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\nThis was just horrible the plot was just OK, but the rest of the was was bad . I mean come on puppet and then they even tried to make the movie digital and that made it even worse! Normally I would like low-budget movie but this was just a waste of time and almost made me want to return the set that it came on. I have about ten low-budget movie set with like 6-8 movies on them and I would have to say this is the worse movie out of all of them. Also the wording is off and they use a fake plastic machetes that doesn't even look like a real one, they could of used one that looked even a little close to a real one so save your time and money and don't watch this horrorible 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\nIf you are the sort of person who can get a kick out of a very bad movie, then I highly recommend this one. If you aren't, stay away. This is an astonishingly cheap-looking movie, and at times you may find yourself wondering if it isn't just a prank someone is pulling on you. The most positive comment I can make about it is that the people responsible seemed to realize that it was super-low-budget nonsense, so there is at least a sense of fun here.
But this is as amateurish as it gets. Their idea of giant killer mushrooms are simply guys covered with beige colored sheets with what looks like trash can covers on their heads. It's obviously not meant to be taken seriously (to say the least), but even with that disclaimer you'll find yourself shaking your head at the awesome cheesiness of it all. Or laughing out loud frequently, as I did.
\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'm surprised by the positive votes that this film has received. The movie just drags along its 81 minute life span, and the audience has to suffer the whole way through. Actually there are some positive moments in this film; Charlie Spradling gives a decent performance. She is given some pretty pathetic dialogue and she handles it pretty well. Scott Valentine(Merrideth's boyfriend in Family Ties), on the other hand, is a pretty rough watch. I guess the highlight of his performance is witnessing the guy laying on the beach wearing tiger-patterned chummies....give me a break. Also, Valentine gives us a boorish and pathetic portrayal of a suffering vampire who misses the day(to see a much more convincing rendition of the suffering vampire see Denice Duff in \"Bloodstorm: Subspecies 4\"). The movie moves so slow and is only positively punctuated by, and to be honest, Charlie Spradling's dance scenes. This movie can honestly only be recommended to the die hard fans of Charlie Spradling (which i am, and i still had a rough time watching it!).
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie features Charlie Spradling dancing in a strip club. Beyond that, it features a truly bad script with dull, unrealistic dialogue. That it got as many positive votes suggests some people may be joking.
\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\nAlmost a two-person play, and as such the dialog and the performances of the leads will be important. Neither are particularly good. This might have been stronger, in fact, if it had first been crafted as a two-person play, and then worked into a film.
Anyway, a twitchy vampire who seems slightly autistic becomes infatuated with a stripper (as a result of watching too much porn in his crappy home). He wants to have her tell him about the daylight. He would have been better off finding someone with a day job, or someone who excels at painting a picture with words like a poet, but then they might not have a hot bod.
After he gets her to do whatever he wants (and he's not terribly good at it), he intends to feed on her at 6 AM, at which point the sun rises. Much is made of that deadline, despite the fact that he also says that he can go without feeding, it will just make him hungrier. Additionally, he claims he can't let the stripper go, since she knows about him, but he lets a number of other people go who learn what he is. There are a lot of inconsistencies.
Why this vampire chooses to live in a house so poorly boarded up that light from streetlamps and neighboring buildings pours in as if it were daytime, I'm not sure. With all the time in the world, you'd think he'd have done a better job, or fixed the place up a bit. He's clearly not a wealthy vampire.
This is supposedly a remake, and I'm curious to see the original version of this, Dance of the Damned. Although, that was directed by Katt Shea, and the other films she directed for Corman (Stripped to Kill, StK II) were pretty bad.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nEffort aside (This isn't a review about good intentions, its about the final product), this film is poorly written, overacted, and poorly directed. The story obviously had potential, but that story is nowhere present in this film.
Clara Barton was a human being. She had passions, desires, love, pain, embarrassment, weakness, and self doubt just like the rest of us. You would never know that from this film of the lead actress's performance. In fact apply that to every character in the film, but in Barton's case: Every sentence is a speech. An epic over the top speech as though from an inhuman robot. In fact the only scene that plays well in one in the board meeting, and I realized thats because she's making a speech! Every idea she has is unbelievable in its context and she comes up with ideas that sound like they take a lifetime of soul searching right on the spot. For example, when she sees a wounded man, she'll start pontificating about the needs of the battlefield and to protect soldiers and putting up white flags, etc. As played in the film, there's no WAY she could come up with such a detailed well thought out idea in seconds.
