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\nLeonard Maltin must've been watching some other movie. (Though I find his Guide to be quite a valuable resource, please disregard his comments on this one.) He states \"starts off well then fizzles\" when it's really the reverse - \"starts off tepid then catches fire\". The plot is about as simple as it gets. Happy Mom, Happy Dad and Happy Son take a vacation at an isolated beach, Dad incapacitated in accident, Mom runs off to get help, meets up with dangerous escaped convict. Mom tries to trick convict into helping while Dad waits and hangs on for dear life.
Good white-knuckler given an electric jolt by Ralph Meeker, appearing suddenly (the director, John Sturges, films it in a clever way that will make you gasp) around halfway through as the cunning, desperate criminal. Meeker is an unusually flippant, reckless actor (at least here and in the classic \"Kiss Me Deadly\") and he happily snatches the keys to the film's narrative and speeds off with the top down. His character has a habit of grinning childishly and saying \"Pretty neat, huh?\" when he's especially pleased with his misdeeds. There is a funny break in the action when they get a flat tire and he tersely instructs his hostage, Barbara Stanwyck, \"Don't go away\". She fires back \"Where would I go?\" (they're in the middle of nowhere) and he realizes sitcom-ishly \"Yeah, that's right\". The friction between them is a hoot.
There are flaws, somewhat ridiculous ones. There's one scene where the police, who have been chasing after Meeker for some time, stop Stanwyck's car and to evade detection Meeker rests his head on her shoulder like a loving husband supposedly would, and pretends to be asleep as she's being questioned. A. He looks conspicuously un-masculine in this pose and B. I think it's safe to say that any adult who appears to be asleep during an encounter with law enforcement would certainly arouse suspicion.
Still a sturdy thriller which builds to an exciting and edifying conclusion.

\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nJeopardy is a tense, satisying thriller, a cut above a B but not really a major production. It qualifies as almost an experimental film, as the studio that produced it, Metro, was desperately looking for new kinds of films, stars and directors to compete with the then new medium of television. The director, John Sturges, was an up-and-comer whose best years lay ahead. He had just recently begun directing A level films, and had already proved himself a most capable craftsman. Stars Barbara Stanwyck, Barry Sullivan and Ralph Meeker, were at very different phases of their careers. Stanwyck's glory years were behind her, and yet she could still carry a film, as she proves here. Barry Sullivan, as her husband, was one of a dozen or so leading men who got started in films in the forties who never quite achieved the success many had hoped for him. He was a fine, low-key actor, poised, but in an upper middle rather than upper class way, which made him excellent in professional roles. As the escaped convict who is the only person around who can save Sullivan's life (he is trapped under a pier, and the tide is rising), Ralph Meeker is more energetic than usual. This excellent actor had the misfortune of having come to films after Brando and Clift. He was in his way as good an actor as either of them, but he lacked charisma. His bargaining with Stanwyck, which comes down to his demanding sex in exchange for saving her husband (by implication only, as this is 1953), makes for an intriguing premise which, had this been a different kind of film, could all raised all sorts of interesting questions about Stanwyck's character. Meeker is indeed a more exciting character than Sullivan; and in her scenes with him Stanwyck is livelier than she is with her husband and son. But as this is a formula picture, not a Strindberg play, the possibility that Stanwyck might want want to have a fling,--leaving aside the question of her husband's predicament,--remains unexplored. In this sense the incoming tide doesn't quite have the effect one might have wished, though the movie remains tense and highly entertaining thanks to excellent acting, fine location photography, nearly all of it outdoors, and excellent direction by the woefully underrated Mr. Sturges.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI found this movie to be suspenseful almost from the get-go. When Miss Stanwyck starts her narration it's only a few minutes until you realize that trouble is coming. The deserted area, the lock on the deserted gas station door, everything sets you up to wait for it...here it comes. At first you think it will be about the little boy, but all too soon you start holding your breath watching the tide coming in. I found this movie to be really stressful, even though I had watched it before and was prepared for the denouement. Now a movie that can keep you in suspense even when you have seen it before deserves some sort of special rating, maybe a white knuckles award?
