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\nBestselling writer George Plimpton(Alan Alda)takes on an assignment for Sports Illustrated. He is to go incognito to the Detroit Lions training camp and try out for a position as third string Quarterback. He is quickly found out by the team members featuring Alex Karras and Mike Lucci. The entire team finds it amusing to cause stumbling blocks in the writer's determination to Quarterback for a series in a real game.
This movie is Alda's debut and also helped Karras leave the gridiron for acting. Besides the 1968 Detroit Lions, the cast also includes \"Sugar Ray\" Robinson, Roy Schieder and Lauren Hutton.
Alex March directs this story based on Plimton's 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\nAlan Alda plays real-life \"Sports Illustrated\" writer George Plimpton, who was once invited to join the Detroit Lions football team as an honorary member. Rather wan, uncompelling drama curiously tempered with fantasy. Director Alex March takes an interesting tack on this material, shooting it in a quasi-documentary fashion (with macho commentary) and yet giving the tale a touch of Capraesque whimsy; still, by bringing out the cinematic flashiness in this set-up, he turns the main narrative into a jumble. Alda's smug, uncharismatic performance is another handicap, though the supporting cast is filled with real-life pro-athletes (and scintillating Lauren Hutton as Alda's girlfriend--how's that for a fantasy?). *1/2 from ****
\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 filming crew did not have good access to the occupied territories, so filming of the Israeli side dominated. I was struck by the nearly completely opposite points of view of the mothers. The Israeli mother lost a child who had the possibility of a life of tremendous happiness. The Palestinian mother lost a child who had only the possibility of a life of privation and despair. With such completely different viewpoints, any meeting had no real chance of any meeting of the minds. The word \"peace\" did not have the same meaning to each of them. Peace to the Palestinian was freedom. Peace to the Israeli was security. With such an abyss, is this sort of film really worth much? I finished with the feeling that I had watched pointless propaganda -- both sides were unconvincing.
\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's rare that I feel a need to write a review on this site, but this film is very deserving because of how poorly it was created, and how bias its product was.
I felt a distinct attempt on the part of the film-makers to display the Palestinian family as boorish and untrustworthy. We hear them discuss the sadness that they feel from oppression, yet the film is shot and arranged in a way that we feel the politically oppressed population is the Jewish Israeli population. We see no evidence that parallels the position of the Palestinian teenager. We only hear from other Palestinians in prison. I understand restrictions are in place, but the political nature of the restrictions are designed to prevent peace.
I came out of the film feeling that the mother of the victim was selfish in her mourning and completely closed minded due to her side of the fence, so to speak. She continued to be unwilling to see the hurt of the bomber's parents, and her angry and closed-minded words caused the final meeting to spiral out of control. It is more realistic, in my mind, to see the Israeli mindset to be a root of the problem; ignored pleas for understanding and freedom, ignored requests for acknowledgment for the process by which the Jewish population acquired the land.
I have given this a two because of these selfish weaknesses of the mother, which normally would be admirable in a documentary, however in the light of the lack of impartiality, it all seems exploitative. Also for the poor edits, lack of background in the actual instance, and finally the lack of proper representation of the Palestinian side. Ultimately, it is a poor documentary and a poor film. I acknowledge this is partially the result of the political situation, but am obliged to note the flaws in direction regardless of the heart-wrenching and sad subject matter.
\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 tend to love everything the great late Paul Naschy (R.I.P.) ever was in. While not all films starring Naschy are great, they all have a specific charm that can be found nowhere but in Naschy-flicks, and they are always entertaining. There is no rule without exception, however, as \"El Mariscal Del Infierno\" aka. \"The Devil's Possessed\" (1974) proves. While the film does have the specific Naschy-flick-charm, it sadly drags far too much and gets really, really dull in-between. Naschy stars as the evil Baron Gilles De Lancré, who oppresses the people and uses black magic and bloody rituals to stay in power. When Gaston de Malebranche (Guillermo Bredeston), who fought side by side with Gilles De Lancré against the British, learns about the Baron's evil behavior, he decides to turn against his former comrade in arms and help the people free themselves from the satanic Baron's tyranny...