IN conclusion, this film robs Clara Barton of her struggles. It robs her of her humanity, and it inherently cheapens all she did because the script is written in clichés. The writer doesn't know Clara Barton, and seems to have based his script on an encyclopedia Britannica article. (yes they had those back then) But hey, nice Technicolor! (who cares)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis was a less than exciting short film I saw between features on Turner Classic Movies recently. While the film popped out due to its very intense Technicolor, the film itself just wasn't that moving and at times the plot looked pretty cheesy--like this was made for classroom use and capturing the attention of a wider audience WASN'T even a consideration. In particular, I really hated how many times in the film things were reiterated--such as when the characters talked to her, they usually said \"Clara Barton\" instead of \"ma'am\", \"Miss Barton\" or \"Clara\". Plus, one sickly confederate soldier said that he was a \"Johnny Reb, A Confederate a Rebel,...\"--almost like he was the cartoon character Mojo Jojo from the Powerpuff Girls. This was just sloppy writing--period.
It was interesting to see John Hamilton (later, \"Perry White\" on the SUPERMAN TV show) in a beard as President Garfield. Yep--it's him under that beard.
\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\nScotty (Grant Cramer, who would go on to star in the great B-movie \"Killer Klowns from outer space\") agrees to help three middle-aged guys learn how to 'dialog' the ladies in this bad '80's comedy. Not bad as in '80's lingo, which meant good. Bad as in bad. With no likable characters, including, but not limited to, a kid who's the freakiest looking guy since \"Friday the 13th part 2\"' a girl who leads men on and then goes into hissy fits when they want to touch her, and the token fat slob, because after all what would an '80's sex comedy be without a fat slob?? Well this one has two. This movie is pretty much the bottom of the barrel of '80's sex comedies. And then came the sequel thus deepening said proverbial barrel.
My Grade:D-
Eye Candy: too numerous to count, you even see the freaky looking kid imagined with boobs at on point, think \"Bachlor Party\" but not as funny, and VERY disturbing.
Where I saw it: Comcast Moviepass
\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\nBack in 1985 I caught this thing (I can't even call it a movie) on cable. I was in college and I was with a high school friend whose hormones were raging out of control. I figured out early on that this was hopeless. Stupid script (a bunch of old guys hiring some young guys to show them how to score with women), bad acting (with one exception) and pathetic jokes. The plentiful female nudity here kept my friend happy for a while--but even he was bored after 30 minutes in. Remember--this was a HIGH SCHOOL BOY! This was back before nudity was so easy to get to by the Internet and such. We kept watching hoping for something interesting or funny but that never happened. The funniest thing about this was the original ad campaign in which the studio admitted this film was crap! (One poster had a fictional review that said, \"This is the best movie I've seen this afternoon!\"). Only Grant Cramer in the lead showed any talent and has actually gone on to a career in the business. No-budget and boring t&a. 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\ni've seen a movie thats sort of like this, were a transsexual drugs woman and he then picks there nose with a knife and rips there nose to peaces. he then slices there tongue and eats it.
the most gruesome part of the movie is were he cuts there left eye out and starts dancing with it. he then starts to eat the woman naked.
(i'm not sure what the movies called but i know it's a cult movie and that it was made in Germany).
anyway THE NOSE PICKER is fairly crap.
its a crap movie and the picture and volume quality is very rubbish.
please don't waste you're time buying and watching this movie its totally crap.
i prefer DAY OF THE WOMAN also known as I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE (its one of the best cult movies ever) check out this link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077713/
\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've been largely convinced to write this review for a number of reasons:
1) This is, without doubt, the worst film i've ever seen 2) Unless it gets more reviews it will not be listed in the all time worst films list - which it deserves to be 3) I was kinda lucky - i paid five pound for it. i've seen it in shops for 15 pound. DON NOT PAY THAT MUCH FOR THIS FILM! You will be very angry 4) There are a lot of films out there in the horror genre that are not given a fair rating (in my opinion) and giving this film a higher rating than them is criminal
The plot summary: a guy with no friends meets a tramp who promises the world - well, the magic ability to appear to everybody else like somebody else. Our hero cunningly turns into a teenage girl and joins their gang - sitting on swings, baby-sitting. He kills them one by one until he is tracked and found by the police.
Why is it so bad? To begin with the acting is VERY VERY bad. Someone else compared it to a school production. No, this is worse than any acting i've seen on a school stage.