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"I like cheap perfume better; it doesn't last as long...\" - Ralph Meeker's convict character (Lawson) tells this to Barbara Stanwyck's Helen character, after he gets a whiff of the perfume that she picked out w/her husband in Tijuana...! This line cracked me up, and also seemed like a metaphor for this film - that cheap is better than expensive, because a cheap perfume-loving man who has a way with a 2 x 4 is a better man to have around in the long run! I agree with some of the other comments posted about Helen's attraction to Lawson. Even though her narration states that she wants Lawson to be put away, she did seem attracted to his fiery nature, and that passion he stirred up in her wouldn't likely wash away with the tide!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe only time I have seen this movie was when I was 10 years old. I have remembered it all of these years as I couldn't sleep for a week or more after seeing it. It just absolutely rattled me. I was on vacation with my aunts in Ft. Worth, Texas and I will never forget it. Now, 48 years later, my daughter is trying to get a copy of this for me to view as an adult. It has taken a lot of research to find out what movie it was but I always remembered that Barbara Stanwyck was in it and finally was able to get the name and reviews on it. I very much enjoyed it, but it gave me quite a scare! Jaqui
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nJeopardy has the feel of being a stock movie of sorts - one of the movies that the studios pumped out inbetween big budget/box office ones. It's a mere 70 minutes and doesn't feature many sets, and the only star is Barbara Stanwyck. But what a star, of course.
Stanwyck is a tough lady once again as she runs into an escaped convict while seeking help for her trapped husband in the Mexican desert. The majority of the movie is focused on how she deals with her captor, who wants her to submit to him in exchange for his help. Some psychological battling there.
It's a surprisingly effective little movie - its short length makes it taut, and that Stanwyck is great should go without mention (but I'll still praise her every time).
\n
assistant\n1
\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 great Barbara Stanwyck film that I happened to see the other night. \"Jeopardy\" was fantastic. It was made in 1953 and probably for double bills but it kept me on the edge of my seat.
Barbara Stanwyck plays Helen, who with husband Doug (Barry Sullivan) and son (Lee Aaker) drive to an isolated fishing spot in Mexico for a vacation. Husband has a fall from the jetty and the only way he is to be saved is if Barbara drives back to a garage for some rope.
While there she runs into a psychotic killer (Ralph Meeker - one of my favourites) and what follows is a game of cat and mouse as Barbara tries everything in her power to get Meeker to come back with her to free her husband.
The film was so suspenseful and such a surprise - I was not expecting such a great film. But I suppose I should have realized - is there anything Barbara Stanwyck does that is anything less than wonderful?
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt seems to be a perfect day for swimming. A normal family wants to gain advantage from it and takes a trip to the beach. Unfortunately it happens that the father is trapped under a pier and neither his wife nor the small son is able to help him out of this - whereas the tide is rising. The woman (Barbara Stanwyck) takes the car and searches for help.
John Sturges' short movie (69 minutes) is powerful because of unanswered questions. Stanwyck finds a guy who could help, but there is a price she has to pay for this. There is a double question the movie poses. How far would you go to help the man that you love, and on the other hand - observing Stanwyck's behaviors towards the stranger - does she really love her husband? Like a good short story this movie leaves the viewer to himself with questions he can only answer himself.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe Haunting is a film that boasts a really creepy house, good effects work and sound work, a cast that seems to believe that everything around them is real and that house. There are scenes that make you jump, and the sinister aspects of what went on at Hill House in the past, I found interesting. There are genuinely creepy moments in the film and I liked the way the ghosts manifested themselves in sheets, curtains and the house itself. Jerry Goldsmith's score gave it the right atmosphere and the sound design had voices popping up around you. What I wish could've happened is for something a little more intense. Jan De Bont had a PG-13 rating to contend with and I think that he held back a little too much. Poltergeist scared me silly when I saw it many years ago, and it still holds up. The Haunting could've used a few more scenes of pure terror. The ending was for me, a little anticlimactic. Overall, I enjoyed it. The acting is good and there are moments that make you jump. I just wish it scared me more.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI know it is fashionable now to hate this movie. I have seen hundreds of spook films including he original 1963 Haunting as well as most of the Hammer films. This film is not restrained and does not hold back at all which is probably why so many modern viewers seemed not to like it. Yet many viewers can accept out of control films like Scream because knife killers are more easy to believe for most people than demons or ghosts. Actually this film had many great scenes and the acting and special effects were great. I have seen it 15 times now and it gets better every time. The director of this film has made a number of interesting and stylish films and was not trying for the type of realism of the 6th sense. The Haunting lets go and is certainly not boring. Perhaps this film might appeal more to John Carpenter fans but more of an traditional plot structure. The old Haunting was also a fine film from 1963. It was even more scary. See both and also The Innocents and The Legend of Hell House with Pamela Franklin.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI don't know why the critics trashed this movie. I hardly ever agree with them anyway.