Directed by León Klimovsky, who is best known for directing Naschy in \"La Noche De Walpurgis\" (\"The Werewolf Vs. The Vampire Woman\", 1971), the film was scripted by Naschy himself. Naschy often scripted his own films, and one must say that he mostly did a better, more original job than it is the case here. \"El Mariscal Del Infierno\" is mostly built up as a historical adventure rather than a Horror film, and it gets quite boring throughout the middle. It often resembles the Sword and Sandal films from the 50s, only that this film is set in medieval times. The Satanic part was probably only added because the great Paul Naschy's name is linked to the Horror genre. The film has its good parts: Paul Naschy giving weird speeches, Paul Naschy looking weird, Paul Naschy doing Satanic stuff, Paul Naschy torturing innocent victims, etc. But sadly, most of the film concentrates on the boring hero and the good guys, and these moments are boring. The female cast members are nice to look at, but, unlike most Naschy films, this one features no nudity and sleaze. There is some gore, but it mostly looks clumsy and isn't as fun too look at as it is the case with most other Naschy films. Overall, \"El Mariscal Del Infierno\" is only worth a look for my fellow Naschy-enthusiasts. There are dozens of films starring the Spanish Horror deity which should be seen before this one, such as \"El Jorobado De La Morgue\" (\"The Hunchback of the Morgue\", 1973), \"La Orgia De Los Muertos\" (\"The Hanging Woman\", 1973), \"El Espanto Surge De La Tumba\" (\"Horror Rises From The Tomb\", 1973), \"Latidos De Panico\" (\"Panic Beats\", 1983), \"Rojo Sangre\" (2004), or any of the 'Waldemar Daninsky' werewolf films. R.I.P. Paul Naschy. Legends never die!
\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\nNot the greatest film to remember Paul Naschy by.
Gaston (Guillermo Bredeston) is probably the worst swordsman I have ever seen. Zorro would be ashamed! His only salvation came as the competition was just as bad.
This film is described as adventure and horror. Forget the horror - there is none. No nudity, no blood, no monsters; just a Robin Hood adventure against an evil Baron (Paul Naschy) who wants to be King.
The main feature of the film was seeing Graciela Nilson, who only made four films in two years and disappeared to our regrettable loss. Where did she go?
\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\nDespite the (English) title, this seems to have little to do with Devils and much more to do with a power hungry ruler who seeks the Philospher's Stone & wants gold made from lead (& virgin's blood). Jacinto Molina plays Gilles de Lancre and seems to have little issue with having people put to death when he thinks they threaten his position or when he needs virgins for their blood. He's basically egged on by his lady love and an alchemist that he's employed and it's more greed and insanity that seems to be his problem than demonic possession (unfortunately). There are parts that are at least somewhat exciting like jousting and grown men trying to knock each other down with big sticks, and the film at least has a good look to it, but otherwise there's little about this to recommend. Little in the way of gore and nothing to be afraid of at all, and most unusual, for a Molina/Naschy film, not really any unintentional humor. Therefore, 4 out of 10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis 1974 Naschy outing is directed by Leon Klimovsky, and a cursory glance at the publicity photos and packaging might lead you to believe that this medieval romp lies somewhere between \"Inquisition\" and \"Sadomania\". Sadly not.
This is a strictly PG affair with tame torture sequences, no nudity and little edge at all. Naschy (of whom I am a fan) struts his stuff as Gilles de Lancre, \"antiguo Mariscal de la nacion\". Sadly he is more pantomime villain than anything else. One gets the feeling with this film that we have seen him (and it) done all before. Strictly therefore for Naschy completest only.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm grateful for one thing and one thing only - that this woman will now be thousands of miles away on an entirely different continent!!! Yay!!! This programme summed up perfectly just how obsessed Victoria Beckham has become with whoring herself and her family out to the media in the name of self promotion and 'Brand f*cking Beckham'.
A few years ago I used to really like 'Posh and Becks', I still very much admire David's talent, but I have no respect for him anymore. How can you respect someone who has his wife's hand shoved up his backside working him like a puppet.
It was clear the hand of Victoria was all over Beckham's premature departure from Manchester United and now the same thing has happened at Real Madrid. I hope Beckham can live with the fact that although he may be earning squillions of pounds - he's sold his soul for the American Buck and will end his days playing for a team who would struggle to gain promotion from Division One in England (no offence America - but at Baseball and Basketball you rule - football you don't!)
Anyway - I digress. It's been years since I've seen such an over-the-top, entirely false performance from 'Posh' - this being topped only during her cringe worthy red carpet performances following the Rebecca Loos 'debacle', when instead of throwing all the cr*p at David he deserved, she desperately clung onto his arm trying to save the million pound money-spinner her marriage has become.
This whole PR stunt was pathetic. Why can't she just go over there quietly, support her husband through the biggest mistake of his professional career and keep her head down? When did she become so full of self importance that she feels the move to America should be shrouded by this huge fan fare?