I've bought a number of these previously banned films from the DVD company vipco and not been as disappointed as i was at this. okay, the acting is bad but the film fails to deliver in every other sense. What was the point in making this film when there isn't even any gore! okay, no gore. What else can a film like this offer? Breats? No, not even any titillation!
it's true this film may have a certain charm in its unique naffness but any potential buyer/watcher of this film should be fairly advised that this film is, at best, worth only one out of ten.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis has to be THE WORST film I have ever seen. I bought the DVD and it didn't work, well the DVD worked fine, its just the film didn't, in fact its so bad that I think non of the actors have worked since (or before judging from the acting). There is no real plot to speak of and no real horror. The production values are rubbish even for a low budget film with some outside scenes being hard to hear due to wind on the microphone.
All in all it was so bad a film that a viewer could think it was going to turn into a porno if they didn't know any better (which have been an improvement). There are only two lines in the film that are funny, both of which revolve around the transvestite prostitute. (Although they hardly merit watching all 76 minutes for)
As for the marketing of the DVD I feel thoroughly cheated. I mean reading the back I expected it to be bad:
He chose his weapons. He selected his victims. He picked his nose. He turned into a GIRL!
But I thought it might be funny. Also the case claims it is digitally re mastered, I would love to have seen it beforehand, the print is so grainy you could use it as sand paper. The case also says it is an absolute disgusting movie, IN WHAT WAY?, disgusting production, acting.
This film out stays it welcome in the first five minutes, (if you are considering buying this I would say buy `bad taste' instead it is a much better film and is funny, also it has Peter Jackson the director of the LOTR in it.)
Incidentally if anyone knows anything about any of the actors (or director Patrick J Mathews) and what they have done since, please post here as I would love to know, purely to find out if there is a worse movie out there, or if anyone in this film ever bothered to learn to act
\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\nSomeone must have been seriously joking when they made this film.
Firstly, it is an absolute impossibility that this movie was made in 1993. The fashions and music dictate that this is seriously 80's. My guess is that this has sat on the shelf for a long while before some crazed distributer picked it up and released it to a disbelieving world.
There is a plot. Kind of. A strange loner meets a random man with a beard who tells him that if he meditates while singing his favourite song he will be able to turn into whomever he chooses. At this point I feel obliged to point out that the loner's favourite song is London Bridge Is Falling Down. Why is this his favourite song? Because he's an idiot. We are only a minute into the film and already the film has reached a monumental level of stupidity. It gets even stupider.
The loner is the nostril picker. I can only assume this as there are two scenes in the film where he is seen picking his nose. That clears up the title. He decides to change into a girl so that he can get close to other girls. And kill them. That's more or less it.
The acting is universally appalling. Every single performance in this movie sucks. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the acting is of the standard of a pornographic movie. It really is that terrible. The nostril picker appears to the audience as the nostril picker. The characters in the movie see him as the girl he has become through singing London Bridge Is Falling Down. Man, I feel like an idiot even typing this. Anyway, it is kind of strange seeing a middle aged weirdo hanging out with school girls. And not in a good way. There is even an extended montage of scenes where the nostril picker is at school with the girls and a song plays over the top. It is very possibly the worst song ever recorded. I'm not even going to describe it. You'll know it when you hear it. And you'll agree with me.
There are some scenes of violence, sure. And there is a Benny Hill style chase sequence involving a transsexual. There is even an immortal bit of dialogue, that may or may not have been taken from Shakespeare or John Milton, where the nostril picker says to a prostitute, 'I've got the cash if you've got the gash'. Lovely, I'm sure you'll agree.
Utter nonsense.
\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 bought this movie exciting a gloriously gratuitous, over the top, entertaining bloodbath. I got none of them. This film fails on practically every level, not in the least frightening, or funny, it is simply terrible film-making, and never provides the audience with anything worth seeing. What is so bad about it is that far from being as raw, violent and brutal as it had promised to be, there is very little violence at all. Virtually no blood shed, and no excitement whatsoever. Acting, direction and dialogue is absolutely unbearable. Honestly, it is truly laughable. I could hardly sit through this total garbage once; I certainly will never want to watch it again. Don't waste your time with a waste of celluloid like this; it is truly possibly the worst film ever made. If I could give it minus stars, I would.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI like movies about UFOs, which is why I recently decided to rewatch EYES BEHIND THE STARS after seeing it when I was a kid back in the late 1970s. And now I'm compelled to write a review about it because I'm afraid I'll start forgetting everything about it FAST. You see, even though EBTS ain't bad, it's VERY dull and nondescript. The story is sorta interesting but flat. The actors are good but their roles are boring and a little confusing. The FX are terribly amateurish but I can overlook something like that if the movie is compelling, which, unfortunately, this one ain't.
