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\nIs rich, ailing Elizabeth Taylor courting the Angel of Death on her island fortress in the Mediterranean, or is she just overreacting--or more precisely, overacting--as usual? Actually, both are applicable in director Joseph Losey's wandering, meandering mess called \"Boom\", appropriately titled since tempers in the lush, luxurious setting are nearly ready to explode. Richard Burton climbs Taylor's mountain uninvited; she dresses him in a samurai's robe complete with saber. Though great-looking in widescreen, the picture is otherwise quite deadly, a failure even Liz 'n Dick-philes should shun (the stars' collective \"what the hell!\" attitude to their late-'60s film careers reached an ego-mad nadir here). Pointless, confused, and maddening, \"Boom\" is a catastrophe--although screenwriter Tennessee Williams, who adapted his own unsuccessful play \"The Milk Train Doesn't Stop Here Anymore\", was said to be quite fond of it! * from ****
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have an awful pan-and-scan videotape of \"Boom!\", and I want to see it in all its widescreen glory. So I voted \"1\" and hope you will too. Together, we can pull this movie down into the pits of cinematic dross, and hope that someone will see an opportunity for BIG MONEY in releasing \"Boom!\" in its Director's Cut Extended Version. The movie is one of my howling favoritesyou just look at the people involved, the director, the actors, the cameraman, and you say to yourself, \"Yep, I guess you can fool some of the people for a lot of time.\" Producers considering the DVD release of \"Boom!\" should note that, everywhere it's been shown, there have been sellout crowds in the theaters. But it hasn't been up to Frostbite Falls yet.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe movie appeals to public due to charisma of Ben Stiller and notoriety of J. Aniston. It seems that we have here a recipe for a successful title, but there's nothing successful in this movie.
Polly is very well played by Aniston, no doubt. This is the kind of character which suits her perfectly.
Bem Stiller is the same troublesome guy like in \" Meet the parents\", but in this movie the comic scenes are few compared to the title mentioned above.
The script is very poor with nothing special at all. With this two well payed actors the things could get a lot better - but what can they do when there is such a poor story and script.
4 out of 10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI realize several Ben Stiller movies are out or will be out this year, but perhaps he should insist on quality, not quantity.
I was dumbfounded at what the filmmakers thought passed for comedy in \"Along Came Polly.\"
Stiller's Reuben is grating, charmless and ranks as one of the worst performances of the year. Stiller's schtick is getting tiresome. He undoubtedly has comic talent, but he needs to either find another schtick or take a break, find some material that is actually funny. Because his movies are going from painfully humorless to excruciatingly bad.
There's absolutely no chemistry between Stiller and Jennifer Aniston, which is a shame because she's a good, smart actress with a promising career. As long as she keeps making more movies such as \"The Good Girl\" (in which she's terrific) and less like \"Along Came Polly,\" she'll have a career of which she could be proud.
Aniston tries desperately to overcome the limp material with which she's working, but it's a daunting task for any actress. With the exception of a few moments with Alec Baldwin, as Reuben's boss Stan, and Philip Seymour Hoffman, as Reuben's best friend Sandy, there's nothing funny in this awful film. Other supporting characters, including Debra Messing as Lisa and Hank Azaria as Claude, are annoying. Azaria's accent is not only stupid, it's terribly unfunny.
The premise of \"Along Came Polly\" certainly showed promise. Unfortunately, it needed a writer who could actually turn it into a good comedy, instead of this lame, dull, boring excuse for a comedy.
\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 saw this for free, thankfully, and wish it was better than it was, but it's really the same old stuff that movie studios seem to foist on us in the last ten years.
Ben Stiller and Jennifer Anniston play a couple who are opposites- and yet they are attracted to each other.
If that plot line doesn't take you by surprise and thrill you, the movie won't either.
Lots of sight gags and fart jokes. Halfway through the movie I began to realize that Ben Stiller really isn't that funny, but he tries VERY hard. And Jennifer Anniston really isn't that pretty, but her HAIR looks great. And Hank Azaria and Phillip Seymore Hoffman must have got paid a great deal of money to be in this kind of average ho-hum movie, I've come to expect more from them.
What was interesting was that I saw this after I saw American Splendor, which is a truly funny and original movie- and I compared the two in my head, and found myself wishing that the movie executives would be forced to sit through those two movies back to back- perhaps that would knock some sense into them and
they'd start making better movies with unknowns rather than this formulaic stuff that plays best on airplanes.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen. The DVD was given to me free with an order I placed online for non DVD related items.
