sense. For example, at various points, Doug Masters uses a machine-gun on his plane to shoot a steel girder, a control tower, and a tent. All of these things explode in a massive fireball. Why? The enemy aircraft also explode in a strange way reminiscent of a paper aeroplane being blown up with a firework.
On the plus side, I did actually enjoy this film. Admittedly not in the way the makers probably wanted it to be enjoyed, but all the same I laughed at it and later bought the DVD. It's also improved by the awesome presence of David Suchet as the evil terrorist leader (maybe you'll recall him as mustachioed Belgian detective Poirot?) Overall, then, the film is a laugh and a light-hearted alternative to more serious fighter-plane movies like Top Gun. Even if it is just as subtly homo-erotic (check out the man-hug between Doug and Chappy. Something's going on between 'em!)
\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\nDon't bother to check for logic. There is none. But on the other hand, there are MANY really great movies that totally lack logic, so why bother?
I both like and dislike this film. I like it because the action sequences in the air are really great, you get to see a lot of dogfighting. I also like the F-16, which is a very cool plane.
But there are just too many goofs to make me really enjoy it. I guess it's not fair to wish for SOME sort of continuity, as it is hard to make a really good fighter film - but I also think there should be some sense of reason.
And I have a question: do they fly from California to the Middle East in F-16s without air refueling? I'd like to see that happening.
\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 Liked this move when I was a kid, but now that I'm older I can see how absurd the plot really is. In case you didn't read the earlier reviews it's about a teenager and an Air Force Colonel who steal two fully loaded F-16s to rescue said teenager's dad.
It does have some nice aerial stunts, even if the dialog accompanying then is basically teckno babel.
Some unintentional humor in the edited for TV version. When the hero's dad is being held by Iran, err I mean an unnamed country, and his captors ask him for a confession (relating to why he's being held, don't worry about exactly why, or what they want him to confuse to.) he says \"Tell him he can take my confession and shove it down his throat.\". However his lips and, more importunely, his gesture make it clear what motion, and part of the anatomy, he was really thinking of.
\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 teen-age boy, who is not in the military and has not trained to be a jet pilot, takes off for a foreign country to rescue his dad. If this is not ridiculous enough, he talks a Colonel in the Air Force into helping him get his hands on a jet [wow!]. To make the picture even more absurd, the Colonel risks his career and life by giving the spunky lad some hands on aid. They not only don't make Colonels like this anymore, but they never did. This sappy, corny film should be tossed into the air and blown away by a MIG.
\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 remember watching this for the first time in the 80's as a teen. Man, I've read the reviews on this trash and I find myself astonished by the voting. This movie does not deserve four stars!!! This movie is NOT better than Topgun. Topgun has its own problems; don't get me wrong. This movie should be banned just for its own stupidity. So many stereotypes, so many loop holes, so MUCH poor dialog. I cannot think of one redeeming quality of this vomit. This is not action/adventure. This is a bad joke on film. Kinda like watching Plan 9 with stock F-16 footage. This movie not only defies logic and common sense within the context of a military setting, it sends a disturbing message. The military is not going to save your dad from the imminent evil of the middle east b*****ds. So go out there and hijack a multi-million dollar weapon and blast him out of the sinister clutches of the backwards, Anti-American Arabs. Cuz you can't reason with those animals. This is a Bruckheimer flick without a budget. Bland direction, weak acting, lame music, idiotic plot, equals...Iron Eagle.