Also, there's very little violence and there's no nudity whatsoever, which makes this 1970s Italian sci-fi opus a TRUE oddity, because if there's one thing that distinguishes Italian genre movies made in the 1970s from genre movies of other countries made in the same decade, it's the astonishing amount of violence and sex to be found in them. Oddly enough, because of the almost complete lack of exploitive elements, EBTS stands out from the rest of the pact. I don't know if this can be seen as a compliment though. Personally, I can enjoy a movie without sex and violence but I think EBTS NEEDED more violence and some sex here and there to spice it up because it is so deadly dull and dry. And the special effects aren't that special.
The story itself is actually interesting. It's a combo of THE X-FILES and Antonioni's BLOWUP: a photographer accidentally captures aliens on film during a fashion shoot in the country. The aliens know they were captured on film and they proceed to kidnap the photographer and a model, subsequently destroying any evidence of their presence on earth. The problem starts when the model meets a man at the recently abducted photographer's apartment (this taking place just before she's to be abducted herself). The man takes some of the negatives and leaves, with the aliens having no knowledge of the missing negatives. The whole story is about this man wanting to know more about the aliens and a secret spy group who want to get a hold of the negatives. The majority of the movie centers around boring political intrigue, in the spy vs spy variety. The UFO element of the story is almost unimportant and could have easily been replaced by any cold war McGuffin. But as dull as EYES BEHIND THE STARS is, it does resemble THE X-FILES a LOT! I wonder if Chris Carter saw this movie. Anyway, the best thing in EBTS are the POV shots, which are creepy and effective. But the rest is almost completely forgettable, including the goofy looking aliens.
Even though I've been mostly negative about this film, I sorta cherish it nonetheless. I still remember the effective ad campaign which scared me when I saw it as a kid. And I own the video. The film could have been so much more if it had been done properly. Oh well...
\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\nWhy do I watch movies like this ? - other than I have some weird misguided masochistic belief that one day I will find a true gem amongst all this dross I can't think one one good reason. This movie was dross from start to finish - but semi-hilarious dross. Where else but in a bad Italian dubbed movie could you find heated exchanges of surreal mangled English like this one between a honest military type and the sinister chief of a secret X-files like organisation dedicated to hiding \"The Truth\":
Man in Black: Silence is best for us until we are able to prove that the UFOs have no bellicose motives.
Military Type: In any event I find your interference abusive.
Man in Black: Whoever has to impose his will is.
I rewound the DVD (you know what I mean) a good half dozen times and I still can't make those lines mean anything sensible. My other fave line was:
\"We can be quite hard on those who contravert our interests.\"
It's English Jim, but not as we know it.
The other highlights of this dull plonker of a movie for me were the totally spaced out acting of the photographer character at the start. Saddled with the worst haircut EVER in the history of everything, the man just wandered around looking like a stunned fish in a bad wig till kidnapped and forced to look at a piece of Plexiglas by some aliens. The aliens are most effectively not seen as a POV shot - hand held camera with a fish-eye lens - sort of spooky the first time but, used over and over again it lost its power (incidentaly, if it is a Point of View shot, it means the aliens always walk out of rooms backwards for some reason).
The film was set in \"England\". This meant the Spanish Italian set designers put some British number plates on a couple of English cars and put a Union Jack on our hero's press card... and that was about it. No other attempt to make it look like the UK at all.
Favourite moment? When the Foley artists didn't notice that characters they were foleying (is there such a word?) were no longer walking on gravel but were now on the lawn so their feet kept on making loud \"crunch! crunch!\" noises. Other than that, another total waste of 90 minutes of my life. I hope they prove those UFOs have no bellicose motives soon...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film was not nearly as much of a chore as I expected it to be. There are a few seconds of brilliance in this somewhat idiotic hardcore UFO conspiracy paranoia-fest. Most of the acting is mediocre, but fairly typical for 1970s-style stuff replete with pregnant pauses. A photographer and a model witness some strange goings-on in the woods and soon fall victim to these same goings-on. Flying saucers are spotted, more people disappear - but is it the aliens or our own government's ultra-secret group of cover-up guys? Soon enough, a reporter and a \"UFOlogist\" (apparently modeled on the character of the writer-director) are drawn into this unraveling fiasco and become the target of the ultra-secret agents who are as menacing as they are improbable and witless. Then the fun really begins.