Incidentally, I saw the David Beckham documentary last night. At least he has retained a sliver of grace and humility. Two things his wife could do with learning.
One more thing Victoria - you complain about constantly being hounded by the paps. Little hint - stop tipping them off about your whereabouts you stupid woman.
Good Luck America!!
\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 honestly can't believe what passes for entertainment now. Death (and making fun of death), violence, sexual innuendo, adults threatening children, crudeness, alcohol abuse by minors, drug theft, dysfunctional parents, babysitter from hell, stereotypical jokes about African Americans, police and fat people, and kids sneaking out of the house in the middle of the night - yup, sure sounds like a kids movie to me - NOT!!! Add to that the dark and scary elements - a dead woman possessing and turning into a house and keeping her loving husband a prisoner inside for over 20 years, and also terrorizing an entire neighborhood - how sweet for kids. PARENTS - is this really what you want your kids to be watching - is this what you want to teach them about life?!
This movie is too scary for young kids, and i'm afraid that teens today may be living some of this movie scenario - so why rub it in their faces? As for an adult audience - you won't find it scary or amusing - just boring, contrived and predictable. And the characters are just wrong - clueless parents, ignorant police, stupid and annoying friends, nasty and manipulative babysitters, and beer drinking/womanizing boyfriends. What great material for kids - does this really sound like a children's movie to anyone? Even the computer animation and good voice work aren't enough to redeem this terrible flick. Save your money, save your time, and save your children's minds - go rent Ice Age, Monsters Inc., the Incredibles, Shrek, A Bug's Life - ANY of them are way better than this horrid film. Spielberg and Zemeckis - shame on both of you for making such a disaster and then billing it as a children's/family 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\nThe only reason I don't give this movie fewer than 3 stars is because it isn't quite on par with a movie like Manos: The Hands of Fate. This movie's greatest crime is the fact that it is head-meltingly boring & terribly, unforgivably British. The premise of this movie sounds potentially promising, the whole teleporting concept, but the direction they went with it was completely uninteresting. It was more a movie about research funding and bowties than projecting lasers. The actors were wooden, unemotional, and aloof. As was the love affair between the two scientists-- which was anything but intriguing. I never was able to tell what the attraction was between them as the chemistry was non-existent. Nor did I really understand why the melty-faced main guy decided to slaughter everyone he met. At least now I know that I should always give someone a fair hearing before I cut off their research grants, else they go rampaging about, killing wantonly with goofy hand gestures.
\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, a Universal release of a Protelco-MLC production, is a boring retelling of the theory of breaking down the molecular structure of an object, capturing it in a cell as \"pure energy,\" and then sending it back complete to a \"target area.\" There is no explanation WHY this is necessary, but Professor Paul Steiner (played by pock-mocked actor Bryant Haliday, \"Devil Doll\") thinks it's something to dedicate his, and his assistants', Pat Hill (Mary Peach) and Chris Mitchell (Ronald Allen), lives to.
During an experiment before noted Dutch scientist \"Lembach\" (Gordon Heinz), his machine fails due to sabotage, so he has himself \"projected\" by his secretary, Sheila (Tracey Crisp) to seek revenge. Of course, she screws up and he comes out looking like a \"pork roast\" with the power to electrocute people.
With this new-found power, he manages to zap some Cockney idiots, a security guy named Latham (Derrick de Marney) and his lab boss, Dr. Blanchard (Norman Woodland). He also is able to break into a pharmacy and steal a pair of rubber gloves and a black coat, as well.
In the end, though, despite Hill and Mitchell's attempt to help him, the clown destroys his equipment and himself. On the whole, a completely pointless movie with no message at all.
Also one of the most depressing color films you will ever see.
\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\nProfessor Paul Steiner is doing research in matter transference. He has developed a machine that he can use to make an object like a wrist watch or rodent disappear, only to have that object re-materialize in a different location. But there are those at his research facility that do not like or approve of his experiments and will do whatever it takes to see that he doesn't succeed. After a failed demonstration that might have saved his funding, Professor Steiner decides to test his machine on himself. As expected, things go horribly wrong and he is transformed into a heavily scared madman whose mere touch will kill.
In hindsight, maybe it wasn't such a good idea to re-watch The Projected Man in the same week I watched The Fly, Return of the Fly, and Curse of the Fly. There seems to be only so many movies about matter transference and the potentially horrendous effects it can have on the human body that one person should be made to endure in a three or four day period. I'm not sure what those responsible for the movie list as their source material for The Projected Man, but much of it is so similar to the Fly movies that it cannot be mere coincidence. However, The Projected Man isn't even nearly as good as the worst of the Fly trilogy.
