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\nA retired diplomat, played nicely by Michael York, goes to Russia to get revenge on the Russian gangster that murdered the diplomat's policeman son. There the diplomat meets an exceptionally strong and decent Russian cop who helps him bring the Russian gangster to justice.
I remembered the old action flicks of the 1980s that always portray the Russians as evil bad guys out to undermine the righteous U.S. government. It's interesting to see this time the Russian guy as a hero.
Not a great flick, it's really typically a \"B\" action flick. Michael York lends some class to this mediocre movie. Alexander Nevsky, who plays the Russian cop is kind of \"blah\" but surprisingly has some chemistry with Michael York. Face it, Michael York is such a good actor that he'd have chemistry with anyone he's doing a scene with. Disappointingly, the handsome Adrian Paul gets killed within the first 15 minutes into the movie. Now, if Adrian Paul was in this movie longer, it would've been an above average \"B\" action flick. All I can say about Adrian Paul is that he is real nice to look at for the first 15 minutes of the movie. The villain, played by Richard Tyson, is your typical bad guy. He's very blonde and very villainous in this movie.
Rent this flick if there is nothing else on TV to watch. It's okay. It doesn't suck too bad. The action scenes are decent. The acting could be better, the plot could've moved much faster, but hey, you get to see what Russia looks like 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\nBut it does have some good action and a plot that is somewhat interesting. Nevsky acts like a body builder and he isn't all that attractive, in fact, IMO, he is UGLY. ( his acting skills lack everything! ) Sascha is played very well by Joanna Pacula, but she needed more lines than she was given, her character needed to be developed. There are way too many men in this story, there is zero romance, too much action, and way too dumb of an ending. It is very violent. I did however love the scenery, this movie takes you all over the world, and that is a bonus. I also liked how it had some stuff about the mafia in it, not too much or too little, but enough that it got my attention. The actors needed to be more handsome...The biggest problem I had was that Nevsky was just too normal, not sexy enough. I think for most guys, Sascha will be hot enough, but for us ladies that are fans of action, Nevsky just doesn't cut it. Overall, this movie was fine, I didn't love it nor did I hate it, just found it to be another normal action flick.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is a vehicle for Schwarzenegger-clone Alexander Nevsky. His charisma however is insufficient to lift this movie above the level of its poor script. He has little to add to his Arnie-act.
Michael York is quite pathetic as the begging diplomat. Watching him revisit his D'Artagnan-act from the time that he was a better actor made me feel uneasy. Come on, you can do better than that!
The story is full of holes and unexplained relations; top of this bill is the informer of Vlad, who sounds like an American woman, but from the context appears to be working for a Russian government-department.
Although the story takes place well after the end of the Communist-regime, all the Russian characters are still very communist-like. In contradiction to that, Vlad is allowed to drive a pimped up all utility vehicle as police-car. The action scenes are poorly shot and therefore lack dynamics.
Not a must see 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\nIt felt like I watched this movie thousand times before.It was absolutely predictable.Every time the story tried to get a bit twisted,every time I awaited something interesting to happen, I saw nothing but what I expected. Like \"The bread factory opened up another facility,because there was not enough bread\". In two words:Flat story,that has become a cliché,bad acting,bad special effects...Only the dumb Russian cop,Vlad, was a bit funny while punishing around the bad guys.The pile of muscles was so incredibly STUPID,that it made me laugh at him for a moment. I wonder why i waste my time spitting on that shame-of-a-movie... It won't get worse (because it is not possible) :D
\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\nWoman (Miriam Hopkins as Virginia) chases Man (Joel McCrea as Kenneth) for father (Charles Winninger as B.J.). Woman wants to get Man to invest some of deceased mother's money in father's business venture; but, father is notorious for losing money on hair-brained schemes. Little does anyone know, but real evil schemers are posing as Man's best friends in order to steal his fortune...
The production looks engaging, but the story fails to engage. The players don't play drunk well. Notable as Broderick Crawford's first appearance - as gopher \"Hunk\"; other than running errands, Mr. Crawford gets pinned to the floor by Mr. McCrea.
