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\nDespite the excellent cast and the potential of the story, this movie fails on many levels. I was convinced that the director was a beginner. The movie is very poorly edited, shows a lot of non-important and annoying flashes, has very visible goofs and has no suspenseful atmosphere whatsoever. The question which repeatedly popped up in my mind while watching this was: \"so what?\". I couldn't care less about the protagonist and what happens to him. It's not that the story isn't compelling, it's simply the way it's told. The movie tells the story. PERIOD. It's like an actor who mumbles his lines, without knowing what he's saying. The movie simply tells the events that happen, without any soul. And the director's to blame. He doesn't know how to make something interesting or suspenseful or enjoyable. (And believe me, I'm NOT somebody who wants to see die hard 8 or 2 fast 2 crappy. On the contrary, i especially like slow-paced movies.) So i was convinced the director was a beginner. But to my amazement this man has years of experience and has worked as a cinematographer or camera assistant on a lot of marvelous productions. Guess he had a bad year back then.
\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 movie Heart of Darkness is an insult to the book by Joseph Conrad! To be quite honest the movie made me want to fall asleep. On the other hand, the book was definitely extraordinary. I feel that the movie left out several key elements and missed some of the main points from the book. In addition, the actors were boring and lacked originality and enthusiasm.
The book, while not an adventure story or easy to understand, is full of hidden meaning and interesting twists in the plot. The book, though very confusing and complex, is astonishing. When you do finally understand it, you feel as if you have actually learned something. The novella, or short story, had several key ideas like futility and craziness, which the movie left out. In addition, several key scenes were changed, which in return affected the entire plot. Many of the scenes seemed to be very \"choppy\", in the sense that they did not fit together. In summary, the movie seemed to be a bad interpretation of the book.
I would only recommend watching this movie if you cannot picture or understand the book, but otherwise I would skip this one. It was dreadful, and in complete disarray. If you have never read the book then, definitely do not watch the movie because you need the basic information from the book to understand the movie. The movie was a horrible spin-off of an outstanding and detailed book.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTo be honest, I've never been to the Congo or even Africa, and after watching the made for television movie Heart of Darkness, I do not think I'd want to. The movie completely shames the book to the highest level possible. Though the book was not the best I have read, after watching the movie, I seemed to appreciate the book a hundred times more. Nicolas Roeg, the director of the movie, did a horrible job portraying Joseph Conrad's novella into a movie. I give Roeg some credit for trying to attempt the impossible by making the book into a movie, but this may not have been the job for him. The movie was unsuccessful to express any part of the novella other than the basics of the plot. The set and scenery also lacked the beauty Conrad portrayed of Africa in the book. In the book Marlow had seen so many great wonders, but in the movie you did not get that same experience. No, I'm not blaming everything on the director; the acting in the film was just terrible. All of the actors were dull and uninteresting. Throughout the whole movie I felt as if the actors were not putting forth any emotions, as if they were reading from the script the entire time. Tim Roth, who plays Marlow, did not portray Marlow's sense of adventure for his journey into the Congo well. Marlow's journey to find Kurtz was supposed to venturesome, but I didn't experience that in the movie. I would not recommend watching this movie, especially if you have read the book already. It does not come close to doing justice for Joseph Conrad's novella. Conrad's words capture the reader and take them on the journey with Marlow, on his quest to find Mr. Kurtz, where as the film did not. A great novella, but a very poor film. Heart of Darkness, the movie, is based on the book written by Joseph Conrad also called Heart of Darkness.
\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 made for television version of the Heart of Darkness seemed like a good way to add more insight to the book, well, that was the wrong assumption. The movie made it even worse. I was highly disappointed about almost everything in the movie. I hoped that the movie would possibly help put the pieces of the book together that I didn't comprehend, but it did no such thing. It still left me confused and hanging. It is one of those movies that makes one feel like it would be more fun to watch the grass grow instead of watching the movie. Not exactly anyone's cup of tea. It was an overall dreadful, boring, and slow movie.
To begin with, Nicolas Roeg must have been pretty desperate when he decided that he wanted to undertake the task of making the already boring book into a movie. It's a guaranteed loss. It's like going into a knife fight, but forgetting the knife on the kitchen counter. The knifeless person is going to lose; and in the case, the knifeless person was Roeg. All I've heard about the movie are bad things, and the movie deserves those bad things to be said about it. From watching the movie, I got the impression that the people who made the movie, just skimmed over the book to get the key points.