Besides being terribly unoriginal, The Projected Man has several other problems that really hurt the enjoyment of the movie. A big issue I have is with Bryant Haliday in the lead. He's such a horse's ass that, not only do I not care about his suffering, I actually root for it. Supporting cast members Mary Peach and Ronald Allen are almost as bad. They're so bland and dull they hardly matter. In fact, there's very little to get excited about while watching The Projected Man. The soundtrack  not very memorable. The \"look\"  I would describe much of it as \"muddy\". The plot  predictable. The action  there isn't any. Overall, this is one to avoid.
Fortunately, I watched The Projected Man via a copy of the Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode. Funny stuff! While not an absolute, very often, the poorer the movie  the better the MST3K riffs. The guys hit almost all of their marks with The Projected Man. I'll give it a very enthusiastic 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
\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 title alone (along with the poster) is enough to give away \"The Projected Man\" as an obvious rip-off of \"The Fly\". And Bryant Haliday, while much better than the typical IMDb review would have you think, is nobody's idea of an acceptable stand-in for Vincent Price. Although, come to think of it, who would be, unless Micheal Gough was available?? Still, if you are in the mood to watch a British \"Hammer\" style movie with a science fiction theme about a teleportation experiment gone horribly wrong...well, you still might want to give \"The Projected Man\" a pass and rummage around in the 'remaindered' bin at your local Wal-Mart for another teleporter-accident movie. Because this one just isn't all that good.
Haliday caught a lot of good natured ribbing from the MST3K crew for his part in this movie and in \"Devil Doll\", but he is actually the best thing in TPM. Maybe he can't carry the movie, but he gets practically no help here from the screenplay. The script bogs down any forward momentum the plot may have in a mire of nonsense about funding and university politics and a guy named Lembach and some sinister cabal who want the teleportation machine to fail so they can steal its secrets...or something. So all the dramatic sequences in the first half of movie involve either phone calls or unconvincing special effects with transparent espresso machines and teleporting rats. Then when poor Haliday gets mutilated by his machine, he has to spend the last part of the film wearing a diaper over half his face and rubber cement over the rest while he electrocutes various Londoners who chance across his path. Tom Cruise and Eric Roberts using bullhorns couldn't have made this screenplay work.
Meanwhile all the other actors diligently try to inject life and interest into their roles for this turgid little project, but the screenplay just swallows their efforts whole. The corrupt project administrator frets and fumes and hisses into the phone to his blackmailers, all the while failing to notice that he looks like a werewolf outfitted in a tweed suit and a Tattersall vest. Haliday's research assistant and ex-girlfriend have the least convincing romance in the history of British horror cinema. His secretary is forced to parade around in her \"smalls\". None of it really works or gels into a real movie. And it all just kind of stops dead, leaving the viewer going, \"Eh? excuse me, wasn't there supposed to be an ENDING here??\"
Still, for all its problems, I can easily name a dozen horror movies from the same period that were as bad or worse, and so could anyone else who follows movies (or who has ever browsed the IMDb \"Bottom 100\"). I wouldn't actually pay money to own \"Projected Man\", but if it were included in some compilation along with a dozen other movies in a DVD collection, I'd probably feel OK about having it. It's a harmless diversion, perfect for a horror movie film festival, to watched with friends while consuming many beers and snacks on a Saturday evening.
\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 first of all, this movie sucks. But lets examine why. The proposition that a machine is capable of transforming matter into energy, storing it, and then transporting it and reasembling it is at the least intriguing. But that's as far as they take this premise. Instead of delving into what could happen if someone made this kind of machine, they break the damn thing. This could have been a good premise. Living with the responsibilty of this kind of power, and dealing with the constant temptation, ie.. the invisible man. But no.. they break the damn thing. And Lembach wants to leave. So then the doctor jerry-rigs the thing back together, and trys to transport himself. Only to have it goofed up by his beautiful but dumb secretary, (duh). Which wouldn't happened if Lembach hadn't decided to leave. So now he is roaming the country side killing people because his little experiment failed, and they wouldn't give him money. Wah. Then to make the movie worse, throw in a dry British relationship between the two semi-competent professors hired to assist him. Between their loving sessions, they make a couple of half-hearted attempts to find him while he kills off half of London. All of this could have been headed off by not breaking the damn machine, which would never have happened if Lembach hadn't left. This movie tried so I give it an honest 2 stars for effort, but it would have been better if they hadn't broke the damn machine, making Lembach leave, making him try it again. Damn you Lembach!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
\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 this film, exhibit in Barcelona (Spain) in 1970, for the time of a week. Although it could seems incredible, and I can't offer any explanation for it, this movie was exhibit in a theater dedicated to... movies of art and big quality (that, is, Bergman, Resnais, Malle, Buñuel, and... The Projected Man). Few people saw it (luckly people, no doubt) and no reference about this very boring SF movie can be found in the Peter Nichols Science Fiction Encyclopidie, or about the author of the original novel. Very indicative. I remember of it, after all this years, a no-story, a lot of special effects that seems ridiculous effects in fact, and no more. It seems that in some countries the running time is 90 mm. and in anothers 77 min. Well, it means only a little more of 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\nThis movie is spoofed in an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. I think MST3K was at its best when they ripped this movie.