*** Woman Chases Man (4/28/37) John G. Blystone ~ Miriam Hopkins, Joel McCrea, Charles Winninger, Broderick Crawford
\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\nYou don't expect much from a PRC picture, and with rare exceptions--mainly from Edgar G. Ulmer and a few by Joseph H. Lewis or Lew Landers--that's exactly what you get: not much. This \"epic\" about Nazis in Africa trying to incite an Arab revolt against the British isn't much different. The script, by longtime PRC hacks Arthur St. Claire and Sherman Lowe, is trite, laughable, full of unfunny \"wisecracks\" and plot holes the size of Outer Mongolia. The direction, by longtime PRC no-budget specialist Al Herman, is semi-comatose at best. The performances, though--except for spectacularly incompetent and irritatingly hammy lead Walter Woolf King--aren't really half bad. Veteran comedian Parkyakarkus is actually the best thing about the film. He plays a guy from Brooklyn masquerading as a razor-blade salesman and brightens up the screen considerably when he shows up. He's got great comic timing, charm to spare and seems to be having a heck of a good time. Duncan Renaldo is fairly convincing as an Arab sheik--despite his Spanish accent--and veteran bad guy George J. Lewis as Renaldo's Arab rival does his usual fine job of villainy, even if he goes a bit over the top sometimes. Joan Woodbury is quite pretty and has a nice light touch, and she and Renaldo have great chemistry together, although--like the rest of the cast--she has none at all with King. H.B. Warner, whose career stretched back to the silent era, lends a shred of dignity to the low-rent proceedings, even though he blows his lines several times and, PRC being PRC, they weren't cut out. There's a great deal of stock footage spliced in from a big-budget silent movie with a similar Arab theme--although I have no idea which one it is--and, PRC being PRC, no effort was made to try to make it inconspicuous: I've seldom seen stock footage that was so blatantly obvious.
\"A Yank in Libya\" isn't very good, of course--well, OK, it stinks--but it would be worth a look just to see Parkyakarkus in his prime. I had heard of him and knew that he was the father of actor/director Albert Brooks and Super Dave Osborne, but had never actually seen him in anything before. It was worth watching this tenth-rate PRC \"extravaganza\" just to see him in action. Otherwise, forget 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\nIt definitely fits the time period as the Axis & Allies were playing espionage games throughout most of North Africa & the rest of the world. It's not the best of films, but certainly not the worst of the budget films as described previously from the compilation War Classics.
Duncan\"Cisco Kid\" Renaldo was actually very good in one of his first feature films. I really enjoyed the performance of Harry Parke (credited as Parkyarkarkus). Why he never got any bigger roles is beyond me. He played the perfect buddy/partner role and saved the movie...imho.
As said, this film was part of a budget package from Superbox-Mart entitled War Classics. Eight movies for eight bucks, which included other never-heard-from-films that has some decent stars trying to pay the bills.
This script is...well, not so hot. The editing & cinematography is...worse. If you can by-pass all of that and want to see the future Cisco Kid & a great sidekick that sadly never fulfilled his true potential, definitely pick it up! Otherwise, there's other WW2 films to watch.
-Thunderossa.
\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\nChan Wook Park is nothing if not inventive. I'M A CYBORG BUT THAT'S OK is chock full of amusing little technical flourishes with some ingenious ideas sprinkled in between. Attempting to walk in the footsteps of the likes of Marc Caro and Jeunet (CITY OF LOST CHILDREN, DELICATESSEN), Park embarks on a fanciful, lighthearted tale which is a radical departure from his usual morbid fare. Hardly one to be faulted for his ambition or his vision, it is genuinely unexpected, then, to see all Park's effort add up to so very little.
I'M A CYBORG BUT THAT'S OK seems astonishingly to subtract from itself as it goes along, with the the end result being a fraction of the sum of its parts. The premise is promising, gags are copious and offbeat humour abounds but it all fails miserably to create any meaningful connection with the audience. The characters are cute and quirky and played with gusto by the cast, but, try as i might, i could not bring myself to care for any.
SYMPATHY FOR LADY VENGEANCE was a misstep, indicating perhaps that Park was overindulging himself a little bit, but it still managed to showcase some of the director's unique flare and in the wake of an impressive filmography, was readily forgiven. None of the assured confidence that commanded JOINT SECURITY AREA or SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE is evident here. I'M A CYBORG BUT THAT'S OK left me so utterly unengaged i caught myself instinctively fast forwarding from time to time (more regularly as the film progressed). I gave LADY a 5/10, and by that measure, this probably deserves no more than a 3. For old time's sake, i'll be generous: 4/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe story: Young-goon is a girl whose family has a history of mental illness. She ends up in a mental institution after she starts believing that she is in fact a cyborg. In the institution she meets Park Il-sun, a young man who develops a bond with her.