Furthermore, although the movie did follow the main story line of the book, it left out quite a few details, and it also changed the ending. I am not a fan of that. Roeg left out when Marlow and his crew came across the Russian sailor's camp, and at that camp they found the book. Also it didn't show when at the camp they came across the sign that says, \"Wood for you. Hurry up. Approach cautiously\" (Conrad 110). Also, at the end of the book Kurtz dies on the boat, not at the inner station.
On the contrary, Nicolas Roeg did one good thing while he was making his movie; he managed to hire some pretty decent actors to play in the movie. For instance, he acquired Tim Roth and John Malkovich, both of whom would later go on to have successful careers. In doing so, he added a little something to the horrible movie. Also, though I am ripping his book to shreds, I do have some respect for him, because it takes a lot of courage to try to take on The Heart of Darkness. It isn't exactly the easiest novel to portray into a film. Twus a valiant effort, though! In conclusion, if for whatever reason someone actually wants to watch this movie, I suggest the reading of Heart of Darkness first. This way, you'll get all of the scenes that were left out of the movie and you won't be completely lost when you watch it. But I really suggest you don't read the book and that you really don't watch the movie; both will be a complete waste of your time. Trust me. I was forced to do both by my English teacher, and now I wish that the book and the movie didn't exist. If either the book or the movie are pursued, good luck!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAfter reading the book, Heart of Darkness, the movie did not do it justice. The movie puts the book to shame and anyone who has not experienced the book would frown upon the story and plot because it was portrayed so poorly by the movie. In the film, the characters and set were just some of the let downs that occurred in the movie. The director left out so many important and interesting aspects of the book that made it one of the best literary works ever made.
Of course any book is better than the movie but these weren't even comparable. Joseph Conrad as a writer was brilliant in vocabulary and the cleverness of the written word. The movie doesn't even start to show any of this. Some of the very important and influential scenes from the book were completely left out, like how Kurtz was not in the boat when he died. Also when Marlow went to deliver the news to Kurtz's intended, she reacted differently in the movie, rather than the book. Another major difference was that Marlow saw the picture of the lady that was blindfolded at the end of the movie, not at the beginning, like the book. This was influential on how the audience perceived Marlow, and the movie totally messed that up.
The book was so fine tuned on what every location looked like, but the scenery in the movie was a let down. There was a bunch of cheesy fake backgrounds and to compliment, a bunch of bad actors to go along with it. There was one exception to the awful actors and that would be Isaach De Bankolé, who played Mfumu. His character was depicted the best. Though the movie wasn't that great, I still would recommend it ONLY if you have read and understood the book very well. That way, you can see what the differences are in the movie and book and contemplate them. If you have not read the book, I do not recommend the movie because it is a boring, lifeless mess. I loved the book, so you should definitely read it and enjoy 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\nHeart of Darkness Movie Review Could a book that is well known for its eloquent wording and complicated concepts ever be made into a movie good enough to portray the deep meaning in the book? So far, that goal hasn't been achieved. The Heart of Darkness was attempted to be made into a movie in 1993, but it was a failure in comparison to the book.
It is hard enough to make any book into a movie. There always is the worry that it won't be as descriptive or have the same meaning. So why the novel, The Heart of Darkness, is made into a movie, I am clueless. There is so much description and hidden meaning throughout the entire book. When just reading the words plainly, I think that a person would think it is pretty boring and wouldn't get the symbolism. I think that is what happened in the movie; the movie just skimmed the story at the surface.
The movie didn't even follow the full storyline of the book, major changes were made that I thought made the movie worse. For example, the manager did not go along on the boat with Marlow and the rest of the crew, the spy did instead. I think that took out some major plots and took out the great deception of the manager in relation to Kurtz. Also, Kurtz wasn't even on the steamboat when he died, which especially made the entire journey even more futile, which just got annoying after a while. And when Marlow was telling Kurtz's fiancée about his final moments and words, it was no where near as descriptive or important, the fiancée didn't even get that upset.