Terrible acting, bad makeup, poor effects, chick in skimpy (1960's)underwear. I give it a 2.
The villain is hard to understand due to the makeup. The assistant says things like 'not you' that sound like NACHOO!! (think sneezing). It's just poor oration. The long eyebrows are hilarious on one of the characters.
I still don't know what 'The Projected Man' means in terms of the plot. I missed some of the beginning though.
What is up with this 10 line minimum on posting??
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one of the worst things to ever come out of England, so that says a lot right there. The tension when we have to find out whether or not Lembach is staying is amazing though. The upside is seeing the nice secretary, Sheila, in her picnic table print underwear for awhile after being captured by Dr. Rat Face. This movie has several views of London too although none of them are good. There is also a point in which there is almost a car accident which gets your heart rate back to just below normal. There is also a watch that gets teleported away, and the fear of the woman not getting her watch back is parallel to the horror of \"The Sixth Sense\" only a lot more dull and British. Add on a furious gun fight between the British police and the Dr. Rat, which results in nothing, plus the electrocuting of a lot of people, plus a cat and you have yourself... ummm... A British movie. The MST3K version is pretty good although not one of there bests.
\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 that line starts one silly, boring British sci fi film. The Great Vorelli from the movie \"Devil Doll\" builds a teleportation machine only to have his funding cut off by Blanchard, a bearded man who has a thing for bow ties and men with large eye brows. When his experiment fails, the good doctor learns that Lembach, the man who controls all of the grants in the world, will be staying in London for a few days. He attempts to project himself into the house of Blanchard with the help of his comely lab assistant, Sheila. Needless to say something goes wrong and he winds up looking like a rat. The rest of the movie is devoted to the good orange haired doctor walking around London shocking people with his mutated hand and wearing a diaper on his face. There are some more killings, some modest paper work, and finally, the doctor vanishes to where ever rat faced doctors go. Thankfully no one decided to make a sequel.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a rather dull movie about a scientist that creates a teleporter device and gets horribly disfigured when he uses the machine to transport himself. Simple plot done before in the fly and others. Not only does he get disfigured, but he also can electrocute people with a touch. What is really dumb about this film is that we are expected to believe the place this guy works is against him. He could probably make millions for the institution that he is working at, but the head of the institution tries to sabotage his teleporter every step of the way. In the end the projected man electrocutes three people for no reason then goes after those that have wronged him.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n(spoilers)The one truly memorable part of this otherwise rather dull and tepid bit of British cuisine is Steiner's henna rinse, one of the worst dye jobs ever. That, and the magnificent caterpillar eyebrows on the old evil dude who was trying to steal Steiner's invention. MST3K does an admirable job of making a wretchedly boring and grey film funny.I particularly like it when Crow kills Mike with his 'touch of death', and when he revives him in the theatre, Mike cries \"Guys, I died, I saw eternal truth and beauty! oh, it's this movie...\" That would be a letdown, having to come back from the afterlife to watch the rest of The Projected Man. The film could make a fortune being sold as a sleep aide. Some of the puns in the film were wicked: police inspector-\"electrocution!\" Crow-\"Shocking, isn't it?\" police inspector-\"That's LOwe, all right\" Tom Servo-\"Very low, right down by the floor!\" police inspector-\"Can I get on?\" Tom Servo-\"He's dead, but knock yourself out\" MST3K is definitely the only way to watch this snoozer.
\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\nYaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnn! :=8O
ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........... <=8.
Oh, um excuse me, sorry, fell asleep there for a mooment. Now where was I? Oh yes, \"The Projected Man\", yes... ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........... <=8.