\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...But it definitely still only deserves 4/10 stars and no more. A moronic dumb kid's father is a fighter pilot who gets shot down by some Arab country. They never name the country in the movie, its really ridiculous, they just vaguely refer to some Arab nation, this movie is really ignorant like that. But Lamar from Revenge of the Nerds is in here, he is friends with the main character Doug Masters. Well, Doug Masters, who lives on an Air Force base, his father is an air force pilot, yet he fails to get into the air force academy, conceives of a plot (with help from his retarded friends) to steal two jets and go rescue his father. Yea, exactly - this is One of the Greatest Films Ever Made!!! Louis Gossett Jr is fantastic in his role. You can tell he basically wanted to smack the hell out of Doug Masters the whole movie. Well anyway, you can probably guess how the plot ends, I can't believe they made 3 sequels to this movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWithout actually giving away my age, I saw this for the first time over 20 years ago when it first came out on video (maybe it was a beta tape??) and I was old enough to drink (barely) and perhaps I had had a few because I remember thinking how great this movie was! I have since seen it sober and have to admit it is a pretty bad film. As mentioned in other posts the plot is absolutely ridiculous and the poor acting just makes it worse. It's a poor attempt to fantasize that teenagers too, can be \"Mavericks\" (although I am surprised to find out it actually was to be released the same time (aprox) as \"Top Gun\", and not actually meant to be a poor imitation.) But for all it's worth - I do find myself watching it if it's on and I have the time. It's one of those movies you watch because it's just so ridiculous and tries so desperately to take itself seriously. Like that other \"great' film - \"Moment by Moment\" with John Travolta and Lily Tomlin....don't get me started on that one!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n
I still can't belive Louis Gossett Jr. agreed to appear in this film. Everything about this move feels artificial, forced, and contrived. The air sequences are flat. The enemy characters seem like puppets. This is just a poor excuse of a movie. At least Top Gun had air sequences that looked good (the external shots anyway). The songs by Queen are cool, though. Rent Midway instead.
\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\nOK, the very idea is ludicrous.
1. Kids don't own planes 2. Kids don't race planes with dirtbikes 3. It made the Air Force look like total idiots 4. The kids father would not jeopardize his entire career to allow his boy to joyride with him 5. Neither would a reserve colonel
The sequels, I am sure were worse than this tripe. The soundtrack is about the only redeeming quality of this waste of celluloid. I am sorry but I just don't understand why in the world anyone would write direct and produce such unbelevable junk. The Iranian Air Force is lucky to filtch a couple parts for an ageing F-14, and this kid wrangles not 1 but 2 fully loaded and fueled F-16s? Gimme a break.
\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\nJean-Hugh Anglade is excellent as the teenaged boy who wants to be a whore to please the man he loves, but the rest of this film is so bad--acting, writing, cinematography, and everything else--that Anglade's performance is wasted. Sad to see so fine an actor in such a garbage flick.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAccording to the blurb on the back of the DVD case; Jonothan Ross 'laughed until a little bit of wee came out'. I suspect that that has more to do with his being full of it.
I never watched the series for one reason or another, so maybe I'm missing some essential cues. As to this movie; I watched the first 45 minutes or so. I laughed once, smiled once, then reached for the newspaper whilst waiting for something else entertaining to happen. Nothing did.
Evidently intended to be a surreal spoof upon life in the post-Python, gross-humour style, this one falls absolutely flat. There's been a host of comedy series on television in the last few years, not the least of which were 'Bottom', 'The Fast Show' 'The Vicar Of Dibley' and 'Father Ted', each one engaging a group of bizarre but hilarious characters and sketches. Any one of these could knock this crap into a cocked hat.
If the series was anything like this movie; I'm surprised they got the funding. Happily it was one of those £2 Tesco bran-tub purchases and is now in the local charity shop.
The moral of the story is; don't believe the pundits, never pay top dollar.
\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 was okay, but like most TV series it would of been better if it just made for television. The best and most loved characters only had five minute roles, whilst the three mediocre characters were all the way through the film.
Unlike most British movies that are based on television series, this film does kick off and it seems to be on to a winner, but the pace suddenly stops when the three mediocre characters are in the real world waiting to capture the three comedians.
The film then doesn't go anywhere when Hillary in a room with the captured Steve, Lipp masquerading as Steve, and Geoff somehow writing himself in to the Medieval times. Which made me think 'hang on? How come he doesn't need a key to enter in to that world unlike the Royston Vasey characters? The medieval scene was okay but Monty Python did it a lot better and of course funnier, with cameos from Peter Kay and Simon Pegg, both didn't say anything funny, Kay had a line and Pegg just sat up on wall looking bored.