As far as the acting went, none of the actors did a very good job except for the actor that played Mfumu. In my opinion, Kurtz was not very evil, and that was kind of an important thing in the book. Also, other characters such as Marlow, the manager, and the fiancé didn't do the characters justice that they deserved from the book. Their acting wasn't very exciting or memorable at all. Over all, I don't think that this book should have even been attempted to be made into a movie. I think it is fine to use some of the themes in a different story line like in Apocalypse Now. But as for following the same exact story line of the book, it just does it shame.
\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've ever heard the saying, \"the book is always better than the movie,\" Heart of Darkness is no exception to the rule. I believe that it was much easier for me to comprehend the details of the novel over the movie because I read the book aloud with my English class. We discussed each paragraph in great detail so I grasped the concept pretty quickly. I couldn't really understand the plot as well while watching the movie. This may be because there were no discussions held in class, but I suppose it is also because I couldn't paint my own pictures in my mind of the events of the novel. If you're the type of person who believes in that well-known saying, then leave watching the Heart of Darkness movie off your to-do list.
\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\nIn a sense, this movie did not even compare to the novel. However, it was good to have a visual of what the Congo looked like and also the natives if you are not good at visualizing as you read. I would never recommend watching the movie rather than reading the book. I hardly suggest even watching this film, let alone any other films based on this literary work. This movie; and many others, did not fulfill this book. One important part that is missing from the movie is MArlow's sense of how government of lack of there in Africa was forming an early genocide. Also in the movie, MArlow and his companions didn't stop and get the note and wood. Likewise, Kurtz' African mistress knocks Marlow out towards the end of the story which has a major influence in the story but was not in the book. In the novel, Kurtz died on the ship, however he died in his hut in the movie. The fiancé's reaction to Marlow's interpretation of Kurtz' last words also differed. This movie is only effective if you wish to visualize more clearly the novel.
\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're looking for a movie that puts you to sleep, then Heart of Darkness is the movie for you. The book wasn't what I expected to it to be, and the movie disappointed me even further. The cast list was pitiful, and the all around plot was pathetic and was not like the book, except for a few scenes. I understand that everyone has their own point of view as they read Heart of Darkness, and they create their own movie in their head, but they director cuts important scenes and adds pointless ones. If there was someone in the movie who was supposed to be of a certain culture, they should've used an actor that was of that culture. There are actors from every where, and I'm sure that they could've found better ones to fit the roles. Joseph Conrad was a respectable man and created a book that will entertain you if that's what you're looking for, but the movie was cheap and pointless, and someone who could make the movie as respectable as the book should've done it. If you want a movie that drags you into darkness, then Heart of Darkness is the movie for you.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe movie adaptation of Heart of Darkness is disappointing, both as a movie and as a representation of Joseph Conrad's classic story.
There are several small differences between the book and movie, but that's expected in any book to movie transition. Kurtz dies in a different location; the manager does not accompany Marlow on his voyage; Kurtz's mistress spends much more time with him than in the story. The real issue is the amount of footage that's put into the movie but has no basis in the actual story. For some reason, the director finds the need to \"spice up\" a few of the scenes, adding drama or actions that seldom make any sense and are always unimportant to the story. Some examples that come to mind are Kurtz's \"mistress\" beating Marlow over the head and knocking him out. Nothing happens while he's unconscious and Marlow didn't even provoke the attack. A couple hours pass and he wakes up: total waste of time. Kurtz has a pet monkey which, for some random reason, he kills on a whim. Also, when Marlow leaves Kurtz's station, he makes the \"noble\" decision to leave behind all the priceless ivory he had obtained, for no real reason at all. One other flaw is Kurtz's character. John Malkovich is a terrible choice to play the man who is described as tall and inspirational: a man with a commanding presence. He practically whispers all of his lines which, in a more capable actor's hands, could have been very thought provoking. I can't remove the image of John Malkovich playing a mentally disabled farmhand in Of Mice and Men when I'm watching him botch the role of Kurtz. Over all, I would rate the movie at 3 out of 10 stars. It's a good movie if you've read the book and want to see it in movie form, perhaps to help you visual the scenes, but as a source of entertainment, I would never recommend 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\nThe 1994 film production of Heart of Darkness was in no way capable of living up to the outstanding book. The film contained unnecessary scenes that confused the viewer rather than aiding them in understanding what was going on. The director was obviously not experienced, and if he is, then he didn't show it. On top of that, scenes from the book were left out or changed, scenes that were rather important. The movie left me feeling rather bored and was a complete waste of my time. The characters acted as though they had no idea what was going on, and the actors did not portray the emotions that Marlow and the rest revealed in the book. Overall, the movie was terrible and completely lacked the suspense that was otherwise necessary to make it even remotely interesting.