The movie could have been a little scarier - I don't usually go to Horror movies! I even had to psych myself up to see it in the daytime. I needn't have bothered! ;) (The Cinema was full of kids too, heh! ;) ... Liam was great as always. I also liked Catharine Zeta Jones (Theo) and Lili Taylor (Eleanor-Nell)
The house was very Gothic and beautiful in a spooky way. The special and sound effects were awesome. I also loved the music score, particularly the gentle tunes for Eleanor and her journey to save the children, how she grew out of her stagnant routine and life and finally gain her power, peace and freedom.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSome films just simply should not be remade. This is one of them. In and of itself it is not a bad film. But it fails to capture the flavor and the terror of the 1963 film of the same title. Liam Neeson was excellent as he always is, and most of the cast holds up, with the exception of Owen Wilson, who just did not bring the right feel to the character of Luke. But the major fault with this version is that it strayed too far from the Shirley Jackson story in it's attempts to be grandiose and lost some of the thrill of the earlier film in a trade off for snazzier special effects. Again I will say that in and of itself it is not a bad film. But you will enjoy the friction of terror in the older version much more.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI rented this movie this past weekend, cranked up the surround sound system, and got some great sound from special affects. This movie is a great movie rental, the special affects where enough to scare my fiance, but I noticed some looked suprisingly computer generated. I didn't go to the movies and see this, but its a scary late night don't feel like going out movie. I would recommend it!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat can I say about it?It's another Hollywood's horror flick with very high budget(80 million dollars).Not scary at all,it offers us only a few thrills and one really creepy sequence with skeleton in the fireplace.A lot of computer generated special effects and nothing more.Catherine Zeta-Jones is beautiful as always,Lili Taylor is also a good actress.The architecture of the Hill House is amazing,all these monuments,statues,furniture...Delicious!However I don't like the ending because it was so luscious.Check this one out and form your own opinion on it.I give this picture 7 out of 10.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat can I say that hasn't been said about \"The Haunting\"? It has everything that would make a great picture. Wonderful sets, moody music, and sound design to die for were all in place. The screenplay, though, sometimes boggles the mind in such a weird, surrealistic way. The entire team must have forgotten to read it through, maybe because they were too busy creating cg effects and building gothic sets to notice how weak the plot was. Each member of the cast gives a worthy performance, although with little conviction to the material at hand. Lili Taylor has the most to do while the others mostly react to her. But that's about it. All I can say is that it was a slightly enjoyable two hours, but you will definitely want more. A lot more.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI can't understand what it is that fans of the genre didn't like about this film. It was truly a lot of fun. The special effects were wonderful. I generally agree with reviews and with IMDB voters, but not this time. I waited until it came to home video which I felt was another reason that I wouldn't enjoy the film. I believe special effects films need to be seen on the big screen, but again this was not the case. To me the film begs comparison to two films that were released around the same time. Blair Witch and The Mummy. Both films that I thought were terrible. Blair was probably the most overrated horror film of all time. The Mummy made gobs of money and it was pure dreck. People liked it for it's special effects. Films like the Mummy and The Haunting are not rich in character development, they are more like funhouse rides. Well with that analogy the Mummy was a B ticket to the Haunting's E-ticket.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis great film is composed mostly of documentary footage is currently contained on a DVD along with Prelude to War. The great American filmmaker and story teller Frank Capra made these films which simply and clearly call attention to the main points that caused World War II and Hitler's rise.
Every school child, nay, every American should watch these films today because they are so apropos. History has been repeating itself over and over again! The Lord Chamberlains are still alive and kicking; the tactics used by the Nazis of infiltrating countries through sympathizers and then the Communists and now by Muslim terrorist groups, are still working to these evil group's advantage.
By sitting back and letting Hitler as early as 1935 be aggressive - France, America and England caused over 50 million people's deaths. Americans, French and British today would happily let Hitler do exactly the same thing despite the fact that we should have learned from history what happens when you let dictators break treaties.
These great films may be too simplistic for World War II history buffs. They don't tell the horrors that the Soviet Union caused simply because at the time America was teamed up with them, fighting Hitler. This film does tell the plain facts and motives that led to the terrible war.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAdolf Hitler's maniacal desire to impose his will on the rest of the world is the subject of this second in a seven part series of films produced by the U.S. War Department as an instructional tool for new soldiers entering the Armed Forces during World War II. Hitler's plan was methodical and well conceived, starting with the conquest of Eastern Europe, expanding to the European heartland, then moving on to the 'World Island' consisting of Europe, Asia and Africa. His final move would be to reach across the oceans for the ultimate conquest of the Americas and the World.