What also grated me was that they seem to forget what happened in the previous episodes such as Hillary escaped to the Caribbean in the television in series 2, but in the film he's escaped from prison, and also Lipp is a paedophile vampire which wasn't mentioned at all in the movie, which was also quite disturbing when he's left alone looking after the children.
There were lots of plot holes and unexplained situations such as how did Geoff and the Dark One escape from the Medieval times back in to Royston Vasey? Like Series 3 it started of good but as the film progressed, it slowly went downhill and had a very weak predictable ending.
They would of been better off doing what Monty Python did and remade all their best and classic sketches from Series 1-3 and the Christmas special, and turned that in to a film which would of re-introduced the characters to a whole new audience, who can't be asked to watch the series or to tight to buy the DVDs.
Best advice is save your money and wait till it's on television..... Where it belongs.
\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\nHad the League been unknowns pitching this script, the backers would simply have turned around and said \"no - you're not having the money - this is dreadful\". As a fan of the League of Gentlemen, this is their poorest outing to date. Not particularly funny, not particularly entertaining, there are few laugh out loud moments. They do exist, but they are few and far between. I felt the format was tired and really dragging. The film refers to the writers being bored of the characters and it shows. As for being a film. I felt the Xmas special had better production value; the FX are generally pretty poor and it is clearly obvious that they didn't film in the original Royston Vasey (they filmed this on the cheap in Ireland). The musical score is weak and the dialogue is terrible. Also, the accents of the characters were largely off from their TV equivalents. Tubs and Edward, much underused (again), just didn't sound like themselves. Disappointing really, because I was hoping for something far more entertaining. This really was the League's equivalent of the 1970s comedies where the cast go to Spain...
\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 this film in the theater in Edinbourgh along with 3 other Americans and our friend from Manchester and we all thought this was a waste of time. We would have much rather spent an extra hour to watch vapid dialog of Star wars III that was playing down the hall than all of this.
Opening with one of the worst jokes I've ever seen committed to celluloid on the big screen, it did not take off with a bang. throughout the movie we got the feeling that the jokes were just trying too hard, the writers thought about the setup so much that you could see the joke coming 2 minutes beforehand, then when it came it was so lackluster that you couldn't even smile; I cite the giraffe cum-ming as a prime example.
The plot itself makes for some interesting thoughts in my mind, which entertained me much more than what was going on on the screen. I think a lot more could have been done with that angle (the two different worlds, the fish-out-of-water experience of the characters, the confusion and surprise as people try to comprehend and distinguish the characters and writers from each other.) But too much time is wasted with pushing this painful plot to the end with as much 'bizarre' and 'goof' as is humanly possible.
And to say the 16th century characters show any extra talent from the writers is an insult to intelligent writers and editors who possibly could have made this film a worthy 40 minute afterthought; but no, its a full length torture film of unfunniness.
As we were leaving the theater, which had VERY little laughing inside it, I overheard the young hip electro-clash British couple behind me saying \"That was rather good wasn't it. You never really knew what was coming next.\" And the girl responding \"yeah, quite surprising.\" and that was it. If this is what is meant to get out of British people from watching a comedy: no laughing for 90 minutes but a teeny bit of communication between two lovers at the end, then this film succeeded. But i have more belief in British life than that.
I've not not-laughed so hard at a comedy film since American Pie II.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am a massive fan of the LoG. I thought the first two series provided some of the best comedy this country has ever seen and the third series, though different, was wonderfully dark and imaginative. The thought of seeing Tubbs, Edward and Briss on the big screen made July 3 something to wait for. Yet, somewhere, it all went horribly wrong. The writers had no story and no real ideas. The part set in old England showed the glimmers of genius that we know the League are capable of but these scenes did not fit well with the film. Geoff provided the best of too few, largely poor jokes and Lipp and Briss's performances were big let-downs. If you love the League, save yourself the time and money and watch episodes from the TV series again. And again. A massive disappointment.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDon't get me wrong, I love the TV series of League Of Gentlemen. It was funny, twisted and completely inspired. I was looking forward to the movie, the premise was interesting and I looked forward to see what they had done with the characters and where the bizarre storyline would take them.