\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\nJoseph Conrad's novel, Heart of Darkness, had a vivid sense of description that made this book astonishing. When reading this book I had every scene totally drawn out in my head and I knew what every character looked like. This book had many pieces and when I finished reading this book it seemed as the puzzle had been completed. After I finished reading Heat of Darkness, I watched the movie, which was a mistake. The movie cut out so many substantial parts. For example, in the novel Marlow waited a very long time for the rivets to come for him to fix his boat. This was a big source of futility. In the movie that part was just left out. The movie added more parts that were useless and made no sense. For example, when Kurtz was talking to Marlow at the end of the book and Kurtz snapped the monkey's neck and killed him. What purpose did that scene have, other than to make the audience feel sorry for the monkey? It's as if the script writer didn't even read the whole book and just put the parts that he read in the movie. If I had not read the novel before I had watched the movie I would have been thoroughly confused. The book was amazing and it is truly a classic in American Literature, but the movie could have defiantly been nominated for the worst picture in the Razzie Awards.
\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\nHeart of Darkness Movie Review Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness is pretty dark, deep, and very profound. I would have to say reading the novel is way better than the movie. The character Mr. Kurtz, played by John Malcovik was totally the wrong actor to do the part. He fit the character in \"Of Mice and Men.\" The movie left out man key parts that I consider important to get the true message of the story.
The movie is poorly edited. It shows a lot of non-important and annoying flashes. In the novel it has a very suspenseful atmosphere, but in the movie it lacks that kind of feeling. In the book there is so much that was left to the imagination of the reader. For example when Marlow spent timeless hours and days waiting for rivets and that entire scene was left out of the movie. In the novel Marlow waited very long time for the rivets to come for him to fix his boat. This was a big source of futility in the novel. The movie added more parts that were useless and kind of didn't make sense. For example, when Kurtz was talking to Marlow at the end of the book and Kurtz snapped the monkey's neck and killed him. That kind of just ruined everything, didn't make any sense to me what so ever. So my suggestion to you is don't view the movie, just read the book. You will understand more and have a better interpretation of the story.
~Chris 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\nThe movie 'Heart of Darkness', based on the 1899 book by Joseph Conrad is one with little to no detail and has an almost schizophrenic like plot line. If you have read the book then you know that little to none of the important \"story making\" scenes were put into the movie. In the book there is so much that is left up to the imagination and I feel that that is one of the part that make the book what is it. An example would be when Marlow spent timeless hours and days, even months waiting for rivets and that entire scene was left out of the movie. Again if you have read the book then you would know that this scene in the book is one that almost describes the main, theme of futility, best. Finally I feel that the movie was too cut and dry. Not enough though was put in to the original text and how that made the story what it is today.
If you have not read the book, 'Heart of Darkness' (preferably, the Norton Critical Edition) then don't waist your time in renting or buying the movie. However if you have read the book then I think that you will appreciate the book a lot more if you decide to watch the movie
Eric 2007
\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\nRoeg's take on Conrad's \"Heart of Darkness\" was not quite what I had expected. Although based on one of history's most studied and interesting texts, the film just became sort of dull. The story just never manages to grasp the viewer. It just comes across as indifferent in a way.
The traces of the text are easily spotted, but still this is not really Conrad's \"Heart of Darkness\". Benedict Fitzgerald's (who also wrote \"The Passion of the Christ\") script just uses Conrad as an inspiration, and thus becomes Fitzgerald's \"Heart of Darkness\". The film is just not worth it, unless you are particularly interested in Conrad or perhaps John Malkovich.