Ooops, sorry. Yes, \"The Projected Man\". Well, it's a British sci-fi yawnfest about nothing. Some orange-headed guy projects himself on a laser, gets the touch of death. At last he vanishes, the end. Actually, the film's not even that interesting. Dull, droning, starchy, stiff, and back-breakingly boring, \"The Projected Man\" is 77 solid minutes of nothing, starring nobody. Dull as dishwater. Dull as doorknob dust. Dull as Ethan Hawke - we're talking really DULL here, people! But wait, in respect to our dull cousins from across the puddle, the MooCow will now do a proper review for \"The Projected Man\":
ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............. <=8.
\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's not so much that SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION had little potential. Indeed the under-explored title phenomenon is quite intriguing and, for at least the opening half, this Tobe Hooper effort promises to entertain in a way only cheesy '90s horror can. But somewhere between Brad Dourif's on-again-off-again performance and the overly intricate plot, this would-be thriller loses its way.
Dourif, featured here before his built-in horror fan base had accumulated, is average guy Sam. Of course average guys don't stay average for long in horror movies, so after a well-done origin outline, we see Sam's various body parts start to ignite. Soon he's igniting other people, too, much to the consternation of gal pal Lisa, played unmemorably by Cynthia Bain.
While the title of the film implies a fire-happy monster on the loose, director Hooper opted to make Sam an unwilling killer. This approach gives the film an added human depth it would otherwise lack, but it also prevents us from truly fearing the human flamethrower. We're left wondering whether this would have worked better as a straight-up villain-versus-everyone effort ala NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET.
SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION is a pretty nominal effort when all is said and done. It will carry added appeal for Dourif's fans and those who can't get enough 1990s horror, be it good, bad or in between, but only on a slow night.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNot as bad, as it's credited to being (Hooper's done far worse) more so disappointing for me. Such an imaginative concept, which is never really tapped in to by Hooper with his economical direction and even less so in the smoky (excuse the pun) writing. It goes so sinister and over-the-top in a dead serious tone, becoming ridiculous and unfocused letting the whole pessimistic mystery / conspiracy-laced narrative being easily telegraphed to end on something completely abrupt. Because of that, the pacing goes on to be rather sluggish and Brad Dourif (cool to see him in a leading role) seems to struggle with an off-balanced performance, despite etching out a bemusedly quirky intensity to his off-colour character. Even though it's cheaply done, there's a competent technical attitude to it. However it doesn't seem to go anywhere out of the ordinary with its idea and wants to plaster in nasty jolts (which some do work) and strikingly steaming special effects (flames, flames everywhere) instead. Hooper does display some stylishly frenetic imagery (more so towards the latter end), and the camera-work is swiftly manoeuvred and the beaming score is titillating. The performances are bit all over the shop with the appearances of William Prince, Cynthia Bain, Dey Young, Jon Cypher and Melinda Dillon. Also Geroge Buck Flower and John Landis have small, but amusing cameos especially Landis. Nothing surprises, but it's passably engaging.
\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\nBizarre Tobe Hooper exercise regarding an unfortunate young man(Brad Dourif)with the ability to set people on fire. This ability stems from parents who partook in atomic experiments in the 50's. They die of Spontaneous Human Combustion and it seems that what Sam is beginning to suffer from derives by these pills his girlfriend, Lisa(Cynthia Bain)gives him to take for rough migraines. In actuality, Lisa was told to manipulate Sam into taking the pills by Lew Orlander(William Prince), pretty much the young man's father who raised him from a child. Lew has benevolent plans..he sees Sam as the first \"Atomic Man\", a pure killing machine in human form. Sam never wanted this and will do whatever it takes to silence those responsible for his condition. As the film goes, Sam's blood is slowly growing toxic, green in color instead of red. It seems that water and other substances which often put out fire react right the opposite when Sam's uncontrollable outbursts of flame ignite. Come to find out, Lisa has Sam's condition whose parents also dies from SHC. Dr. Marsh(Jon Cypher), someone who Sam has known for quite some time as his physician, is to insert toxic green fluid into their bodies, I'm guessing to increase their levels of flame. Nina(Melinda Dillon, sporting an accent that fades in and out)was Sam's parents' friend and associate on the experiments in the 50's who tries to talk things over with him regarding what is happening. And, Rachel(Dey Young)is Sam's ex-wife who may be working against her former husband with Lew and Marsh to harm him and Lisa.