It was a total disappointment, for starters the three weakest characters in the series were the leads and it only contained bit parts for the other characters (why not pick mickey & Pauline, papa Lazaro or tubs and Edward for the main parts!?). It was unfunny throughout, half baked gags and poor slapstick humour.
The real clincher was the plain ridiculous period drama / comedy (and i will use the word comedy loosely). It distracted from the main storyline and felt awkward, not to mention painfully unfunny. The direction of the movie is appalling, and often feels that the lines were delivered by the characters within one take. Very rushed.
Then - the three headed Plasticine-esquire monster. What the hell was all that about? plain ridiculous, it felt like the League of gentlemen tagged it on at the end.
All in all I found myself looking at my watch and sighing with disappointment throughout my experience of the film. What was once an amazing Television series has been tainted by a terribly unfunny film.
If i could give it 0 out of 10 i would. Do not waste your money seeing this.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAm i right in thinking i went to see the same film as everyone else .. this film was terrible. I'm a fan of all 3 series of the league of gentelmen and have always respected the originality of the writers, even when the format changed in series 3. This film however was a blatant half effort, the plot was extremely poor having the characters going into the real world made this film see more like the last action hero. There was about 5 moments in the film that got a mild chuckle but the rest of the time i was wishing it would end. This would have been better as a 10 minute short on the DVD .. it was more of an explanation of what they planned to do, and looked like some of the writers disagreed on the fate of the characters and they made a joke of this by killing him off in the first 30 minutes.
If your a true fan of the league of gentlemens ability to stay fresh then you'll hate this film. If you only watch it cause there was nothing better on TV then u'll love it.
someone back me up !!
\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 became apparent in the first 25 mins of watching this that the writers really wanted to make a feature length film and they probably certainly enjoyed the whole process, but then seemed to forget the fact that it needed a decent plot! If the best they could do was have 3 of the dullest characters enter the real world and have 'all sorts of amusing capers' then they should have left well alone! I didn't laugh once, and that whole \"Adventures of Baron Munchausen/Time Bandits\" thing going on in the middle was very, very poor! Convaluted, contrived and very loose. It just seemed like a whistle stop tour of anything they thought 'might' work just to drag it out to a feature.
Full of holes eg - the Royston Vasey characters needed the writers to carry on writing in order to save them, yet Jeff managed to write himself into the sub-story/time-filling William and Mary and era. If he could do this then why didn't they just carry on writing Royston themselves - duh?? And Herr Lipp's audition? What was that for? I mean what was the point? He did it, and we heard nothing else whatsoever about it?
My main point is, that while I loved the series, this was an ill thought out, seemingly rushed project. Put it this way, the plot was so poor that if we didn't already know the characters (and as a fan I had a certain loyalty to carry on watching), and we relied solely on the the story itself, this would have fallen flat on its face! At best it would have gone straight to video, and at worst would never have been made in the first place! Or maybe that should be the other way round?? Truly dreadful....
\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 you watched the series and love the league as I do then prepare to be disappointed. I went to the cinema with a group of die-hard league fans and we were all in agreement that this film wasn't as funny or dark as the three series before. In my personal opinion it was a money spinner. The writing was contrived and the plot confused - no not confusing just confused with what it was trying to do. It was self indulgence of the worst kind from writers who are far more talented than my pitiful criticisms. I hope the league at least can be honest enough with themselves and acknowledge this film as being inferior to the superb three series. I will not be buying it despite owning most of the league memorabilia.
\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\nAs a massive fan of the three TV series, I was very interested to learn that LoG were moving onto the big screen. In my more honest moments though, I had my doubts about the likely success of the concept, and whether the writers would be able to sustain the high level of wit, comedy and horror that infuse the original series.
Unfortunately my fears were not unfounded, and the film was a huge disappointment. I struggle to understand the other comments on this site. Obviously people are entitled to their opinions, but the guys I watched it with, all agree with me, and they are just as big fans as I am.