The movie, predictably, makes about as much sense as the average UFO conspiracy theory, but should be commended for taking itself so seriously. The camera work is OK for a low-budget film, the pacing is pretty good, the script is silly and absurd, and there are continuity issues which are fun to look out for. What are the few seconds of brilliance I mentioned? Honestly, I can't say much you without writing a spoiler. Suffice to say that the end of the film is, at least, worth fast-forwarding to if you can't take the middle.
\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\nFor some reason, in the late 70's and early 80's the local CBS affiliated station in New York kept playing this movie in it's late-night slot on Friday or Saturday nights for several years, usually at 2 a.m. or some such time. It's a fitting movie for that time slot since it's really hard to follow and quite odd (see the other reviews for specific story info). Anyway, after catching it numerous times in those days just before cable TV (And even after it hit but before they offered much all night programming), I kept catching this little oddity. After not seeing it for many years I decided to see if I could find it on DVD. Well, it is only available (from every search i've conducted anyway)in a pretty lousy grainy print on the budget label \"Brentwood Video\" as part of a 4-pack of movies (4 movies on 2 double sided discs)called \"Alien Worlds\" if anyone is interested. It's usually available for around $10-but even much less if you shop around. The other 3 movies on this set are readily available in numerous other collections of public domain movies, so no need to comment on them here. But I haven't seen \"Eyes\" available anywhere else. Though hardly a \"restored\" version in any way, this print runs exactly 92 minutes, so for once IMDb's stated running time of 90 minutes is not correct. Even with the 92 minute running time it's not unusual for a movie dubbed into English from another language to also have some of the running time trimmed. It seems to be a common budget-conscience practice to sometimes save money by not bothering to dub some scenes at all if they are not considered to be important to the story. Would a longer version make in any less confusing? Who really knows-unless you've seen it in it's native language... By the way, my attempts to watch this during the day don't work and I end up just turning it off. There's something about watching this in the middle of the night that just fits this movie..or maybe it's just from my earlier experiences, who know??
\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 this paranoia-driven potboiler, our reporter hero battles hindersome authorities, duplicitous co-workers, renegade UFO debunkers, and silent, skulking aliens. (Though capable of mind control and zapping objects from afar, it takes three of them to operate a control panel of about two dozen buttons.) The script clomps from event to event,leaving puzzlers aplenty. Why did the aliens blind the dog? Why do they fry the soldiers with radiation when they're only patrolling an empty landing site? And what space dudes worth their moon cheese abduct the ugly photographer first instead of his model? Inquiring minds want to know! Writer-director Mario Gariazzo apparently researched his subject by skimming a stack of UFO-themed tabloids as he took in a Sunn Classics double feature. (The closing screen crawl boasts that it's based on actual events...just like \"Plan 9!\") Some may feel burned by the abrupt finale, but it should still appeal to conspiracy cranks.
\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 possible that A Man Called Sledge might have been done irreparable damage on the cutting room floor. Maybe someone will demand a director's cut one day, but I seriously doubt it.
James Garner decided to cash in on the spaghetti western market and in doing so brought a whole lot of Americans over to fill the cast out. Folks like Dennis Weaver, Claude Akins, John Marley. And of course we have Vic Morrow who both wrote and directed this film.
Garner always gets cast as likable rogues because he's so darn good at playing them. But he has played serious and done it well in films like The Children's Hour and Hour of the Gun. He can and has broken away from his usual stereotyped part successfully. But A Man Called Sledge can't be counted as one of his successes.
He's got the title role as Luther Sledge notorious outlaw with a big price on his head. After partner Tony Young gets killed in a saloon and Garner takes appropriate Eastwood style measures, he's followed from the saloon by John Marley.
Marley's spent time in the nearby territorial prison and it seems as though gold shipments are put under lock and key there on a rest stop for the folks transporting the stuff on a regular run. Garner gets his gang together for a heist.
Here's where the movie goes totally off the wall. Usually heist films show the protagonists going into a lot of methodical planning. Certainly that was the case in The War Wagon which some other reviewer cited. But in this one Garner decides to break into the prison as a prisoner of fake US Marshal Dennis Weaver and cause a jailbreak at which time the gold will be robbed.
That was just too much to swallow. If taking the gold was this easy it should have been done a long time before. But I will say for those who like the blood and guts of Italian westerns, during that prison break there's enough there for three movies.
That's not the whole thing, of course the outlaws fall out and we have another gore fest before the film ends. But by that time the whole film has lost a lot of coherency.