Quite a strange little horror flick, filled with some pretty awful flame-effects. Dourif tries to bring a tragic element and intensity to his character whose plight we continue to watch as his body slowly becomes toxic waste with fire often igniting from his orifices. There's this large hole in his arm that spits out flame like a volcano and a massive burn spot on his hand which increases in size over time. Best scene is probably when director John Landis, who portrays a rude electrical engineer trying to inform Sam to hang up because the radio program he's calling has sounded off for the night, becomes a victim of SHC. The flick never quite works because it's so wildly uneven with an abrupt, ridiculous finale where Sam offers to free Lisa of her fire by taking it from her.
\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's often said that Tobe Hooper just struck lucky with his grisly 1974 horror film 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre' and every time I see another Hooper film - that view is only reinforced. It would seem that Hooper wanted to make his own version of films such as Scanners and Firestarter in 1990 and so we end up with Spontaneous Combustion; a film with a couple of good ideas and a whole load more that are borrowed from other films. Put it all together and you get a messy, boring film that most people would do well to miss! The film leads the audience to believe that it might be half decent initially with an intriguing back story that focuses on some experiments carried out on two young people in the fifties. The couple have a child and shortly thereafter burn to death as a result of the experiments done on them. Fast forward some years and the baby is now an adult named Sam; but naturally he's not a normal person and soon finds when it's discovered that he has the ability to set things on fire at will.
The film stars Brad Dourif, who must have seemed like a good casting choice given his success with Child's Play two years earlier; but actually was an uninspired decision as the central performance is really terrible; and not helped by the terrible supporting performances. The turgid direction and dull script also don't do the film many favours and the trend of lacking in favours is continued by the special effects, which are very unrealistic and have nothing on the films that this one is ripping off; all of which were made some years earlier. The plot is really slow and it's almost an hour before anything of note happens, and I didn't care for it even then. It soon becomes obvious which direction the film will go in and it all boils down to the sort of tedious ending you would expect. The final confrontation is a big disappointment and nothing is really explained during the film. Not that any revelation would have been interesting anyway. Overall, this is a rubbish film and another reason why Tobe Hooper is a long way from being a great horror director. See Firestarter again 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\nI tried as hard as I could to sit all the way through this irritating mess, but I just couldn't do it. Brad Dourif absolutely sucked as the lead and all the supporting cast were only marginally worse.
The whole thing is just ludicrous, from the awful acting to the laughable FX to the stupid plot.
Complete waste of time; don't bother. Root Canal therapy would be more enjoyable. Bamboo slivers under the fingernails would be a lot more pleasant.
Watching a Uwe Boll movie would be only a little worse than this. Get the idea?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA man discovers that his parents were part of a nuclear experiment in the 50's and that he now has the power to... burst into flames!
I was really geared up for this film, what with being directed by the great Toby Hooper and staring wild card Brad Dourif. Unfortunately it didn't rise above the average individual-with-violent-powers movie. Spontaneous Combustion has an interesting premise behind it, unfortunately it never seems to live up to its potential and prolongs its plot too much. The special effects aren't bad though and help to carry the movie to the finale.
The cast isn't bad, Dourif does steal the show.
All around, no classic but it's not the worst of its kind either.
** out 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\nPretty poor Firestarter clone that seems more like a bad TV movie than a bad feature film. How disappointing for this to come from Hooper and Dourif!
Government contractors do a human experiment with a Hydrogen bomb. The boy born to the couple from the experiment constantly runs a fever of 100 degrees, and when he's an adult, people in his life start spontaneously combusting. He tries to find out why.
The people completely on fire are well done, but when they get to the point that they are well done in another sense, they're obviously changed to dummies. When jets of fire shoot out of characters' arms, it looks silly rather than alarming the way it should. Also ridiculous is fire that evidently travels through phone lines and erupts in huge jets from the receiver's earpiece. How is that supposed to happen, exactly?
Something else that struck me as silly about the movie is when a character has visions of his late parents. We later see the exact same shots from those visions in home movies.
\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\nFirst off, the lead, Brad Dourif is a KOOK. If you're trying to take this movie seriously, then, I guarantee he's going to ruin it for you. If you don't take him too seriously, then he's actually kind of fun to watch. As with another reviewer, I loved the scene where Lisa (Cynthia Bain) and Dourif are declaring their love for each other - in between dodging the jets of flame shooting out of his arm in the car. Another great campy scene was watching John Landis as a snotty radio show producer getting toasted and flailing around the room. In fact, I found the last 15 minutes of the movie to be a non-stop laugh-riot - I'm just not sure if Tobe Hooper meant it to be that way.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOthers have already commented on the \"decline\" of director Tobe Hooper, but what about Brad Dourif? He was perfectly capable of selecting good projects (as he proved by starring in the same year's \"Exorcist III\"), so why did he agree to appear in this? Sure, he gives a suitably demented performance, and the film is not outright bad; it's just uninvolving, uninteresting and unappealing. That's three \"un-\"s too many. (*1/2)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNow, i hired this movie because Brad Dourif was in it. He is an excellent actor, BRILLIANT in everything...except this movie. And i think that was only because he realized how stupid this movie was, and didn't bother with a good performance. This movie is a unintentional-comedy. Some of the lines just crack me up. And them there are some lines that make no sense, and it seems like Tobe Hooper just throw lines in without thinking about the plot. Oh! BTW the plot is BAD! But it one of those films that is TAHT BAD that its actually PAINFUL to watch. I recommend this only for BIG Brad Dourif fans, or fans of any of the other actors, because the plot is pathetic.