In 1935, Hitler ordered national conscription, as the rest of the country fell under his evil spell. Grade school children sang his praises, and young German boys received training and indoctrination in military camps. Marching unopposed into Austria in 1938, Hitler followed by annexing a strip of land bordering Germany and Czechoslovakia called Sudetenland. In 1939, Hitler took all of Czechoslovakia. Later in the year, the world was stunned to learn that Germany signed a non-aggression pact with it's mortal enemy Russia, a ploy to delay Hitler's military involvement on too many fronts. Immediately after, Germany invaded Poland, bringing Hitler's conquest right to Russia's doorstep. He would deal with her later.
It was during this period that Britain still declined to oppose Hitler's thrust across Europe. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain felt he procured a great victory for his country by accepting a treaty with Germany, his infamous declaration stating 'Peace in Our Time'. It didn't turn out that way.
The most fascinating information to be learned in this installment, at least to me, was provided by a small snippet of footage from a German pro Hitler rally in the mid '30's. It was led by a German American taking his cue directly from the homeland. The venue - Madison Square Garden!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe second of the Why We Fight Series concentrates on Hitler's grab of the Sudetanland and beyond as he makes a chump out of Neville Chamberlain and embarks on his conquest of Europe.
Clearly meant as propaganda in its day this series over the test of time has become an informative documentary as well with most of the \"Allied bias\" turning out to be historical fact. The Fuhrer hoists himself on his own petard with smug pronouncements before his people and the world as he says one thing and does another as his army moves East. The Czechs and Austrians quickly capitulate but the Poles put up an heroic struggle against overwhelming odds.
The disparity between Hitler's military might and Chamberlain waving the Munich treaty like a white flag, declaring \"Peace in our time\" to this day has durable propaganda qualities. Here in its original context it resonates even more powerfully as the darkness of World War ll sets in on Europe leaving the American viewer with two options, freedom or slavery. In 1943 there was no evading this simple truth and The Nazis Strike makes its point effectively.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI just viewed Detention last night and i liked what i saw. It was a cool fun movie.Dolph looked superbly cool on the Bike.He also looked good in this movie as compared to his other recent movies.He is now in a pretty good shape.The story was ok and the other actors were also passable.I wouldn't call this movie his best but its still a good movie.
But it also had its share of Problems. The first one was the way bullets were flying everywhere and even when they were being fired at point blank range they missed the target.They should've had shown the ppl escaping the bullets in a better way. Another problem which i had was the way the students were swearing. I dont know in which school the students can swear in front of their teacher and even in the classroom. The third problem was that the bad guys were very few in numbers. There should've been more bad guys. Last problem was definately the fact that the set looked cheesy , but that was due to the small budget. Overall the movie was a good Movie.I enjoyed it.I would recommend others to watch it. P.S. Now u r a DEAD beat cop. (Some One-liners were also cool)

\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nthis dolph lundgren vehicle is a fun die hard throwback action flick, it isn't going to win any awards and its not very original but it delivers the goods you would want to see from a dolph lundgren movie. our man dolph is an ex soldier who is now a teacher at a tough inner city high school and when it gets taken over by terrorists its up to him to save the day. sure the script isn't going to win any Oscars its good fun and it has its fair share eplosive action. dolph lundgren gives a good enough performance but he comes alive more in the action scenes, and the rest of the cast are not the best actors but they hold it well. all in all detention is an enjoyable action flick, but youv'e seen it a million times before.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a great entertaining action film in my opinion, with cool characters, lots of action, and an amazing performance from Dolph Lundgren, however Alex Karzis is awful as the villain!. The story is very good, and i found the kids to be likable for the most part, plus Dolph Lundgren is simply amazing in this!. The action scenes are excellent, and it's almost like Die Hard except it's set in a school!, plus Kata Dobó is very menacing and sexy as the sidekick!. The finale is very exciting, and it has a couple of cool emotional moments as well!, however i just wished it had another villain, because Alex Karzis just didn't cut it as the villain way too OTT, and laughable for my tastes. This should be higher then 4.1 in my opinion, as i thought