The great movie singer of the Thirties Allan Jones is listed in the credits. But for the life of me I can't find him in the film. Maybe a chorus of the Donkey Serenade might have made this better.
Couldn't have hurt any.
\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\nTwo kinds of movies we like are (1) westerns, and (2) movies from 30 or 40 years ago. We ought to have liked A Man Called Sledge; BUT.....
BUT... this picture is disagreeable, annoying and stupid from start to finish. Since there is nobody in the story (good or bad) to warm up to, there is nobody to motivate the necessary suspense to keep the viewer interested. No camaraderie among the guys trying to steal the gold, and no camaraderie among those trying to protect it. Sledge has a pretty girl friend, but there's no reason why she slobbers all over the guy or why she wants to be in the same room with this no-account pig.
The film also suffers from an intrusive and gawdawful musical score, and from extremely bad writing and direction by Vic Morrow.
Of the last 30 older movies rented from Netflix or Video Vault, this was the rock bottom, the only true dud in the bunch.
\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\nAlthough there are a lot of familiar \"television\" names associated with \"A Man Called Sledge\", there is nothing extraordinary about the film itself or about any of the performances. In fact, the only thing that distinguishes it from a 1960's-70's television series like \"The Rat Patrol\" is a bigger cast and a lot more violence.
James Garner is the biggest star and apparently thought he should try to break away from all the light comedy stuff he had been doing (\"Maverick\", \"Support Your Local Sheriff\"-\"Gunfighter\" etc.). Unfortunately his earthy likability works against him, as Sledge is a humorless character written to cash in on the popularity of Clint Eastwood's spaghetti western character. But Eastwood's stuff was not this flat and uninteresting.
I suppose that \"A Man Called Sledge\" could be classified as a spaghetti western although the pacing is too slow to really fit that sub-genre. Fans of the slow-paced \"Combat\" television series will feel an instant connection as Vic Morrow directed the film and co-wrote the script with Frank Kowalski. Throw in some then trendy slow-mo shots and cross-dissolves, which call attention to themselves rather than serve a story-telling purpose.
The plot is the standard \"big heist\" thing (insert \"The War Wagon\" here) with Sledge plotting how to heist a $300,000 gold shipment. His gang includes Claude Akins and Dennis Weaver. The problem is that while on the move the shipment is guarded by 40 outriders and while stopped it is locked in a vault inside the territorial prison. I think there was an episode of \"Alias Smith and Jones\" with the same plot.
The story would make a decent hour of television but gets old very fast as a very padded feature length film. Garner does not allow any of his charm to leak into his characterization and the film does not generate enough suspense to hold a viewer's interest.
The thing finally crashes and burns shortly after the heist when the gang engages in a contrived and totally illogical card game.
Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
\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 typical 70s Italian coming of age film, original and good music, but with some quirks, interesting but not fantastic photography, poor and at times confused storyline (e.g. the role of the wolf-dog, and where does the boy come from?) with poor dialogue, nice ambiance.
The reason it is still (relatively) well-known and sought after is probably the nude scenes (including typical 70s pseudo-coitus) involving an 11 and 13 year old girl with an older teenage boy (Eva Ionesco and Laura Wendel) - it is interesting from a socio-political point of view to see how these representations of very young adolescents was considered acceptable and normal in the whole of Europe (and US) 30 years ago, whereas now it is more than taboo.
The story revolves round bullying of one girl (Laura) by the other two characters, and her discovery of sex, a quite accurate representation of an aspect teenage life. The character of Eva (Silvia) does not evolve to the very end of the film and already appears very versed in the erotic arts - there is no \"coming of age\" for her: she is a very vain young girl who is already aware of her sexual charms, but ultimately is just used and ends the film crying like the little girl she really still is. The boy is an utterly despicable bully, while Laura comes across as a very naive and weak victim.
\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'Maladolescenza' has the air of a dark fairy tale, with its child protagonists, forest setting, and the discovery of a castle's ruins. Yet at its core, the film is essentially an unusual psychosexual study of adolescents. Opening with a dream sequence employing the not-so-subtle metaphor of Fabrizio wrestling with his menacing hound, the film details his psychological persecution of Laura, the girl who has pledged her love to him, and his eventual romance with the equally malicious Sylvia. The film's psychological complexities do give the film merit, yet there's no doubting how unnecessarily exploitive the film is in its depiction of nudity and sex. The film's look relies more on its gorgeous locations rather than particular cinematographic skill, and there's no doubting the film's greatest asset is the creepy, children's choir-augmented soundtrack. With its odd dreamlike quality, the film is at best interesting, yet pales beside Louis Malle's surreal and brilliant 'Black Moon' from the same era. Certainly deserving of the art versus pornography debate, for unlike many banned films, Pasolini's 'Salo' or Larry Clark's 'Ken Park' for instance, the film is rather unremarkable from an artistic perspective. Cinema seems to be gradually losing its ability to shock, so perhaps 'Maladolescenza' should be admired for retaining that power thirty years after its release. However shock value is the one reason alone the film is memorable.