If you're reading this you probably already know how talented Chan-wook Park is. But 'I'm A Cyborg...' is a big departure from familiar, and (sadly) stronger territory. I'm a big fan of any film or story which is attempting to do something different. God knows, we all get subjected to enough crap at our local cinemas. The main point about the movie I need to say is, that it fails to say anything about mental illness, or create a characters that you care about.
This story has to be one of the weirdest things I've seen in years...but weird isn't enough. There's no heart to the movie...just surrealism and confusion. Confusion does seem to be the main theme of the movie. The characters all try to make sense of their own problems, but it's Chan-wook Park himself who proves to be the most confused of them all.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is the biggest waste of nine dollars that I've spent in a very, very long time. If you knew how often I went to the movies you'd probably say, that's hard to imagine, but never-the-less, it's true! After seeing the trailer for this movie, I knew that I had to see it! If you're a fan of horror, mystery, and suspense, why wouldn't you? The trailer is nothing less than intriguing and exciting; unfortunately, the movie is none of these.
From the cinematography, to the script, to the acting, this movie is a complete flop. If you're reading this, planning to go to the movie expecting some thrills, mystery, action, horror, or anything other than a waste of an hour and forty-five minutes I'm afraid you are in for disappointment.
\"Why is it so bad,\" you might be asking yourself. Let me tell you. The movie was neither mysterious nor suspenseful. Nothing about the movie made me the least bit \"on edge,\" frightened, or curious. The script was at best laughable. There were numerous times throughout the film where the dialogue was just so ridiculous I began to write it off as comic relief only to find out a few seconds later that it wasn't. The acting was absolutely dreadful. I like Nicholas Cage but this was a miss. Without exception, every performance in this movie was incredibly below average. The cinematography was awful with not one moment of suspense or mystique. Finally, the story is completely transparent. You can see the end of this movie coming a mile away.
I am not usually a very harsh critic. Frankly, when I go to see a comedy I want to laugh and when I go to see a mystery/suspense/horror, I just want to be surprised. This movie was boring, poorly acted, poorly written, and an overwhelming disappointment. Do yourself a favor and go see something else.
\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 Wicker Man. I am so angry that I cannot write a proper comment about this movie.
The plot was ridiculous, thinly tied together, and altogether-just lame. Nicolas Cage...shame on you! I assumed that since you were in it, that it would be at least decent. It was not.
I felt like huge parts of the movie had been left on the cutting room floor, and even if it's complete-the movie was just outlandish and silly.
At the end you're left mouth agape, mind befuddled and good taste offended. I have never heard so many people leave a theater on opening day with so much hatred. People were complaining about it in small groups in the mall, four floors down from the theater near the entrance. It's that bad.
I heard it compared to : Glitter, American Werewolf in Paris and Gigli. My boyfriend was so mad he wouldn't even talk about it.
Grrrr!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nUnfortunately, this movie does no credit whatsoever to the original. Nicholas Cage, fairly wooden as far as actors go, imbues the screen with a range of skill from, non-plussed to over the top. The supporting cast is no better.
The plot stays much the same as the original in terms of scene progression but is far worse. Not enough detail is given to allow the audience to by into what is being sold. It turns out it's just a bill of poor goods. Disbelief cannot be suspended, nor can a befit of a doubt be given. The only saving aspect of this film is that it is highly visual, as the medium requires, and whomever scouted the location should be commended.
There was much laughter in the audience and multiple boos, literally, at the end.
Disappointed! Wait for the original to come on television, pour a whiskey and enjoy.
\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 haven't seen the original, but just wanted to drop a quick note to anyone who happens to scroll down this far: Wicker Man is the worst movie I've seen this year. Maybe even in two years. I wish I could ask the theater for my money back or turn back time to warn myself not to see it.
I'll give it two positive nods: The sarcasm of Cage's character at least got some laughs from me and the scenery of the island was beautiful. Sorry, that's it. Here come the jeers. The movie's plot is only propelled forward because other characters won't give Cage any straight answers--and he puts up with this!!! How this could go on for over an hour of my time(much less days in the movie) is beyond me.
Not to mention that the plot is full of holes. You leave the theater with enough unanswered questions to fill a library. How anyone could read this script and think, \"Yes, people should pay $11 to see this shady outline of what a film should look like\" is beyond me.
Do not go see this flick. Or even rent it on DVD.
\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\nAnyone not aware of the 1973 original British Lion movie ' The Wicker Man' would,no doubt, have left the cinema with the impression 'Poor' and 'Peurile'.