The acting lacked conviction, but they are so good that even when not at their best, they are still highly watchable. The main problem was the plot - and the script. There were a few laughs, but not enough, a few moments of disgust, but not enough. Worst of all was the feeling of emptiness after walking out of the cinema. So rarely have I felt so utterly uninspired by a film and so unmotivated to discuss it with others.
I write this comment as a warning to other League fans - get a wide range of opinion on this film before going to see it. If you love League, you might be able to convince yourself that they didn't totally mess up their move to cinema. If you can't convince yourself of this, then you will have tarnished in your mind the otherwise spotless genius that exemplifies the TV series.
LoG at the cinema? More like log. (or little brown fish).
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis review took longer to write than I took to watch this film. It's just plain bad. The plot is terrible in comparison to the TV shows. It is flat, unfunny and boring.
It is clear that the LoG ran out of ideas long before this film was green lit. Viewers should read this as an example of not knowing when to stop.
Bad editing, bad music, bad acting. Zero dynamism, zilch chemistry.
A film that doesn't know what it is, made without any love to some mysterious end that leaves you depressed and feeling kind of angry that so much money was wasted.
The LoG obviously were made an offer they couldn't refuse, or perhaps their egos have simply got the better of them. It's a bleak marketing push that perhaps would have been better when the LoG were fresher and more inspired.
I however, did know when to stop, and did.
Please! Someone try to convince me of this film's finer points!
\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\nvery disappointing and incoherent - every now and then a germ of an idea would develop and be discarded in the next line - it had the feel of a film that had been cut and re-cut to try and make it work - I was bored and distracted all the way through, and I'm speaking as a huge fan of the series. Many of the jokes were unoriginal and tired, The medieval section went on far too long and the quality of acting was very poor - some on the tiny guest spots, like Simon Peg and Liam Cunningham did more in their alloted 30 secs than the main cast did in 90 Min's.
It's a shame, really.
The only really interesting thing was getting a look inside the little shed on Soho Square - which is something everyone who is ever in that part of London wonders about.
\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\nplease re-watch all 3 series and do not go see this movie, the trailer is completely misleading and the 3 weakest characters in the series stretch a badly thought out 25min TV episode into the most painful 2hrs of my life, truly an awful film. tubbs and edward are in it for a few mins, micky has 1 line, and her lipp just reels out the same tired old puns, also mr briss's accent just changes about 5 times in the film tons of badly acted extras, and really a few laughs that they seem to recycle for 2 hrs i honestly feel this series has been completely ruined by this god-awful piece of crap..........batman and robin all is forgiven
\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 just don't get these reviews! I can't help thinking they are written by the sort of L.O.G fan who would worship anything they ever do without questioning whether it is actually any good.
I'm a massive fan of the programme but thought this film was a pointless project. I could forgive the ridiculous plot if I had come out of the cinema having laughed more than twice. At one point, I thought it might just me before I realised hardly any laughs were minting from the rest of audience.
I wasn't expecting much of a plot (very few TV comedies stand up to being stretched over 90 minutes) but thought the odd bit of classic L.O.G dialogue or visual joke (like at the start of each programme) would carry a film. After 5 minutes of the 17th Century plot, I was begging for it to end (little did I know it would carry on for the rest of the film). It just wasn't funny.
I was just massively disappointed and can't see history being too kind to it, even if a few die-hard fans write enthusiastic reviews.
\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***May contain spoilers***
I had very high expectations for this film, based on the trailer. I knew a bit about the real Ed Gein, so I figured this was a medium-budget Hollywood version of the real events. Man was I wrong.
First, the writing apparently came from an eight-grader who barely knew anything about Ed's history and cranked out the script in about 20 minutes. The movie completely passes over the most interesting facets of Ed and his relationship with his mother (not to mention what the real police found in his house) and decides to focus primarily on the young deputy who looks like he just wandered onto the set. Likewise, all of the male characters seem to be ad-libbing their dialog throughout the entire movie. I'm not exaggerating.