No wonder they were given away, surely no one could part with money for this drivel.
How some reviewers can say they found it hilarious beggars belief, the person who includes it in the worst five films ever has got it spot on.
How on earth a talented actor like Philip Seymour Hoffman could get involved in this rubbish is unbelievable. Mostly toilet humour and badly done at that.
Anyone wanting to be entertained should avoid this at all costs.
\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\nOkay, I absolutely LOVE Ben Stiller, although I am lukewarm about Jennifer Aniston. I do not think this girl can act in the least. Every movie or sitcom I've seen her in is very hard to get past her fake acting. It sounds like she is just standing there reading right off the script. This movie only had one good thing about it, and that's that Ben Stiller was in it. This plot is so used and abused it's ridiculous. How many movies have this same type of plot?? Can we say \"Forces of Nature??\" Not only is the plot so old, but the outcome is so predictable, it's boring. I knew everything that was going to happen before it did. It was a bore, but watching Stiller is always a delight!!!
\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\nMake no bones about it. There are a lot of things wrong with this movie. It's clichéd the whole way, not very funny, predictable, and illogical. Let's start at the beginning: characters. There's the boring, luckless guy - giving Stiller another notch in his boring, luckless guy belt - the allegedly wild, but in reality just fairly normal, love interest - whom Aniston plays well, but really needed no effort to do so - the fat, jovial friend, and then the assortment of clichés: an annoying daredevil Australian guy, a confident Spanish guy, etc. The storyline: the beginning is slightly unusual, but thereafter goes into the standard any-movie style, with every plot turn as predictable as your average knock-knock joke. The biggest problem was that Stiller's character's \"development\" really seemed to come from nothing - like your average school play, the writers knew where he started and where he ended, but didn't put enough stock into properly telling the middle bit. Finally, the alleged 'jokes' were nothing but highly watered down versions of standard gross-out humour; there was a regulation chunder scene, sweaty fat men, etc.
In conclusion, the simple fact about this movie is that learning the meaning of the word 'shart' was the only good thing. Hamburg really dished up a dog's dinner here, and the sugar coating of Stiller and Aniston may have lured the viewers, but the taste left at the end was just as rancid.
Final comment: This film may have been dreadful, but Aniston still picked a better between-Friends-seasons movie than Kudrow's odious 'Marci X.'
\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 offers absolutely no imagination in it's premise nor in it's execution but these are just two things that come to mind after watching this so-called comedy that has no energy to speak of. Story is about nit-picky over analytical insurance risk manager Reuben Feffer (Ben Stiller) who finds his new wife Lisa (Debra Messing) cheating on him with a scuba instructor (Hank Azaria) after only one day on their honeymoon. Upon returning home Reuben and his best friend Sandy (Philip Seymour Hoffman) go to a party and run into Polly Prince (Jennifer Aniston) whom they went to school with years earlier.
*****SPOILER ALERT***** Polly is forgetful and sloppy and lives carefree which is the opposite of who Reuben is as a person but they start to date and Reuben starts to change as a person as he starts to try out new things such as salsa dancing and eating spicy foods. But one day Lisa comes back and wants to remain married to Reuben but he really doesn't want to but Polly decides to leave as she doesn't believe in marriage to begin with.
This film is the second directing effort by John Hamburg who wrote two generally unfunny screenplays in \"Zoolander\" and \"Meet the Parents\" but those two films seem like classics compared to this stale piece of drivel. It's very easy to say something is not funny but I think with this film it's even easier to figure out why. This film is totally and utterly predictable from start to finish with every scene looking as if it's only happening because of the ridiculousness of the script. Hamburg who also wrote the script seems to have written this without any thought of trying something different and at times he seems to be trying to generate the same energy as \"There's Something About Mary\" but instead the events seem incredibly forced. Did anyone really think the blind ferret was funny? If you do, your easy! A few times during the film characters would inexplicably have these emotional speeches that are supposed to summarize everything but all they achieve is overstating the obvious. Stiller works a lot but maybe he should work less and just wait for the better scripts to come his way because this film doesn't work as a comedy or as a romance.