As a devotee of the original I left with the impression Purely Poor.
From the grim reality of haggle toothed inbreds drawing the force of law and order into a web of paganistic barbaric ritual on a remote Scottish island, named Summerisle(the original) to a near Amazon-ic colony off the Maine coast of the US, named Summersisle, the remake hardly hits the spot.
This is, quite sadly, a case of what 'could' have been a classic remake of a classic being tampered with to cater for a simple minded public. NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS.
Gentlemen (or given the reworked context of the film) Ladies involved ... hang your heads in shame.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHow this film could miss so many of the fascinating, complex and mysterious aspects of the original story or the original movie is truly remarkable. An unbelievably thin and unengaging plot, ankle-deep characterisation/motivation and a really awful soundtrack (replacing tension with vast swathes of noise, replacing the arcane musical references of the original for digitised crashes and roars. Then there are the specific references to the original which are merely \"plastered on\" over the cracks... Dreadful. In a world where gormless, brain-dead Amerikan remakes of The Italian Job (a tear appears), Get Carter (sobs uncontrollably) and Alfie have desecrated our screens recently, this one takes the proverbial biscuit. Execrable nonsense. How Ellen Burstyn ever got involved is a wonder... Rubbish.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis has got to be one of the worst fillums I've ever seen and I've seen a few. It is slow, boring, amateurish - not even consistent within its own simplistic reading of the plot. The actors do not act. I can't blame them - they have been given a script of such utter banality all they can do is trudge through it with a pain behind their eyes which has nothing to do with the evil goings on in SummersIsle.
There is not one moment in this film that rings true - not an honest line nor a single instant where one is moved. The Nicholas Cage character is so badly drawn that one feels not a smidgeon of compassion for him through all his tribulations. I have no doubt that I was seeing a suffering man up there but it was Nicholas Cage fully aware of the fact that he was in the worst movie of his entire career.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nwhat ever you do do not waste your time on this pointless. movie. A remake that did not need to be retold. Everyone coming out of the theater had the same comments. Worst movie I ever saw. Save your time and money!!!
Nicgolas Cage was biking down hills, swimming in murky water and rolling down hills while being attacked by bees but yet his suit was still perfectly pressed and shirt crisp white until the very last scene.
Although a good cast with Ellen Bernstein and Cage the acting was just as unbelievable as the movie itself. It is amazing how good actors can do such bad movies. Don't they get a copy of the script first. If you still have any interest at all in seeing the movie at the very least wait for it to come out on DVD.
\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 terrible. OK, my favourite film is 'The Wicker Man' (1973), so I was always bound to be a little biased.
The plot rambles along, throwing out enough of the key elements of the original to make the term 'remake' highly dubious. (He's not a virgin, but IS allergic to bees. WOW!) So many things happen that make no sense and are unexplained, which I'm afraid Mr LaBute does not a horror movie make. (How are two people we clearly saw blown up in a car at the start alive and well at the end of the film?) Cage looks haggard and bewildered throughout, and his character is prone to calling out \"Rowan!?\" at the slightest noise. The 'nods' to the original are irritating as they come off as tacky rather than as intelligent homage. For example, certain incidents mirror the original (The girl falling out of a cupboard pretending to be dead when Woodward/Cage is searching the island) and several lines of dialogue are plucked straight from Anthony Schaffers original screenplay and shoehorned in.
I'm sure others will provide a better and more detailed analysis than this, I really can't be bothered to write any more about this film. It lacks any kind of substance. Throw it on the scrap heap with all the other remakes that have sullied the good names of the films they were 'based' on (in this case very loosely).
\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 let the premise fool you--this was one funny movie. The problem--it wasn't supposed to be a comedy. The story sets you up nicely for an ending that never comes. Even worse, the set-up is NEVER explained. You will leave the theater asking \"Is that it?\" I rate it a 2 simply because there were a few brief moments of promise, but the finish leaves you completely flat. Nicholas Cage did as good a job as can be expected in the role, but he had very little to work with. There are odd quirks, and interesting turns everywhere, which had absolutely nothing to do with the movie. Let this one come out on video before wasting your money.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have never seen the 1973, older highly rated version. I am a Nicholas Cage fan (by the way, fine acting as usual). This movie probably took all of five minutes to hammer out the whole plot (I can see it being done on a cocktail napkin at a dinner party), if you can't figure out the ending of this drool in the first thirty minutes you will probably find this movie entertaining. This is, of late, the terrible rut that Hollywood seems to have dug for itself with the horror/mystery/thriller genre, unable to give the audience enough credit and write a fresh, smart, and tantalizing screenplay, they dish out some creepy music and throw in a couple of things to make you jump a little and then send the final print off to your local theater. At least, it didn't have the jiggling hand-held camera syndrome.