Don't even get me started with the historical goofs in this movie. Seriously, who the hell directed this? This movie is supposed to take place around 1957, but the cops are carrying modern side-handled batons, some of the stuff in the hardware store look like they came from Lowes, and when the cop gets to a payphone he dials 9-1-1 (didn't exist back then). Also, Ed was a small guy, scary like Anthony Perkins' character in Psycho (who was supposedly based on real-life Ed), not this burly dude who ended up looking way too much like the bad guy in Men In Black.
Another thing that really bugged me was the appearance that the makers of this film shot the whole thing in an abandoned, 3 building set. Because of the \"clever\" camera angles, you never see any actual town, and the interior of the sets looked like old, long-abandoned shacks. Pop a cash register on a saw-horse and bam!--instant hardware store.
I'm usually pretty forgiving of low-budget horror films, but this one just begs for it. All you had to do was include most of the real events (even embellish them!), pay five good actors instead of 15 crappy ones, and for Pete's sake take 5 minutes and think about the time period once in a while. My advice: Google Ed Gein, you'll be far more entertained.
\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 stopped watching this film half way through. It was just terrible! Boring, contrived subplots. A complete lack of the pathos seen in Norman Bates, Buffalo Bill, or Steve Railsback's portrayal of Ed Gein. A movie doesn't have to be historically accurate, but the true story of Ed Gein is so much more interesting than this third-rate melodrama that was completely made up for no good reason! Ed Gein as portrayed by Kane Hodder is a cartoon sadist. The attempts to show the trauma inflicted on him by his mother are just weak exercises in recycled style. And this movie wanted to be stylish, but it even screwed that up. Fortunately, there is a better film of this story. 2001's Ed Gein told the story efficiently, and offered a few real chills as we watched a sick man not in control of himself. Steve Railsback, who played Ed Gein that time, was already famous for memorably portraying another famous serial killer: Charles Manson. His Ed had pathos. His film is the one to see. Avoid this mess.
\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, without a doubt, the worse horror movie I have ever seen.... Forget the fact that the story had little to do with the facts of Ed Gein... Ed Gein's story is horrific & this movie ignored the facts and strayed way off course. Acting, on all levels, was pathetic. Story, again, for some unknown reason didn't go into the horrific facts. Could have been so scary if it would have stuck to the facts. WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? TERRIBLE MOVIE! Steve Railsback version was much, much better. Don't waste a penny on this terribly made flick... And, why ignore the reality of the horrific events? That alone would make for a great story. Man, makes you wonder why this would ever be approved for release. Why spend so much money on a movie that will never make a penny (except for my wasted $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\nWhat a waste of time to watch this movie. Poor picture quality, poor sound, poor acting and definitely not based on actual facts. The deputy's \"girlfriend\" did so much overacting, as did the sheriff, that it was more comedy than horror. The deputy tries to make an emergency phone call by dialing 911...PROBLEM...in 1957 that emergency number was not in existence. That is just one example of glaring inconsistencies.
The \"scary\" aspect was way underdone. Just did not come across as horrific.
I did think that the actor playing Gein did the most admirable acting job in the whole movie. I could well see mental disturbances in his character portrayal.
Sorry...this one just does NOT get 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\nThis movie was really bad. First they didn't even follow the facts for it. Half of the movie was made up and it was more about the deputy whose mother was one of Ed Gein's victims. The acting was horrible, except for the guy playing Ed Gein, but its not hard to mess up playing a weird guy. though i think it was horrible i gave it a three because they started it off with actual crime photos. that was the best part of the movie. As soon as the introduction of the movie was finished the movie went downhill. The writer of this movie tried to spice it up, but it didn't need to be. The story of Ed Gein is interesting enough without falsifying information.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere are many reasons I'm not a fan of fact based films, but more than any other is how the filmmakers give themselves creative license over the story. If they have such great imaginations then why not use that talent to make something original? Otherwise stick to the facts. This could have been an okay movie if only they had done just that. Ed Gein was an insanely frightening human being. It's been said if you were to take Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees and Leatherface, wrap them into one person, Ed Gein would still be sicker/scarier. So why can't someone make a movie about him that can convey this? When will they figure out that reality is ultimately scarier than fiction?