\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\nJoseph Conrad's novel, Heart of Darkness is a dark, profound, and lasting novel that portrays the futility and irony taking place in Africa. If you are looking for a great book to read over the weekend this is not the book for you. Conrad holds nothing back when describing 19th century imperialism, but the novel is meaningless without giving it the reflection and consideration it deserves. If I read this novel looking for a great adventure story I would say that I wasted my time, but looking at in the perspective of explaining the futility of 19th century civilization, I would say this is one of the most significant novels I have ever read. Because of the fact that I read this novel in my English class, and we analyzed every page, I think I appreciated the book more than someone would who was just reading it for entertainment. I am not going to lie, this book was difficult and it challenges the reader to dig deep into this novel to find the true meaning. The movie on the other hand I found tiresome and boring. The movie, \"Heart of Darkness\" comes no where near giving the book justice. The movie left out many key parts that I consider important to get the true message of the story. If you are having difficulty understanding and visualizing the novel then the movie might be a good recourse but I would not recommend seeing the movie as an alternative to the novel or even a different perspective.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAfter completing the lackluster novel, Heart of Darkness, I moved on to watch the movie, which was a complete and absolute disappointment. At the onset, I expected that the movie would help put together the jigsaw puzzle of a book. However, even though I had read the novel, the movie still made no sense at all, so I can't imagine how lost I would be if I had skipped the book altogether. It seemed as though the writers picked out their favorite parts and put them in the movie, and left out anything that may assist the viewers in comprehending the meaningless plot. This dreadful movie made no sense at all, and I would strongly recommend against watching it, as it will do nothing more than leave you completely baffled and bewildered.
\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\nHeart of Darkness, a short novel written by Joseph Conrad about greed, corruption, and traveling through Africa was, to say the least, a tedious read. The Narrator follows Marlow, a seaman who travels into the deep of Africa to rescue Kurtz, somewhat of a prodigy Ivory trader who supposedly went crazy, this conclusion arose when the Ivory stopped coming into the main port. The basis of the story is Conrad writing lavishly of the surroundings, he sets the scene wonderfully, but possibly a bit to extensively. The story seemed more like a water color painting, as apposed to the slow creeping mild action story that Conrad might have intended to pan out.
It sometimes happens that after you read a book, maybe watching the feature film might help correspond some thoughts with those in the book, or vise versa. Not so with Heart of Darkness, even with the supporting role of masterpiece actor John Malkovich the movie only confused me more, there seemed to be no real main characters in the film, no one stood out to the others, non of the extensive symbolism was explained. It was rather bland and drudging to say the least.
In all do respect to the Author, The Heart of Darkness is a true short novel masterpiece, it touches on some very severe subjects, the lies of Marlow, and the greed of Kurtz. It is not a book to be taken lightly, and will put you in a rather somber mood. A book like this I feel might be to heavy for a lot of people. I would however recommend this book to those who crave a sad pseudo action story without a textbook happy ending.
\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\nHeart of Darkness was terrible. The novel was difficult enough to understand, but when a production company decides to release a film loosely based on it, then that just messes everyone up. Not only did those in charge decide to change certain characters and completely eliminate others, but the acting was horrid and the overall impression I got from the movie was that it was a complete dud. I watched the film in hopes of understanding the novel a bit better, but it just threw me and my fellow classmates off completely. I think the movie was a waste of time, and I was disappointed to see Tim Roth in such a disappointing film, especially when he has awesome flicks like Pulp Fiction and Resivior Dogs under his belt. Same with the very cool John Malkovich.
\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\nToo bad, I really like Kristen Cloke and Gary Busey. But the director failed to put this together. There's a lot of action, a lot of promise, but it all comes off hokey. The director didn't do his job. Promising action comes off lame. So much seems contrived in a desperate attempt to save the film. This version of \"The Rage\" (DirecTV credits it as 1996) simply isn't worth the time to watch it. Another director would have done a better job.
\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\nAside from the horrendous acting and the ridiculous and ludicrous plot, this movie wasn't too bad. Unfortunately, that doesn't leave much movie not to suck. Do not waste your time on this film, even if you find yourself suffering from insomnia, as I did. Watch an infomercial 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\nAs Americans, we have come to expect crapiness as \"par for the course\" when it comes to HORROR and unknown directors directing unknown actors acting for unknown writers. We truly expect this to suck & when they don't suck,it becomes an over night success.
This is NOT an over night success, nor is it an over the weekend or over the month success. This blows from start to finish and my only recommendation is this: GO INTO THIS KNOWING IT SUCKS, enjoy it for what it is, for what it isn't & if you have something better to do, keep this on the back WAY BACK burner. It's entertaining in the way watching the elderly cross a busy street during rush hour, but don't expect much-they almost never get hit by an actual car, its just a lot of hoopla.