it was a great action film, and while the kids, were very stupid at times, they got quite resourceful as the movie went along!, plus the shootouts were pretty cool as well!. The ending is very amusing,and Corey Sevier's character was my favorite student!, plus Dolph has still got it!. This is a great entertaining action film in my opinion, with cool characters, lots of action, and an amazing performance from Lundgren!, but Alex Karzis is awful as the villain, still i highly recommend this one!. The Direction is very good!. Sidney J. Furie does a very good job here with great camera work, good angles, and keeping the film at a very fast pace!. There is a bit of blood and violence. We get lots of extremely bloody gunshot wounds,knife in the side of the head, bloody arrow hits, an impaling, and other minor stuff. The Acting is fantastic!. Dolph Lundgren is amazing as always, and is amazing here, he is extremely likable, kicks that ass as usual, had great chemistry with the kids, had an awesome character, is very charismatic, and he may not have shown a great emotional rage, he still was a hell of a lot of fun to watch!, he is one of my favorite actors! (Lundgren Rules!!!!!). Alex Karzis is god awful as the villain, he is laughably OTT, was boring, and not menacing at all, he also annoyed the crap out of me. Kata Dobó is very sexy as the side kick and did fine with what she had to do, she was the real villain in my opinion!. Corey Sevier is funny as Mick, he was my favorite student, and i really started to warm up to him in the 2nd half, i liked him a lot!, he had good chemistry with Dolph too. Dov Tiefenbach(Willy),Chris Collins(Hogie),Mpho Koaho(Jay Tee),Danielle Hampton(Alicia),Nicole Dicker(Charlee) all do great as the students. Jennifer Baxter is very cute and is good as The fiancée. rest of the cast do fine. Overall i highly recommend this one!. ***1/2 out of 5
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen I think about this movie, all the adjectives that come to mind somehow relate to the physical appreciation of the world. Texture, smell, color, that's how I think this movie should be judged in terms of. See the rich golden tones surrounding the young concubine asleep by the fireplace, or the sweltering turkish bath, and let it flood your senses with impressions of spice, coarse cloth, smooth skin, scented oils, flickering flames, satin rustle. Don't just watch and listen, be absorbed, let the droning voice of the storyteller mesmerize you.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHarem Suare is the best film I saw in the year 2000. Bravo Ferzan Ozpetek. Sensually shot and stunningly portrayed, Harem Suare is a bold film that tackles interracial romance, which is such a taboo in Hollywood. Women of all shapes, sizes, and color, populate the film. Cut off from the outside world, the women entertain each other by telling stories about intrigue, rivalry and jealousies within their ranks.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis story is a complex and wonderful tale of the last Harem of the Ottoman empire, well told and provoking we see the inner workings of a world now gone, and learn about the people who lived there.
I enjoyed the story, characters, acting and scenes. A few scenes suffered from quick editing and the sub titles sometimes disappeared too quickly, otherwise a wonderful piece.
The main character Safiya is played wonderfully by Marie Gillain who I am pleased to say did a fantastic job without over doing it. The scenes with her and Alex Descas (Nadir) are charming and lovely.
I recommend this film for anybody looking to watch something less Hollywood and more authentic to the world they are emulating.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI appreciated the photography, the textures, the colours and often, unlike one comment, the lighting. What was lacking for me was a coherent storyline.I found it often disjointed, badly edited and at times difficult to follow. My version was 110 minutes, IMDb shows one at 125m. Possibly the cuts and subtitles didn't help. I applaud any films that escape from the Hollywood mould but this left me disappointed. Miss Gillain was luminous and the performances were all fine, I just wanted a little more dialogue. If anyone would like to see another film that has some affinity with this one, try 'Hideous Kinky'with Kate Winslet.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn order to stop her homosexual friend Albert (Perry King) from being deported back to Belgium, Stella (Meg Foster) decides to marry him. The only other problem with that is that Stella herself is a lesbian. The two have their separate lives when one night after Albert's birthday party, they fall into bed and then into love. Later in the film after falling in love, Stella suspects Albert of cheating and shows up at his job one night late after closing. What she finds will leave the viewer stunned. This is a great film, very original. Perry King and Meg Foster are so good in their roles that it is amazing that they were not better recognized for their work here. Very controversial upon its release in 1978, the \"R\" rated film is now \"PG\" in this much more liberal time.