I've read books and watched news programs about him and, now I'm not a screenwriter or anything, but I believe there's enough documentation on Gein that it shouldn't take a whole lot to write a story about all these atrocities he committed without creating murders that had never even been documented. I'm aware that he was only found guilty of 2 murders but with all the evidence found in his home and barn there should have been plenty of other ways to put this film together rather than using the deputy's relationship with his Mother, and girlfriend as filler, and far too much of it.
I guess what I'm wondering is this... why at the end of the movie did I know more about the supporting characters than I did about Ed Gein? Why didn't we get to know his Mother, Father and brother and the relationships between them... what made him the psychopath he was... what abuse he endured as a child that may have contributed to the man he became? Instead, the only thing we got of his childhood were flashes of him as a little boy... running.
In the end I give it 4/10 stars. Thats 2 for the gore and 2 for Kane Hodder. Even though it was kind of bad casting in my opinion, considering Gein was a smallish man, and possibly effeminate and Hodder is anything but small and nowhere near what I would consider feminine. Maybe I was just excited because he was Jason Voorhees.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWith a catchy title like the Butcher of Plainfield this Ed Gein variation and Kane Hodder playing him will no doubt fly off the shelves for a couple of weeks.Most viewers will be bored silly with this latest take on the life of Ed Gien.
The movie focuses on Ed's rampage and gives us a(few)glimpses into his Psycosis and dwelling in Plainfeild.Its these scenes that give the movie a much needed jolt.
What ruins this is the constant focus on other characters lives and focuses less on Eds.Big mistake here.
Kane Hodder is a strange choice to play Gein,but He does pull it off quite well,and deserves more acting credits than he gets these days.Prascilla Barnes and Micahel Barryman also show up.
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\nI have watched this movie quite bemused. I am not sure whether it was attempting to be a horror gore fest in a Rob Zombie type affair or an exploration of real events.
In either case it missed its mark. It's not particularly historically accurate with characters being chopped and changed for the sake of the story.
The performances were neither compelling nor bad.
For me, I would have preferred a more psychological approach and this film could easily have gone down this route without spoiling the overall effect.
\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 would hate to have anyone watch this \"inspired by a true story\" movie and draw any conclusions about the true event. Few things they did get right were overshadowed by the things that were just not true. Ed Gein never dragged anyone behind a car, never met up with anyone at the graveyard and killed them, no proof he returned body parts to the graveyard. The things he did were awful enough, why try to make it worse?
This movie ranks among my 10 worst wastes of eye strain. \"In the Light of the Moon\" is a much better film on the subject, it is more factual and the acting is superior in contrast to this one.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI did a review for this director's fictional recreation about BTK. I had also seen this movie and it was terrible. Please save your money and time. This movie was terrible and this director is untalented. I do not understand how he is funding these movies. They are horrible. I have decided to make sure that I check who the writer, director, and producer are, and if this director's name pops up I will not waste my money. There is nothing worse than renting a movie on a Friday night, making the popcorn, and then realizing you have been duped by creative art on the front of the movie box. Stay away. So I guess I should make up some stuff to fill in the lines? I have always checked IMDb for reviews before, but I think I will not anymore. This is ridiculous. I have been corrected in my reviews far too many times. Not enough lines? You may cancel my account. Your site is a pain.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe story of Ed Gein is a disturbing and terrifying story. Ed was truly a messed up character and his legacy went on to inspire such 'greats' as The Tooth Fairy, Norman Bates, and Leatherface. How is it then that such a fascinating man has inspired such a boring melodramatic piece of drivel?? Ed Gein made belts out of nipples, bowls out of skulls, lamps out of skin, danced around under the moon in suits of human skin. None of this made it into the movie because they needed to give us a fictitious story of a ridiculously awful deputy and his rather homely, sex-starved girlfriend. This movie seemed to go out of its way to falsify history. What baffles me is that most movies stray from the path of truth to exaggerate history; this one seems to do it to minimize it. I just don't get 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\nOld Ed was active back in the late 1950's He was apprehended 16 November 1957. The PR-24 Police Baton was invented in 1974. Yet the cops in the movie are all carrying the PR 24. Back then it would have been a standard \"billy club\" not the side handled PR 24. Sheeze, if you are gonna make movies do your research and get it right. Also it makes no mention of Ed's usage of the bodies. He tanned most of the skins and made various articles including a lampshade, a belt and several masks. He also had a large selection of \"shrunken heads\" that several local children knew about as he often babysat for them. He was found incompetent and committed to the Central State Hospital for the criminally insane.