\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 phenomenal achievement in awfulness. It's actually hilariously awful.
First off...Nicholas Cage must now have made it to the finals in the Over-Emoting Category in his acting class. Wearing new hair plugs and with a face that has been lifted so many times his pinned back ears seem to be straining to touch in the back he oozes not only a sick smarmiess but creates a \"hero\" character that you have no vested interest in.
I don't know what it is with Neil Labute and female characters. He makes females out to be totally deviant and evil...and pays them back by having Cage punch several of them directly in the face and call them all \"b****es\" a few times too. I've enjoyed LaBute's early films and a few of his plays...but it's a strange fascination he has.
I'd give this film a 2 out of 10 solely based on Ellen Burstyn's performance. By the time she finally makes her appearance (bravely soldiering through her scenes with her wig line clearly visible on her forehead) it seems like all hope may be lost. She deserves an Oscar right here and now for saying her lines with a straight face and when she appears wearing a white mumu and blue, white, and gold face paint booming about The Wicker Man you know that working with Scorcese and Friedkin really prepped her for this role dang well.
This movie is so wrong-headed and cuckoo that is has to be seen to be believed.
Highlights include: Nicholas Cage running away from a swarm of bees and then falling down a hill.
Nicholas Cage stealing a bicycle and looking like Ms. Gulch from The Wizard of Oz riding around on it.
Nicholas Cage running around the island kicking down doors looking for the missing girl.
Leelee Sobieski PLUMMETING from a once-promising acting career in a \"brawl\" with Cage.
Ellen Burstyn dancing around in a said while mumu.
Nicholas Cage screaming \"Who burned it? Who burned it? Who burned it?Who burned it?Who burned it?Who burned it?\" for no reason.
Nicholas Cage in a bear costume (I'm not kidding) running through the woods, taking off the costume (but leaving the bear feet on) and then doing some karate moves to some villains.
And you haven't lived until you have seen the final 15 minutes of the movie and its dreadful epilogue that looked like it was shot yesterday in your cousin's basement.
Needless to say, if you can make it through this film without laughing out loud then you deserve a medal. There was actually a point in the movie where I stopped snickering to wonder if maybe this wasn't an elaborate send-up of \"hysteria\" films...only to be reminded when Cage would scream/shout/whisper his dialogue that he really was taking himself quite seriously.
I think this one is destined to be a cult film all over again...just because it's so dreadful.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI picked this DVD up at the Dollar Store. The DVD was on the 2 for $1 rack, but since it had Michael Madsen in it, I thought that since I had never seen the movie, I bought it anyway.
I must say that I didn't like the movie. The movie played more like a documentary or an advertisement for religion than anything else. I found that the director's use of flashbacks did not add to the story line for me. I would have preferred to view the story line in chronological order.
I won't throw it away like one of the other commentators, but It may be quite awhile before I would consider watching this movie again.
Who knows, since it was Michael Madsen's film debut, maybe it might have some archival value at some future date.
\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\nPoor Michael Madsen; he must be kicking himself to know folks have found out about this horrible flick. I really can't think of anything worse I have ever seen, except amateur porn. It's that bad, and all here; wooden acting, bad script, crappy moral ending, you hate it and it is in this movie.
My question is: \"Who the Hell put $$$ into this piece of doggy doo? At least we could have seen Michael's sister Virginia nude in a scene, but I don't think even that would save this stinker...
For a cool guy that has made some exception movies, I want to know what wacky church sponsored this piece of crapola.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAn actor's first film is usually something one can afford to miss - it's often that first job where the lack of film experience by everyone involved is truly on display, and this film is no exception.
But worse than that, even by 1982 standards this is so bad, it's hysterically funny. Filmed entirely in the Chicago area on an obviously small budget, most of the acting by the entire cast is stiff, wooden, and cartoonish - a cross between a high school play and bad community theater. Noise from nearby traffic often drowns out the dialog, and the dialog is truly bad, very declarative in a way that comes off as forced and expedient rather than natural and organic. Scenes are contrived and choppy, and even though the characters go through a span of years, neither the children nor the adults age at all.