\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 thing that's truly terrifying about this is that the filmmakers thought they were making something intelligent and sexy. Instead they made probably the stupidest horror picture of the year!
This movie starts with a bunch of art snob friends at a gallery. This trashy European weirdo walks up and starts talking pretentious fruitiness to the main character, sounding like he just walked out of an episode of Dark Shadows. He then offers her up some stick to smoke(yes, a freakin' stick), which she eagerly agrees! He picks off some red crap and puts it in a spoon for her to freebase! If this ever happens to you in real life, don't do it!
She's transported to some weird wannabe Jean Rollin netherworld that's supposed to be sexy but isn't, where there's this thing that looks like a rotted creature from the black lagoon!
Soon she turns all her artsy sleazeball friends onto her new form of supernatural crack. No matter how much these idiots freak out and turn blue they can't leave it the hell alone. At one point she even makes out with the rotten creature!
After the final battle and the stupid woman is vaporized or whatever, the so called hero is left alone to pack up his copy of Michael Moore's Dude Where's My Country and can't resist smoking that stick one more time to try to rescue his moron lady friend. What a dope.
Rates four stars for sheer unintentional humor.
\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 can you expect from a direct to DVD film? You know what you are getting yourself into when you rent this. The quality of the cinematography reminds me of reality TV shows.
Why are they shots always up so close to the actors!? And why are they always centered? There isn't anything to look at. (And the actors are that great looking, so that blows.)
The writing and dialogue is just plain awful. That intro scene, with the British Guy is hilarious. Just try and listen this words, they hardly make any sense, just goes around in circles. The lines in the rest of the movie sounds like they were pull out of romance and sci-fi novels, as if the writers had no idea what they were doing. The characters definitely sound like they have no idea what they're saying.
This is a terrible movie. I feel bad for the actors tied to this project. Embarrassing!
\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 film is somewhat entertaining, but the greatest feature is Shalom Harlow's laughable performance. It has been 4 years since this movie was released and hopefully Harlow has gone through more training. Perhaps she should stick to the more worldly, somewhat corruptive characters that she has generated in other performances.
\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\nOut of the handful of alternative titles in English, \"The Sexorcist\" is definitely the most appropriate one, since this is basically just a shameless rip off of William Friedkin's classic horror film in which they replaced 13-year-old Linda Blair with the 19-year-old Stella Carnacina only so that she could gratuitously show her ravishing naked body. I'm not sure what exactly Satan tries to accomplish here, but he exclusively seems to possess the young girl to play sexual tricks on her! Poor Danila masturbates around the clock and tries to seduce priests and even her own father into having sex with her. The young girl is introduced as a smart and ambitious theology-student with an odd-looking boyfriend (driving a stupid yellow car) and loving, albeit adulterous parents. When she takes a peculiar crucifix home to renovate, the ancient relic comes to life and no less than Satan himself (played by Ivan Rassimov of \"Jungle Holocaust\" and \"Planet of the Vampires\") starts to torment her. The overlong masturbation sessions and some bizarre nightmare sequences cover about three quarters of the movie, and then finally director Mario Garriazzo begins with the actual exorcism. That final segment is even more embarrassing and amateurish! The priests don't really do anything apart from saying some vague prayers but, somehow, Danila seems cured all of a sudden. There isn't much gore, the dialogues are horrible and the producers seem to compensate every little flaw by adding more sleaze! This is one of the strangest Italian exploitation efforts of the seventies (why the hell are they referring to \"The Rocky Horror Picture Show\"?), but definitely not one of the best. If you fancy clones of \"The Exorcist\", I recommend \"Demon Witch Child\", \"Beyond the Door\" and \"The Antichrist\".
\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 can't get it, freaks out on the planet are talking about this one as a must seen, they even dare to call it a (s)exploitation because the possessed girl is seducing priests and is masturbating all time. Don't let me laugh. I watched the movie, seducing is only at the end of the movie and don't call it seducing,it's just bad language that's she is talking. And the masturbationscene is a big laugh too, she tries to seduce her father while masturbating, let me be clear, with her clothes on you perverts out there. It isn't gory or bloody at all, everybody is vomiting on Beyond The Door, well, let me tell, that one is for me better than this flick. Only the last 5 minutes the possessed one is vomiting and having weird eyes. If I had know that this is so bad then I would never caught me a copy. If you really wan't to see a (s)exploiation about exorcism watch Angel Above, The Devil Below or other cheesy ones. a waist of time this is.