\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\nConsidering the potential this move had, the reality was disappointing. While it's always nice to see Jennifer Aniston in a movie, even that couldn't turn this around. Most of the action was predictable. The jokes were flat to mildly amusing. And the characters were not very interesting. I wanted to like this film, but it just never happened. Ben Stiller was hilarious in \"There's Something about Mary\". Here it looks like he's just going thru the motions. If they have to lift plot points from \"Friends\", they should have known something was wrong. The toilet humor should have stayed in the closet :-).
Watch \"50 First Dates\" instead.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBen Stiller doesn't so much act as react. And he does it very well. He is very dependent on the comedy going on around him. In There's Something About Mary, the stand-up hair scene only works because of Stiller trying to keep a straight face. When he confronts Mary's other two suitors, he is the unfunniest guy in the room but the scene is hilarious.
In Along Came Polly, the formula breaks down for reasons that are difficult to fathom. Stiller is surrounded by an array of comic talent. Hank Azaria and Philip Seymour Hoffman get the best lines, of which there are too few. Having said that, Hoffman relies a little too much on bodily humour - you know we are in trouble when they go to the fart jokes to raise a laugh. A basketball scene where Hoffman hams it up is completely overplayed (though it throws up one predicament in the form of a shirtless opponent that does raise a smile - noticeably through Stiller's reaction). However, everyone seems to be acting in a bubble, there is very little reaction. Hoffman and Stiller's characters could have played off each other much, much more. Aniston again reprises her Rachael role, but Stiller is no Ross. It is more of a \"Joey with a crush on Rachael\" scenario.
Polly is a by-the-numbers rom-com and that is its failing - it lacks heart. You don't root for the characters. With a little bit more work we could have had a deeper story, but in the end the film's failure comes down to poor writing. Worth watching if it pops up on TV on a slow night, but you'll regret forking out cash to see 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\nWhen I saw that this movie was being shown on TV, I was really looking forward to it. I grew up in the 1980's and like everyone else who has grown up in that era, have seen every 80's teen and summer camp movie out there. So I couldn't wait to see this movie that totally spoofs that film genre. What a disappointment!! The movie was nothing but a bunch of really bad jokes and gags over and over, with hardly any plot and no substance. And the filmmakers attempts at dark humor totally failed-some of these so-called jokes didn't come across as anything but downright cruel and offensive. The only good things about this film were the wardrobe, music, and acting. It was nice to go on a nostalgia trip and see all of the summer clothing styles from the 80's, and the same goes for the music. And the acting was top-notch throughout: almost all of Hollywood's best comedians were present. Too bad they didn't have better material to work with.
\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 was dying to see this once I saw the ridiculous MEATBALLS poster and divined that it had to be the best satire ever. What a brilliant idea for a satire--the genre is rife. Unfortunately, the finished product (as I think all involved probably realize) is a catalogue of missed opportunities, not-quite-there performances and (thankfully!) a few extremely hilarious, inspired bits. Janeane Garafolo, who is very striking, looks really bad here, probably because she is uncomfortably struggling to make her flat role funny. David Hyde Pierce is just sad to watch, trying to hard to be funny and looking like a Castro nerd. Molly Shannon is so funny just SEEING her makes you laugh, but somehow her segment fails to snowball into something hysterical. Paul Rudd had great teen mannerisms and was sexy as hell, the other guys are also really funny (the nerdier ones). I think the problem is the director just doesn't move things along at the right pace. He starts out very deadpan, and that sets the monotone. But when he lets things get really outrageous (the drug sequence is the second funniest moment I've had all year in movies, the first also coming in a lame movie: Andrea Martin in ALL OVER THE GUY complaining about the movie IN & OUT), it's just plain funny. I wanted this movie to work so badly, but it just didn't. The clothes and styling for 1981 are 99.9% PERFECT, and the very few songs used are also perfect. This ends up as a medium-bad MAD TV episode, complete with frustratingly overlong sketches.