Recently released on DVD, the disc contains a \"Making Of\" segment on the special features and in it it's stated that the film was based on an actual story so the viewers who say the film is not \"real\" are mistaken. Everyone is an individual and different people fall in love for different reasons-these are the issues explored in this wonderful film for everyone who has ever loved!
\n
assistant\n1
\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 as unique as it is overlooked......A Different Story is just that, it shows how out of the need to survive or maintain, one can find the capacity to love if you have an open heart as well as an open mind. I first saw this on cable in the late 70's and it truly depicted the limitations of the gay community at the time. I believe this movie was ahead of its time in depicting a little slice of an obscure way of life. It is truly a classic in the sense that it was a precursor to what is now depicted as the extended family. This film should be available on DVD/VHS so that not only the extra ordinary performances of Meg Foster & Perry King can be acknowledged, but to show how far we have come & still have to go where relationships are concerned.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a film for entertainment; I did not think the world made social commentary from one small film. I personally find this film funny, audacious, and memorable. It is a fantasy not unlike a cinder girl becoming a Princess. This film was done very well I might add, in the 70's a time of the best experiments in film with being able to mention a person's sexuality. This movie is not about a person being homosexual or not, it is however about love, in all it's strange forms. This film does show some of the realities of being gay in the 70's in Hollywood, or in California. Pretty boys being looked after by older not so pretty men. Women who had to stay deeply locked in the emotional closet or risk not having a career. Bathhouses were an integral part of the gay community.
THEN the fantasy begins!! Let us mix a lesbian with a gay and add some liquor and what do we have? Well this movie, which in ANY way was better than that dismal redo \"The Next Big Thing\". Perhaps someone should have asked the entire crew to see this movie and then try to do better.
I enjoyed this movie when I saw it in the 70's and it still brings a smile to my lips now. I heartily advise anyone who wants a funny, tender movie- to curl up with some popcorn and have some fun. Some people need to lighten up!!! And this is the film you should do it with!

\n
assistant\n1
\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 seen by my wife and I when it came out in 1978. It was a revelation to us. We actually thought that we were the only gay and lesbian couple who had ever married and had children. Obviously we were wrong. Love may come from where you don't expect it and maybe don't want it. But we both chose that love anyway.
And no, it never changed our sexual orientation. That kind of stuff is for the Christian wackos.
When we were young we both had affairs, but never with the opposite sex. As we aged we stopped having extramarital affairs.
This story is not far fetched. However, the suggestion that they became heterosexuals seems pretty unrealistic to me. My wife and I have been sleeping together for the last 40 years. We are still gay. End of story.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI think it unfortunate that the leading comments on this movie include the words \"Clueless and appalling nonsense.\" I think it is a very funny movie and excellent entertainment. One has to suspend one's disbelief that a homosexual man and a lesbian woman could fall in love, have a child and live together happily ever after. But it is always wonderful to see it played out in a movie and have one's heart warmed. Is it so impossible? There are far more implausible events described in other movies. The acting is good, the script is funny. The only negative comment is that the story could well have ended when the family drives away from its initial house instead of extending on to explore whether the man retains any residual homosexuality.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMichigan, Edgar Allen Poe, a toaster, and a frying pan . . . If you don't mind the psycho-thriller or horror film genre, and you have a special place in your heart for the twisted, this is the movie for you. An amazingly well developed first film, \"Hatred of a Minute\" has all the draw of mainstream hits like \"Silence of the Lambs\" and of cult classics like \"Army of Darkness.\" The editing and effects are well done, better than many films in the genre. Kallio weaves an intricate tale of torment drawing on both the Bible and Poe's writings. At a time when big budget, big name films lack much in the way of substance, the independent film has resurrected this dying trait. If you love Michigan, a good story, or a decent thriller go check out \"Hatred of a Minute.\"
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\ndespite the occasionally stilted acting and \"seen-it-all-before\" story, this is a fairly compelling movie.
It has suspense, the scenes with the demon are actually pretty creepy, some of the visual effects are superb and best of all, no ridiculously ill placed humour to detract from the film, as too many (wannabe) horror films have in them now
honestly, this isn't the greatest film ever made, but it actually draws you in and at least makes an attempt at character development
i was glad i watched it
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSo what constitutes a real independent film? In a day and age where the latest fad of mainstream hollywood is to appear rugged and cutting edge, I'm sorry to say that what the general public tends to perceive as independent film is usually nothing more than a clever marketing ploy.