\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\nSeriously, what is THIS? Hooper has made such classic films like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, then he made this god awful film, what happened? did he dip into the crack a little too much? This film is about some dude named Sam who has the ability to set things on fire,(Firestarter, anyone?) the acting was godawful, the plot was rubbish, and the special effects were extremely rubbish, they looked like something from the 70's. Van Damme should be pleased that Derailed is no longer the worst film ever, and what was with the ending? he started glowing blue, turned into a glowing blue blob, sucked out his girlfriends fire, and the film ended. WHAT WAS THAT? HUH? when the film ended I hoped the DVD would Spontaniously Combust to save me from my pain.
STAY AWAY FROM THIS FILM.
DON'T THINK, OBEY, you'll thank me later.
\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\nTobe Hooper has made great movies so I was certain this couldn't be BAD. I didn't read any reviews and tried to watch this unintentionally humorous film. At times this made me laugh, sometimes I almost fell asleep, sometimes made me almost CRY for Hooper.
I rated this 3/10 because its 1990 \"horror\"-movie and many interesting or funny things happened there. Throughout the movie I was thinking something like \"they simply CAN'T add more things in this movie...\" .. but they did.
Some tell this is some sort of Firestarter clone but truly isn't. It's based on that idea but thats all. This is combination of horror, comedy, weird religion/god things, funny gore, simple effects, drama, horrible acting, unbelievable script..and more.
*spoilers* Story is: Government tries to create ultimate weapon using nuclear power or something and fails, during process child is born for 2 test persons. When mom sings to her child after the birth, both husband and wife burns and it is SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION. Government buries whole thing and leaves this child live amongst other people and ... then after x years this kid is grown up and realizes he has been born for a reason and whoa he can burn things with his brains. Then everything goes unbelievable messy nothing really explains anything and .. Well when The Government realizes \"okay now he can set this fire thing to work\" they take him to normal hospital where is some nuclear toxic what they are going to use on this man BECAUSE they could kill him, no they can't shoot him no! .. and argh, I guess thats enough to tell, I promise there is 100 more weird things in this movie.
Well if you want good laughs watch this one. Gosh.
\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 is a massive Yawn proving that Americans haven't got the hang of farce. Even when it has already been written for them! The original film \"Hodet Over Vannet\" is a witty comedy of errors that I would rate 8/10. It isn't just about a linguistic translation, but certain absurd chains of events are skipped entirely, robbing the film of its original clever farcical nature and turning it into a cheap \"oops there go my trousers\" style of farce.
\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\nStory starts slow and nothing funny happens for a while. All the action is in the end, but you won't have to laugh because the movie is funny, but because the story is pathetic.
The funniest part is when Harvey 'I'm not Paranoia' Keitel really loses it and the judge starts a massacre. Oscars for this guy!
\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 billed as a comedy and a mystery. It fails badly at both. The only mystery here is why would anybody make such a poorly constructed movie. The only comedy is the laugh I got when I saw how high the readers here ranked it. Could there be two movies with the same name? The movie I saw starred a girl with pretty blue eyes and a plot that wasn't there.

\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 waste 90 minutes of your time on \"Fast Food, Fast Women.\" It's annoyingly episodic script with three story lines patched together is laughably bad due to predictable writing, horrific acting, and even bad music. I found the anorexic main character upsetting to watch every time she was on screen. SHE needs the fast food.
Spend the 90 minutes you'd devote to this turkey doing something more exciting...like trimming your toenails. You'd have more entertainment value.
The only redeeming thing about this film is Louise Lasser, but she deserves much better than this tired script. It's as impotent as the elder guy she courts in the movie.
VIEWER BEWARE!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one of the worst movies I have ever seen! I saw it at the Toronto film festival and totally regret wasting my time. Completely unwatchable with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
Steer clear.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"