\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 IS A PIECE OF CRAP! not funny at all. during the whole movie nothing ever happens. i almost fell asleep, which in my case happens only if a movie is rally bad. (that is why it didn't get 1 (awful) out of 10 but 2).don't be fooled, like i was, by first review. a waste of money and your time! spend it on other stuff. at this point i'm finished with my review but i have to fill in at least ten lines of text so i will go on.... (ctrl+c, ctrl+v) :))) IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP! not funny at all. during the whole movie nothing ever happens. i almost fell asleep, which in my case happens only if a movie is rally bad. (that is why it didn't get 1 (awful) out of 10 but 2).don't be fooled, like i was, by first review. a waste of money and your time! spend it on other stuff. IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP! not funny at all. during the whole movie nothing ever happens. i almost fell asleep, which in my case happens only if a movie is rally bad. (that is why it didn't get 1 (awful) out of 10 but 2).don't be fooled, like i was, by first review. a waste of money and your time! spend it on other stuff.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you can believe it, *another* group of teens return to *another* lakeside cabin three years after *another* one of those fatal 'accidents' claimed one of their number. Low and behold, a psycho wearing a patterned hockey mask (a cheap papery one at that) turns up to waste them one by one. This mechanical 'Friday the 13th' knock off gained slight notoriety as one of the first digitally-shot features, but that's where the interesting facts end and all that remains is a predictable, amateur production with sub-par performances and a recurring boom-mic intrusion. A last-second twist does little to lift the spirits, and 'Memorial Day' is something best tossed in a lake and forgotten about. One for insane slasher collectors only.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have to say although this movie was formulaic throughout with a plot stolen from films like Friday the 13th/I Know What You Did Last Summer, this movie wasn't that bad. In fact it wasn't as bad as most of the Horror films Hollywood has released recently. The killings although at times a little too imaginative were in most instances just that, original. The cast was mediocre which is to be expected from low-budget features but much better than what that much bigger studio Artisan/Lions Gate has been offering. My only real complaint that wasn't due to the film's budget, which must have been small, was the contrived \"twist\" ending. I'm sorry but this is what put this film in the bad category for me. The ending was just stupid and tacked on. Before that I was a little bored, but actually enjoying it. 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\nThree years ago, Rachel(Therese Fretwell) was partying at the lake with her friends when her brother falls out of a boat and drowns. Rachel's friends think it is time for her to stop beating herself up and taking blame for something she had no control over. So grab the brew and something to chew and head back to the same lake that has been in Rachel's constant nightmares. As expected, a bloodbath has already started when two of the friends are splattered before even heading to the party. This flick has the feel of a high school play where everyone forgot their lines and 'winged it'...very badly! Writer Marcos Gabriel gave himself the meatier role as Rachel's boyfriend Leo. Outside of Fretwell and Gabriel there are some pretty lame acting and a few characters you would like to choke the crap out of before they get 'offed'. Giving attention to a few more players that had the nerve to appear: Erin Gallagher, Andrew Williams, Jasmine Trice and Derek Nieves. This is one MEMORIAL DAY you wouldn't mind missing.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst off, I had my doubts just looking at the DVD box and reading it saying that it was about of bunch of teens gathering at a lake where they will find do or something. Any movie that has a premise like this has failed miserably, even as a slasher movie, except for the first Friday the 13th.
I wanted to get up and stop watching the movie at least 10 times, but I just kept thinking that it had to get a little better. It didn't. Usually, I think every movie has something that you can take from it. This has nothing.
Do yourself a favor, and find something constructive to do for 80 minutes. Like, give yourself papercuts, or eat dirt.
\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 seems evident from this adaptation that he did not. Not only did he leave the plot behind, he made up his own! The things that he chose to leave in were so ridiculously unbelievable that I was happy he chose to leave out some of the most important parts of the novel. The plot was hazy, inconsistent and choppy to say the least. I don't want to say anything mean-spirited about the actors, but they can't act! Dickens is difficult, of course, but this is pathetic! Micawber was nothing more than a mid-nineteenth century Kramer, and the less said about Betsy Trotwood the better! If you want to see the real Copperfield, watch the wonderful 1999 BBC adaptation. As for the screenplay writer,I think he read the Cliff's Notes!
\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 wouldn't recommend this unless you're keen on David Copperfield and want to \"complete the set\". There are some good performances (e.g. Uriah Heep) and well directed moments (e.g. the beating), but on the whole it really pales in comparison with the 1999 BBC version, as well as earlier versions.
There are inexplicable changes to the story that really serve no great purpose except, possibly, to dumb it down (the stolen jewels being a case in point). The American cast were poorly chosen: Sally Field is a good actress, but she is wrong as Betsy Trotwood, and her English accent is only slightly better than Dick Van Dyke's cockney. I can see why Michael Richards was chosen to play Mr Micawber; he hams it up rather too much, however, and becomes irritating. He also speaks his lines in an accent that goes beyond eccentric and becomes simply preposterous. Anthony Andrews is menacing as Mr Murdstone, but one almost expects him to don a black cape and tie David's mother to a railway line (though this is perhaps partly the fault of Dickens).