Which is why we should be glad that films like \"Hatred of a Minute\" exist. Across the board, this film makes a point out of contradicting its own template (indie horror film). Love it or hate it, \"Hatred\" isn't afraid of being what it is, and in watching this film, you get the real sense that Kallio (the director) didn't just make this film to spray fake blood all over the place, he's in this to tell stories. Good ones. You may find this film in the horror film section of your video store, but don't be fooled, this story is also about love, about good people pushed over the edge, and that oh-so-distant light at the end of the tunnel.
If you expect smut, or an Evil Dead ripoff, stay away from this film. But if you dig the finer points of the horror/suspense genres, check this film out.
Yes. Bruce Campbell did produce this movie, and I'm sure he's proud to tell anyone that it's not \"Evil Dead\". Bruce has never tried to bank on his \"ash\" image, and it's obvious that he didn't get involved with \"Hatred\" so that it could do so either.
My advice, though, to all Dead-ites rabidly devouring anything issued by Mr. Campbell is to check this film out anyway and see what else Mr. Kallio and Mr. Campbell are trying to show you.
The acting is well done, although nothing about this film is oscar caliber (perhaps intentionally), it's good to see compassionate performances in a horror film. So often, actors in films such as these don't even seem to try, with \"Hatred\", it seemed as though all the actors took thier charecters very seriously, never resorting to typical horror-film campiness.
Technically, \"Hatred\" is about as competent as indie film gets. The editing is fast paced, the cinematography is good given the budget, and \"Hatred\" keeps a quick pace, without any bog-down points or bad anti-climaxes.
All in all, Hatred may not have the glossed over look of all those multi-million dollar fake indies, but personally, I don't see a problem with that. It's a film by folks who actually care about the medium. People who reached into thier broke ass pockets, pulled out thier nickles and dimes, threw caution to the wind and made a damn good movie.
Check this one out.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a decent little flick made in Michigan, about a guy that is haunted by his past, with his abusive stepfather (Gunnar Hansen) and has grown up not-so-well-adjusted. In fact, he's absolutely bonkers, but tries not to be too obvious. He's got an entourage too, his own little demon & angel that follow him around. The demon never says a word but really, doesn't have to, and he's Max Schreck-creepy. Let's just say that the angel pretty much spins his wheels in this, as Eric is busy doing things that make him feel better, like \"freeing\" people that he decides need it, mostly beautiful young women. This is a decent portrayal of madness, and you're kind of on your own at some point to figure out some of what's going on, but overall, I watched this from start to finish very focused on the film because it definitely held my interest. It's a little lacking in some areas but nothing I can really lay my finger on. A decent effort and worth seeing IF you like serial killer flicks.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"Hatred of a Minute\" is arguably one of the better films to come out of Michigan in recent years. Not to say that it's a brilliant film by any means, but it's definitely worth a watch.
\"Hatred\" chronicles the sordid adventures of Eric Seaver (played by director Kallio), a formerly abused child now grown up, and starting to listen to his evil side.
\"Hatred\" is very nice visually. The shots are creative, and the lighting is approporiately moody and interesting to look at. This film actually has an element of production value to it, unlike other recent Michigan releases like \"Dark Tomorrow\" and \"Biker Zombies.\" Subtle dolly shots and stylized shot composition show good use of this film's $350,000 budget.
However, \"Hatred\" stumbles in the same places that so many other local films do, and that's in the story and character department. Essentially, things just kind-of happen. Eric Seaver doesn't evolve at all. Basically, he's always been crazy, it's just that people are starting to notice. The film just wanders along its merry way with very little development. Also, the ending is very abrupt.
However- since this is a horror film, since when do we care about plot? We just want to see people die, and \"Hatred\" certainly delivers. As the body count mounted, people in the theater started cheering \"Kill her! Kill em' all!\" When people scream back at the screen, it's always fun.
That's the place where \"Hatred\" succeeds. It's fun. And in the end, that's all that really matters.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI thought I should qualify my position after reading other reviews. The movie is not great, but it has a lot of great elements. The lighting and scenes along with the camera work are great. The story is slow and weak, but entertaining. The acting is bad, but no worse than you will find on the SyFy Channel. The music is pretty good and the gore is good. It has the great Leather Face in the film and is produced by Bruce Campbell. I watched the complete movie and while mostly predictable, it was still enjoyable. The women are attractive enough and the lead actor does a good job of being brooding and creepy. The movie was remarkably clean for a modern film and the violence appropriate for children 13 and up. There was no sex scenes. I gave it 7 out of 10 and I think that is fair. I would watch it again if I had nothing better to do. The gay sounding angel was the most annoying aspect of the film, the devil is quite creepy.