The film does have its defenders. Yet so does Nazism.
\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 tortuous emotional impact is degrading, whether adult or adolescent the personal values shown in this movie belong in a bad psychodrama if anywhere at all. This movie has a plot, but it is all evil from start to end. This is no way for people to act and degrades both sexes all the way through the movie. teen killing - bad preteen sex - bad emotional battering - bad animal cruelty - bad psychological torture - bad parental neglect - bad the only merit if any is the excellent color shots of contrasting red, blond and green leaves a bad feeling for anyone that respects life and peace, what a bad mistake to make, or to watch... it is UGLY
\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 rarely comment on films but I've read the other comments and I cannot believe that there are people applauding this celluloid rubbish. I know there are certain people who have their own agenda but lets take it on merit; poorly acted, badly shot and the story felt as the director was making it up as he was going along. I am not going to focus on the sexual aspect of the film involving little kids as the makers of the film obviously knew what they wanted and what their audience would want. All I can say is it is a terrible film, the content is poor and offensive, the production is amateurish and I am glad they could not make a film like this legally today
\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\nWould anyone really watch this RUBBISH if it didn't contain little children running around nude? From a cinematic point of view it is probably one of the worst films I have encountered absolutely dire. Some perv woke up one day and thought I will make a film with little girls in and call it art, stick them in countryside and there isn't any need for a story or explanation of how they got there or why they don't appear to live anywhere or have parents because p*rn films don't need anything like that. I would comment on the rest of the film but I haven't ticked spoilers so I will just say avoid, avoid avoid and find yourself a proper film to watch
\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 THE FAN Robert De Niro plays Gil Renard . Or is it Travis Bickle ? or Rupert Pupkin ? Or Max Cady ? You see the problem with this type of role is that De Niro has played very very similar characters in TAXI DRIVER , THE KING OF COMEDY and CAPE FEAR and unfortunately the characters were better developed and had better scripts . I found it slightly difficult to believe that Renard would have started out as a frustrated obsessive sports fan into being an out and out psycho
The character arc isn't the only problem with this script - It also lacks a character focus ( A problem I had with THE UNTOUCHABLES where De Niro should have been superb but ended up slightly flat ) , for several stretches of the movie I kept thinking that Bobby Rayburn was the main character then the story switches back to Renard . It also seems to have disappointed a lot of sports fans who seem to think this should have concentrated a bit more on baseball . I'm not sure if this was meant to appeal to baseball fans originally but again there are elements which hint it might have if the producers had made up their minds has to who and what the story should focus upon
I will admit I was entertained by THE FAN ( Especially by the soundtrack ) but it is a very flawed film and it should be remembered that by the mid 1990s characters being stalked by nutters as in SINGLE WHITE FEMALE , UNLAWFUL ENTRY etc had run out of steam a long time ago
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOne of the worst movies I've ever seen with Robert De Niro, The Fan is a pointless cliché of an exercise in slasher flicks. It tries to spin or twist the genre with preposterous plot lines of a a crazed fan turned psychotic - the movie meanders into nothing. (spoiler) We're to believe that a knife-wielding idiot has access to and murders a baseball player in a lavish hotel with no witness, security, or cameras? The movie is nonsense trying to tug at our heart-strings through the hoopla of baseball ending up mockingly unsophisticated and gimmicky. Not sure what all the actors were thinking when they got onboard this razzie. This is as big a dud as they come. Stay far away if you prefer thought in your 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\nWhat a bad movie. I'm really surprised that DeNiro and even Snipes would be associated with something like this. If you're going to make a movie that involves baseball, and shows scenes of baseball, at least make the action look somewhat realistic. Why was the crowd always standing up for no particular reason during games? ***POSSIBLE SPOILER*** And the last scene in the movie....what was that? We are somehow led to believe that DeNiro has found his way onto the field in an umpire's uniform, and that the game is even being played in a torrential downpour....one of the worst ever scenes in a sports movie. 3 stars out of 10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n*MANY MANY SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW* This movie was horrible. I am a huge baseball fan so I thought I'd watch it, and I was very disappointed. It started out okay.. When I saw the bad influence DeNiro had on his young son, I was hoping that he would become a better father throughout the movie or something. Anyways, at the beginning it seemed as if DeNiro was supposed to be the protagonist. He was the only one that believed in Bobby, and he had his adorable son that he was losing custody of, which gave me a reason to feel bad for him. He wanted to help Bobby by talking to Primo, when out of absolutely nowhere he brutally stabs Primo to death... Not to mention that sketchy reoccurring song \"I WANT TO **** YOU!!!!\" at random unfitting moments.