I do believe it's possible to make a Christian film that's palatable to a large, secular audience, but too often the creators of such films are so focused on 'The Message' or in this case, their own autobiographical ties to the project that good film production values are tossed aside. (I'm sure it's no coincidence that the main character has the same name as the producer/director/editor - and cast member.)
Luckily, Michael Madsen was much more interesting - and believable - to watch in his subsequent films. Careers like his are certainly not built on films like this one.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTHE TEMP (1993) didn't do much theatrical business, but here's the direct-to-video rip-off you didn't want, anyway! Ellen Bradford (Mel Harris) is the new woman at Millennium Investments, a high scale brokerage firm, who starts getting helpful hints from wide-eyed secretary Deidre (Sheila Kelley). Deidre turns out to be an ambitious daddy's girl who will stop at nothing to move up the corporate ladder, including screwing a top broker she can't stand and murdering anyone who gets on her bad side. She digs up skeletons in Ellen's closet, tries to cause problems with her husband (Barry Bostwick), kills while making it look like she is responsible, kidnaps her daughter and tries to get her to embezzle money from the company.
Harris and Kelley deliver competent performances, the supporting cast is alright and it's reasonably well put-together, but that doesn't fully compensate for a script that travels down a well-worn path and offers few surprises.
\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\"The Secretary\" is one of those cheesy, cliched, \"thrillers\" that one is subjected to watching on a Sunday afternoon, when there is virtually nothing else on. While the plot (a demented woman becomes jealous of all who succeed over her in the office and decides to do whatever she can to stop them) may be one of a kind, I recognized countless plot twists, probably taken from other TV movies that I had been subjected to for the very same reason.
To make matters worse, I was not wild about the cast. Mel Harris is one of those actresses who appears in so many TV movies as either a \"mom\" or some sort of \"victim\" of foul play or abuse, that one must wonder the kind of life she leads. In this one, she gets the joy of playing a mom AND a victim of psycho secretary Sheila Kelly, who was not a very good choice as the villain. While Sheila Kelly has made some good career moves(Singles, Breaking In, and I guess, Law and Order), she is also beset by a string of pitiful TV movie roles, and this one just adds to it. As for the others, I don't have any clear memories of them, so that must say something.
This one WILL play on the Lifetime network(I think that's where I saw it), but don't bother watching it, unless you are too bored for words. Not that it will make you any more excitied...
\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 chemical spill is turning people into zombies. It's up to two doctor's to survive the epidemic. It's an Andreas Schnaas film so you know what the par for the course will be. Bad acting, horribly awful special effects, and no budget to speak of. The dubbing is ridiculous with a capital R and the saddest thing is that I feel compelled to write one word about this piece of excrement, much less the ten lines mandatory because of the guidelines placed on me by IMDb. My original review of merely one word: Crap wouldn't fly so I have to revise it and go more in to how bad it is. But I don't know if I can, so.. wait I think I may have enough words, or lines rather to make this review pass. Which is cool, I guess. So in summation: This movie sucks balls, don't watch it.
My Grade: F
\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 will keep this as short as possible as this piece of crap barely warrants a mention. ZOMBIE 90 is one of the worst films ever made - right up there with Schnaas' other horrible zombie entry - ZOMBIE DOOM (aka VIOLENT SH!T 3). These films suck so bad that everyone involved in their creation should be shot. I somehow managed (barely...) to sit through ZOMBIE DOOM - but ZOMBIE 90 is so horribly inept - even when compared to Schnaas' other horrible film - that I had to fast-forward through everything after the first 10 minutes. ZERO acting skills, inept gore, horrible camcorder-style camera-work, ridiculous dubbing...it just goes on and on. I really can't find a single thing redeeming about this garbage - and I can usually find SOMETHING redeeming in just about ANY film. This truly is one of the worst films ever made - You've been warned...1/10
\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\nBeyond dirt cheap, this shot-on-video exercise in ineptitude was difficult to get through. It's got the typical gore that you'd expect in a zombie movie, but none of the required atmosphere to make it worth while.
What's strange is that this is an amateur German video, and the version I saw is English-dubbed! The dubbers seem to be American fans (penpals of the Germans?!) who can't decide whether they want to play it straight or turn it into a comedy. One character (a white German, of course) is dubbed by a black guy apparently, who speaks with thick ebonics! 'Kno wahm sayin', Comrad?
\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 in God's name happened here? How does one go about creating what is practically a cheap knockoff of Redneck Zombies? Was Zombie '90 ever supposed to entertain someone ...anyone, or even make a dollars profit? But mainly, what happened here?