\n
assistant\n1
\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 been wanting to see cut since the day i have heard of it, which was sometime last year. Anyway i got to see today, and when the movie started i thought that it started rather week but it got better after 10 mins or so. I thought that the movie was pretty good. but the thing i didn't like was how the killer was created, i was thinking just before i rented that it would probably suck just like Urban legends: final cut, i almost died it. mostly everything in UL final cut needed to be improved. CUT is 100 times better than UL:final cut. The best part of CUT is the killer and the death scenes. The killer kicks MO F***ING ASS.
i give cut a 8 out of 10
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nPersonally, I enjoyed Cut thouroughly. It was the first time I've seen a theatrically release Australian slasher flick. A genre normally restricted to the mainstream hollywood films.
With all the usual cooky comedies and dramas coming out of Australia I loved being able to see a homegrown horror movie that wasn't a rip off of anything. I didn't even think it was really a spoof of other movies. It was a supernaturally theme horror like Nightmare on Elm Street, not Scream or I know What You Did Last Summer and therefore there was more of a suspension of disbelief. I think it's about time Australian films tried to get more into the mainstream genres.
Cut was original, scary enough and ultimately just a bit of fun. I'd give it seven out of ten and wouldn't treat it as anything serious. It did what I expected it to do, entertain and scare me enough times to be satisfying. I enjoyed it.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this movie with a bunch of friends and although only two of us walked out of the cinema thinking how cool it was, the others just laughed and commented on how stupid it was. Well that was because it isn't supposed to be taken so seriously, basically it is a a movie that mocks horror flicks and does a damn good job.. There seems to be another movie coming out like that too, umm... Scary Movie?? Well this is Aussie, and original!!! Jessica Napier does a surperb performance and Sarah Kants has a definate bright future in acting! I hope to see more of them. Molly Ringwald was a good move, and Kylie was an even better move. The Impossible Princess was Queen of the screen!! I recommend seeing this flick, as you'll be guessing until the very end the connection with Raffy, Hilary and The movie that never got finished 20 years ago.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was really excited about seeing this film. I thought finally Australia had made a good film.. but I was wrong.
This was the most pathetic attempt at a slasher film ever. I feel sorry for Molly Ringwald having to come all the way to Australia to make an awful movie.
The acting was terrible (especially that Australian guy who was trying to speak in an American accent), and the plot was also pretty bad.
When I first heard about this film coming out, I thought that the title was pathetic (because it sounds like the cheesy film \"Stab\" in Scream 2), but I was willing to let it slide if it was a good movie.
WARNING!!! MAJOR SPOILERS!!!
Probably the worst thing about the film was the ending. I was expecting a big surprise about who the killer was.. but the killer wasn't even human.. which turned this realistic slasher film into an awful horror movie.
Don't see this film.. you'll probably be disappointed!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAustralia's first mainstream slasher film hits the screen with a bang. And a stab. And a slice. And a scream or two. And plenty of blood, frights, red herrings and lots of laughs.
In fact, there's lots of first surrounding Cut - it's the first script of Dave Warner's to be produced, although he has several others either optioned or in negotiation; it's the first major film from director and former Hoodoo Guru Kimble Rendall; and it's also the first film for producer Martin Fabinyi. And for a bunch of guys dipping their toes into this genre for the first time, they sure know their stuff.
Cut tells the story of a bunch of Australian film students who hear about a slasher film, Hot Blooded, that was never finished because its director, Hilary (Kylie Minogue), was killed by the actor playing the psycho killer in the film.
Despite their lecturer (who was assistant director on the night Hilary died) warning them that whenever someone tries to start up production of Hot Blooded again someone dies, director Raffy (Jessica Napier) and producer Hester (Sarah Kants) decide to go ahead and complete the film. They put together a crew and manage to get the original star, Vanessa Turnbill (Molly Ringwald), to return to Australia - in fact, to the original location - to complete Hot Blooded  14 years after shooting shut down.
Of course, this being a slasher film, lots of bloodletting ensues  long with plenty of laughs, a few good scares and a rocking Aussie soundtrack. Cut shows that Australia can make a good, mass-market horror film just as well as Hollywood.
It's a finely crafted feature, with excellent special effects, a taut plot and a killer - Scarman - that's a welcome addition to the ranks of Michael, Jason and Freddy.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"