\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 own a vacation lake home not far from Plainfield, WI. Ten minutes from the Gein property to be exact. I've seen his land, the cemetery where he is buried and where he did his digging, and I've shopped at the hardware store that was formerly owned by the Worden family. While visiting relatives in California, we decided to rent this movie. It was disgusting. The true story of Ed Gein is so disturbing and creepy, why the creators of this piece of trash decided to make up their own story is beyond me. The actor playing Ed is a very large man, Ed was a very small, meek, and shy man. That is part of what makes his story so frightening. He did not have a helper to dig up the graves and anyone who owns land in the area knows that it is mostly sand with a little dirt in it. You won't break much of a sweat digging a hole. They didn't have to hire an actor with the physique of a wrestler, just do your research. And if the writing wasn't bad enough - there are NO mountains in Wisconsin, and I'm pretty certain that 911 was not available in 1957.
\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\nMy reasoning behind viewing this film (despite the fact that it was free), was more or less out of curiosity... slight, slight curiosity... I wasn't all that familiar with this straight-to-video \"biographical\" account of Mr. Gein and discovered during the opening credits that it featured horror icon Kane Hodder in the starring role. My emotions turned from not just curiosity, but now a glimmer of mild anticipation as to how his portrayal of Gein would turn out. Also in the credits (among some grim photos of Ed's crimes) was Michael Berryman and Priscilla Barns. \"Okay\", I thought to myself... \"This may be mildly amusing\". As the movie started and progressed (slowly), my microscopic confidence (or as I call it, \"micro-hope\") for this movie faded entirely and I was stuck with an overwhelming feeling of humiliation as I died a little inside from watching this dung heap. Hodder, who is widely known and respected for his past work as an unstoppable serial killer, inaccurately puts that into play here - turning Eddie Gein from a mild-mannered recluse, to a hulking, full-blown killing machine. He lurks by night, killing cemetery caretakers, his grave robbing buddy and teenage girls, leaving Plainfield in a panic as the local Sheriff's department seems to do nothing to adjust the dangerous situation in the least. The deputy and his mom have a warm little relationship that gave me a fuzzy feeling inside (or that could have just been the cyanide pill I ingested halfway through this turkey). I'm not sure what the point of this movie was and obviously the director knew nothing about the subject he was working with. There is already such an abundance of films pertaining to Gein's story that, unless the \"Ed Gein Snuff Footage\" is discovered, I don't want to see anymore of these on the shelves. If you want a more authentic film of this nature than check out 2001's \"Ed Gein (aka In the Light of the Moon)\".
\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\nEver since he played a goon in Lone Wolf McQuade, actor/stuntman Kane Hodder has been busy. His film, Hatchet, got all the publicity last year, but he still makes a couple of more films every year. He should have skipped this one.
Hodder seems to be the king of the slashers. he has played Jason Voorhees from 1988's Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood (1988) to Jason X (2001). He is working on a new film that appears to be a Halloween remake. He is very much what I would call the serial killer type with his methodical, expressionless thirst for blood.
However, there wasn't much blood in this movie and very little action occurred on camera. It felt as if I was watching an episode of real law enforcement on A&E.
I won't put the blame entirely on Hodder's shoulders, as the rest of the actors didn't contribute much either.
Michael Berryman (The Hills Have Eyes, The Devil's Rejects) just ran his mouth until Gein shut him up. Adrienne Frantz (\"The Bold and the Beautiful\") was cute. Veteran actress (\"Three's Company\") and Penthouse Pet, Priscilla Barnes did a credible job. I am sure there are other horror favorites, but they all just seemed to run through their roles.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"