Zombie '90 Extreme Pestilence was directed by a lunatic by the name of Andreas Schnaas, who specializes in earth-shattering gore films, such as Goblet of Gore, and Anthropophagus 2000, and some of which contain profanity in the titles. In the gore department, this one isn't much different than the rest. Although, the level of ineptness ...well, earth-shattering.
Zombie '90 Extreme Pestilence is as bad as Peter Jackson's Dead-Alive is gory, think about it.
Getting too specific with the story would be a waste of time. An accident, involving chemicals causes the dead to come back, and eat the living. Never has the concept been treated in such a manner. The gore effects are a whole, new low. Just a Z-grade nightmare. I can't tell whether, or not this was originally meant to be funny, somehow, I doubt the English dubbing was being very true to the original script, but stranger things have happened. The whole thing just reminds me of a shot-on-video introduction to a Troma movie, except it lasts a hell of a lot longer.
I've seen only one film that was worse than this, The Chooper.
For proof that Andreas Schnaas is an actual director, I would highly recommend Nikos The Impaler If you think you have no standards in what you look for in a bad movie, give Extreme Pestilence a try, but you've been warned. It takes nerves of steel to make it all the way through. But if gore is all you're here for, then you might be able to stomach this one. Other than that, no atmosphere, no, and I mean NO budget, no entertainment value, but mostly, no pride. Show some pride, Schnaas. 1/10
Updated 7/5/09: After a few more viewings of Zombie '90, I've had a change of heart, or I guess I just get it now. Zombie '90 is hilarious, so nevermind the harsh words, Although, Extreme Pestilence still only deserves one star.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis review is based on the dubbed Shock-o-Rama video released on an undeserving world in 2002. How bad is it? It's awful, which is what a '1' represents on the IMDb scale--but it's much worse than that. It's nice to imagine that an original German-language print might improve matters--the comedic English-language dubbing isn't funny at all--but truthfully, this is one of the worst amateur films of any genre you're likely to see. The zombies in the film are as slow and clumsy as ever, and they don't seem to have the ability to speak or think about anything beyond their next meal. However, they're also intelligent enough to operate chainsaws and malicious enough to know that western taboos about genitalia will no doubt enliven their dinner table conversation. George Romero's Land of the Dead posited a zombie nation that retained a shred of social coherence; here, zombies are nothing more than an empty canvas for the perverse imaginings of director Andreas Schnaas. Utterly without redeeming social value, and even worse, entirely lacking as entertainment, Zombie '90 is a bad joke on anyone who wastes money on 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 is one of the worst movies i've ever encountered, but i want to say that some of the criticisms i had heard turned out to be unwarranted..
As far as pure film-making technique goes, this director is competent. He's held back by the limited budget and the VHS camera, but the actual editing, camera angles, camera movements and scene staging are pretty professional. i've seen many movies where the \"directing\" was much worse. At least the scenes flow in a way that is not confusing and he has a few clever shots here and there. Also, the forest scenes contained a decent atmosphere. There is only so much you can do with a VHS camera, and he does a nice job as far as the technicalities go. As far as artistic merit, there is none. The scene where the camera pans down so that we can watch a guy urinate in the woods for 15 seconds sort of epitomizes the artistic style of the whole film. This is pure trash... Total garbage.
The gore is decent for a film in this budget range. , it's obviously fake but there's lot's of it, and it's very outlandish..
I saw the American version with the intentionally campy dubbing. This was a good idea (and it's the only thing that allowed me to make it through the film)... Unfortunately, it's overdone, especially towards the end.
It's really a terrible film, but i have to recommend it for it's camp value. It's really hard to find a movie that's worse than this and that sort of puts it in a unique category.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWow, not only is this film a \"new lesson in real bad taste,\" but also a lesson in \"real bad film making.\" Don't get me wrong, I appreciated the concept of 'Zombie '90: Extreme Pestilence,' but at the same time one must realize when a movie is terrible. In case you missed out on the storyline, the plot of 'Zombie '90' is about a government plane carrying toxic chemicals that so happens to crash into the wilderness, causing the chemicals to spill, turning locals into hideous looking zombies. The next thing you know, zombies are all over the city eating people alive, while a goofy-looking doctor and a government agent are trying to figure out the disease that's making these people eat one another - hence the name \"Extreme Pestilence.\" From then on, all we see is zombies having a field day on every local in sight - nothing but extreme and sickening disembowelments and dismemberments accompanied by endless buckets of guts and gore. Since this is a German film, the film had to be dubbed into English and when you're not laughing at the feeding frenzies of the zombies, the voice-overs are quite hilarious and entertaining as well. As user UnratedX mentioned *SPOILER* *SPOILER* *SPOILER*, there is a scene in the film that crosses the line between what's acceptable and not acceptable, hence the scene in which a woman, who is carrying her infant baby, is being wheeled around in her wheelchair by some dude and a horde of zombies come out of nowhere and attack them. One zombie grabs the baby and rips it into pieces, eating its organs as you hear the baby crying. Wow, that is a new lesson in REALLLLLLLLLY bad taste. Atrocious I tell you, atrocious.