\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\nWOW! What a horrible, hideous waste of time this celluloid atrocity turned out to be. I remember seeing it years ago and thinking it was fun but now...it's just plain silly. Not to mention the fact that it is a blatant rip-off of \"The Exorcist\" to the point where it was re-released at one point under the title \"The Sex-orcist\". The only real difference is that the producers have the gall to further discredit themselves by slapping on the claim that the events in the film are REAL! Who in their right mind would actually believe such a bold faced lie? To make matters even worse, there was a video release in circulation with cover art that blatantly tried to cash in on the \"Rocky Horror Picture Show\" by throwing a pair of lips on the cover! How low could one possibly sink? Do not be fooled by the false claims, blatant lies or title rip-off because you will be SORELY disappointed if you do!
\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\nAn art student in Rome is possessed...or something. She has dreams of being nailed to a cross and Satan himself raping her. He possesses her (I think) and turns her into a sex addict. That's about all I could take and I turned it off.
A pointless \"Exorcist\" rip off. I caught this on cable back in the 80s and was horrified...and not in a good way! This movie is supposed to be a horror film but turns into nothing more than a sex film disguised as a horror movie. There's tons of pointless female nudity and the actress playing the lead has to degrade herself more than once. We see her being raped by Satan (a hot-looking guy), masturbating, coming on to her own father...Gotta give her points for bravery. Add to that bad dubbing, editing (the rape scene looks like it was cut a bit), lousy acting and a story that makes next to no sense. The one disturbing sequence (her being nailed to the cross) ALMOST works but the lousy \"special\" effects ruin it. This is one of the few horror film that was so bad I stopped watching. Skip 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\nKinda boring, kinda gross, kinda unsettling, this wasn't horrible, but not too good. There's a good creepy bit when the statue comes to life, though, props to this scene. Not much happens, and the movie just feels sort of scummy. I was happy when it ended, and don't believe anything about this being a true story....very surprised this is averaging around 6.
\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\nBrilliant acting, excellent plot, wonderful special effects! This is what I would say about this movie if I had been watching it with a bag of diarreha on my head for the entire film. Instead, I endured a 2 hour crap-o-rama. Our \"brilliant\" story begins with some billionare who has nothing better to do than look in volcanoes in a vain attempt to find his lucky charms. Instead, he finds a 5'4\" man in a cheesy rubber dinosaur suit and some queer cave-folk.
In his infinite wisdom, (along with his infinitely large nose)he decides to go inside this volcano with a team of \"special\" people. To travel to this underground land, they go by plane? No. Boat? No. They use this giant soup can with a \"solid metal\" drill on the end that I swear I saw wobble. In summation, this movie was faker than....Oh that's right! This was the fakest movie I've seen! For those of you who haven't seen it and are thinking of sitting down on a Sunday afternoon with this wonderful movie; I warn you! If you watch this movie you should be prepared to cut of any shred of your manhood and give yourself a full frontal lobotomy.
ECCCHHH!! The rating system only allows for a minimum of 1/10. I give this a -10/10!
\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 had nothing to do before going out one night so I didn't want to watch anything too heavy, I picked the perfect film. This must have been a gift to Barrymore from someone she slept with, the director Raja Gosnell has made nothing but silly crap and the writing on this one is just atrocious. In what high school can you register without a parent present and no proof of age or former schooling? They let kids all come to the prom with no shirts, in skin tight leotards, ass shorts and one girl was dressed as Eve wearing only fig leaves? She announces that she's 25 and her brother is 23 but there is no reprisal from the school, parents or lawsuits of any kind against the newspaper for fraud or spying? The newspaper boss wants to catch the teacher in an underage sex scandal but doesn't realize the teacher is coming on to a 25 year old so any case would be entrapment? They allow a camera in and record peoples private conversations with under age kids? I wonder if I hired my younger sister to go back to HS with a camera on her and filmed under age girls for my personnel use I would not get in some kind of trouble??? NAHHHH No problem. Didn't she have to take gym or go to the bathroom at some point? The secondary characters in this were like cardboard cutouts of what high school students are thought to be and everybody was a stereotype. Jessica Alba is just embarrassingly bad in this mugging for the camera at every chance. In what world do the parents not get suspicious when their uber-geeky daughter is miraculously asked out by the school stud to the prom? And they don't ask the guy inside to meet him like every other parent in history. If some guy in my school or any other school for that matter had conned my sister and thrown eggs at her in her prom dress he would have been in a body cast for the rest of his life. This movie is so contrived and predictable it's nauseating, and why at the end is everybody (the Alpo girls included) cheering for this chick when two days before they hated her????