Later, when DeNiro saves Bobby's son from drowning, I was hoping that the movie could redeem itself.. He could forgive himself for killing Primo if he saved Bobby's son. But of course this is far beyond the depth of the movie, because all he cares about is getting CREDIT for the murder, and does so by stealing Bobby's son, car, and dog and holding them hostage- Bobby just has to hit a home run and announce that DeNiro is a \"true fan\" while displaying a picture of him biting a knife.
Now we get to the completely unrealistic scene at the end... It is pouring like hell and we are expected to believe that the game hasn't been called. Then DeNiro somehow magically appears on the field in an umpire suit and calls Bobby out at home, proceeding to pull out his knife and start stabbing everyone that runs onto the field. There are seemingly no officers on the field (but the police are on their way), so DeNiro steps on the mound and prepares to pitch a knife to Bobby when he gets shot to death. But don't worry, this cheerful and pleasant movie has a happy ending, because Bobby find his son.
This is NOT a sports movie. It is NOT about a fan. As far as I know, fans are not rabid psychopaths that threaten, rob, and throw knives at their admirees. This is likely to be the sickest movie I will ever see in my life. The plot was shallow, the soundtrack sucked, the movie had no purpose whatsoever. I warn you not to waste your time on this disgusting excuse for a film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDeNiro is a master...one of my favourites. And I love GOOD sports movies {not into baseball so much, but hey, its sports movies, right?. I was expecting MUCH more for this movie. It seems to start out well: DeNiro is what I expected, Snipes {whom I don't really like} is very good as the spoiled star. Barkin's role, to me, was OK. She's a good actress, but seemed out of place in this role. To me, they always seemed to rush the scenes, and then it drags a bit in places. It just seemed tio me to be so uneven! Considering the cast and the plot, it could have been so much better. I rated it a '4', and I was being generous ~ I'm a tough one with numbers!
\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 put it simply, The Fan was a disappointment. It felt like as if I was watching Taxi Driver, except Taxi Driver was much better than this. It seemed like the filmmakers wanted us to root for Robert Deniro's character 100 percent. This approach didn't work.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTony Scott directs a thriller sports flick that should attract even the non-sports fan. And some say baseball is a dead sport...boring...too damn slow. Well perk up! On the outside he appears to be a disgruntled salesman(Robert De Niro) while on the inside he is a psychotic San Francisco Giants fan. Along comes a new slugger(Wesley Snipes)and designated savior from the doldrums. Our salesman harbors a murderous obsession when the hard hitting all star falls into the worst slump in his career and the Giants are feared to crumble along with him. De Niro is terror personified. Snipes seems very natural as the ballplayer. Other notables in the cast are: the still attractive Ellen Barkin, John Leguizamo, Benicio Del Toro and Patti D'Arbanville. You are a free agent...so enjoy. Violence and very strong language is to be expected and you get your moneys worth.
\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 never ceases to amaze me how you can take an excellent actor, and put him to waste in a film such as this. Robert De Niro is one of the best Hollywood stars of all time, but even he couldn't save this movie. In fact, his character is much the same as the one he played in Cape Fear, which was actually pretty good, but I can't stand it when actors do the same schtick over more than one movie. I believe it gets old, and that is the case here.
There's nothing surprising in this movie, but then, the story has been told a million times before. Wesley Snipes is your typical baseball player, and his conceit shows through in his characterization. De Niro plays the obsessed fan, but his role in this film is less than entertaining.
However, because De Niro is IN this film, that makes it a draw if you are a fan (no pun intended) who sees everything he does no matter how bad. But to see De Niro at his best, see \"Midnight Run\", \"Goodfellas\", or \"Cop Land\", or even go way back and check out \"Taxi Driver\" or \"Godfather II\". Don't waste your time with this drivel.
My Rating: 3/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"