\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, I am not really a fan of the whole \"things eating flesh in disgusting new ways\" genre of film but I am a bad movie afficionado so my next door neighbor said he had the worst movie ever. This one. So we start watching it. First and foremost - it is recorded on a camcorder sans tripod! Second the voice of the skinny white doctor is dubbed by a large black man! Third, none of the dialogue makes any sense. Fourth, the zombie scenes, though unconvincing and chockful of poor makeup and tomato paste, lead me to believe the director (and my next door neighbor) are in need of psychological help. It's funny for about 5 minutes but it gets old fast. It's so amateurish it's like watching a poorly dubbed high school video yearbook.... with zombies. A note to anyone involved with this movie - I want the 20 minutes of my life I spent watching this, before I fell asleep, back.
\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 god awful. Not one quality to this movie. You would think that the gore would be good but it sucks bad. The effects are worse and the acting if you can call it acting is the worst I've ever seen. This movie was obviously shot on a camcorder and runs on a budget around 500 dollars probably. If you want to watch a good Zombie movie than watch Dawn of the dead or Day of the dead. If you want to watch a good cheap shot on video Zombie movie like this but way better than watch Redneck Zombies. Please avoid this movie at all costs. It is unwatchable and pointless. You've been warned. I've got nothing else to say about this stupid 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\nThis really is one of the worst movies ever made. I consider myself a HUGE zombie film fan and usually tolerate bad acting, lame \"special effects\" a dumb story and whatever you may encounter in second rate movies, AS LONG as the film has a good atmosphere/story/suspension or whatever to offer. This one has basically no positive aspect to it and is third or fourth rate, maybe worse. Some friends of mine and myself made a small movie during a week´s holiday and definitely did a better job (no zombie film though).
This flick is not even funny, not speaking of anything else. Really bad and redundant special effects, zombies that look like normal people (except for a white additional skin pulled over their faces), WAY TO MUCH fake blood (I like realism a lot, the combination of realism and Zombie films being debatable, but the presented gore is just plain silly). The camera stays quite long with feedings scenes, it gets boring and you cannot help but wonder, why the zombies use WEAPONS (!) to kill their prey. I will not go into the details of the dubbing (others have done so). Although I am from Germany myself and am at least a bit curious about the original version, I will NOT waste more of my time with this movie.
Keep away from it, as far as you can.
\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 movie best summed up by the scene where a victim simulates disembowelment by pulling some poor animal's intestines out from under her T-shirt. Too terrible for words.
\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 the original non-dubbed German version and I was surprised how bad this movie actually is. Thinking I had seen my share of bad movies like Ghoulies 2, Rabid Grannies, Zombie Lake and such, nothing could've prepared me for this! It really was a pain to sit through this flick, as there's no plot, no good acting and even the special effects aren't convincing, especially the so-called zombies, wearing nothing more than white make-up and their old clothes, so their good set wouldn't be ruined by ketchup and marmalade stains.
If you really want to waste 90 minutes of your life, then watch it, for all the others, don't do it, because you WILL regret 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\nLike some of the other folks who have reviewed this film, I was also waxing nostalgic about it...before I had the misfortune to actually watch it again. Alas, my childhood memories of this film were completely untrustworthy, and The Perils of Pauline is now revealed to be an embarrassing exercise in banal, racist, and plain boring film-making. Even the presence of old pros Edward Everett Horton and Terry-Thomas can't overcome a rancid screenplay, a horrible theme song, and some wretched 'special effects'. In addition, the stereotypical depictions of African and Arab characters make for painful viewing, especially considering this was produced in the immediate wake of the Civil Rights movement. Michael Weldon's original Psychotronic Encyclopedia reports that The Perils of Pauline was originally produced for television but inexplicably ended up getting a theatrical release. Judging from the results, that is a completely believable (and baffling) scenario.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"