DUMB, DUMB AND DUMB.
\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 is a reason to call this a teen flick. Out of 100 possible points I would put it somewhere in the teens. It is predictable, the acting is horrible, especially the minor roles, and above all else it is super predictable. The ending is so hokey that I should have left early and maybe it would have passed. By the way, could you call the male lead a pervert? I bet if it really happened, someone in my school district would have said so. Finally, in the school I grew up in, even though the average class had over 1000 students, we could have picked out a chump like Josie as being a fraud and we would have singled her out of the crowd. My final word is save your time, when it comes on TV watch something better, like the stock quotes.
\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...an incomprehensible script (when it shouldn't have been) dependent on a rather flaky voice-over.
The animation, however, show real talent.
Quite visually impressive.
\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\npretty disappointing. i was expecting more of a horror/thriller -- but this seemed to be more of an episode of dawson's creek but with out the acting. there were some very impressive shots, though -- almost worth seeing. maybe future efforts will improve.
\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 the most uninteresting horror flick I have seen to date. The premise is glaringly forgotten after about 1 minute. The acting is terrible. The scariest thing about this movie is when the two guys kiss, yuck! What were the film festival judges thinking when they gave this garbage a 'best film' notation? The only reasons I didn't turn this movie off were to see what NOT to do as a filmmaker, and if the paper-thin plot line could really keep going on as is was. I was not disappointed by this latter notion. There wasn't even a single bit of nudity or gore to keep the kiddies interested! Also, I thought it was tacky to use about 3 minutes of \"Resident Evil 2\" in the movie... Was that supposed to be filler? 'cause it was the goriest and most interesting part of the 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\nSomewhere in USA, the young Clair manipulates her friends Mic, Billy and John, showing a letter that would be sent by Bob to her and the group cowardly beats Bob and Mic kills him with a piece of wood in the forest. Mic feels sorrow and decides to tell his mother what he did, but John and Billy threaten him, with tragic consequences.
I believe \"The Wind\" is the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. The awful screenplay is ridiculous, and it is almost impossible to write a summary, since there is no story or plot, only sequences of disconnected scenes. The amateurish direction and acting are amazingly poor and terrible. It is unbelievable how producers invest money in such garbage, distributors release this crap worldwide and viewers like me buy this DVD. I waited until the very last scene because I was curious to see how bad this film could be and I was impressed, since it is worse than I could imagine in my lowest expectations. In the end, I question why IMDb does not offer zero in the vote system, since the garbage really deserves this vote. My vote is one.
Title (Brazil): \"Força Invisível\" (\"Invisible Force\")
\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, I wanted to see this because it had a few good reviews, but this movie was awful... Just plain awful. The characters were 1 dimensional and nothing the actors could do could ever breathe any life into them. The story was abysmal... The wind stopped becoming a plot device halfway through... It just completely becomes forgotten. The visuals while were cool were sooooo drawn out... 5 minutes of a guy crawling on the ground, 3 minutes of a girl putting on her makeup. I don't know what this guy is trying to pull off... it's like he had no plot no dialog and the movie needed to run just so long so lets not edit scenes at all... Foreign films are great for creating a story without using a lot of dialog, this movie makes me think that there is no way American cinema can ever do this. I want to give up watching movies altogether... Bad Bad 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\nalright this movie might have been good if there was a plot behind it. the title didn't even fit the it after the first ten minutes. the wind didn't have a whole lot to do with the rest of the movie. the acting was sub-par and the writing reminded me of something you would read in a children's book of scary stories.
as far as horror movies go this shouldn't even be classified as one. this was a disgrace to horror and thriller fans everywhere. I hate to be so harsh but I felt I want the time I spent watching this movie back. hopefully there will not be a follow up to this. this movie should be locked in a vault and never released to the public for viewing.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"