I got this for free with a newspaper. It helped pass a Sunday afternoon, but I felt more disappointed than charmed at the end of it
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm guessing the writers have never read a book of any kind, much less a Dickens novel, and certainly not David Copperfield, and that they based their screenplay on another poorly written screenplay, possibly an adaptation of Copperfield, though just as likely anything else, from which they randomly discarded about a third of the pages and then shuffled the rest, along with some random pages from a screenplay that someone's eighth grade nephew had written for an English class, and for which he had received a failing grade.
If the casting was a bad joke - e.g., Richards as Kramer playing Micawber - which it was, then the direction and acting were the poorly- delivered punch lines. Getting beyond Kramer as Micawber, if possible, Ham was such a complete ogre, hunch-back and all, that I was half expecting at some point to see him being pursued by an angry pitch-fork and torch wielding mob of villagers. Uriah was almost as much of a clown figure as Micawber. Mr. Murdstone evoked about as much terror as that Muppet vampire from Sesame street. The actor playing older David was, I believe, actually a woman. In any case, looking perpetually as if he wished he could find a mirror to see how pretty he looked, and fancied that he looked quite pretty indeed, he could scarcely convince us that he was writing with a quill pen. And while we're on that subject, in one of the many gross inaccuracies perpetrated by the half-wit producers of this embarrassment, in the unnecessary shots of David writing his story he appears to be somewhere between 18 and 21 years old, when he should be in his forties. Perhaps the greatest transgression, although it's difficult to choose, was the invented showdown between David and Murdstone as he courted a third wife in Switzerland, preceded of course by the invented death of Murdstone's second wife. While they were at it it is a wonder they didn't send Heep to the guillotine, and have him deliver Sidney Carton's famous last words. It couldn't have made things much worse really. It might have been far far better.
There are literally thousands of small and large sins against literature throughout this miscarriage of art, and anyone who watches it runs the risk of severe and permanent damage to all aspects of their sensibility.
\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\nRight up until the end the bad guys have the upper-hand - always - which kind of put into question the competence of the good guys. A couple of innocent-man-accused-of-a-crime plots are irritating. Some unnecessary dialogue in which various dull legal issues get debated. This is just a mediocre dumb old western, so what's this nonsense about trying to keep things \"realistic\"? Cagney's atypical presence in a western is one of the few - if not the only - entertaining thing about the movie. Somewhere around the middle there is a ridiculously-timed marriage proposal; sort of like \"Where is the Kid hiding??!! Where is he?!... Oh, and by the way, will you marry me?\"
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere are so many goofy things about this movie that I can't possibly name but a few:
BOGART's character: 1. His name  Whip McCord (too easy, so I'll leave it at that. Boy, it makes `Humphrey' sound good.) 2. His long, curly hair and silly sideburns. 3. His Black Bart get-up, complete with spurs! 4. Not sure what shade of lipgloss they've got him wearing, but it ain't none too flattering.
CAGNEY's character (Jim Kincaid ): 1. His lipstick doesn't do him any favors, either. 2. The man is being swallowed by his hat during the entire film! Could they not find a hat to fit him? Even a LITTLE?!!?! 3. His pants are too tight in the rear. 4. He blows the smoke off his gun one too many times, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.
If you are a casual Bogart or Cagney fan, and figure it might be a change of pace to see them in a western, do yourself a favor and forget that thought. EVEN THE HORSES LOOK EMBARRASSED! (That is, when they don't look bored.)
In all fairness, I admit that westerns are my least favorite film genre, but I've still seen much, MUCH better than this.
On a comedy level, or as high camp, The Oklahoma Kid works. Otherwise, it's viewer beware. Therefore, see this only if a) you must see every western out there b) you are a TRUE Cagney or Bogie completist c) any of the above comments appeal to you. Woah..
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn Hollywood in the 1930's and 1940's, I think that every studio can make a western, except Warner bros. The few times they try, it always ridiculous (except, perhaps, for They Died with their Boots on - which is a cavalery western.) I have read that Humphrey Bogart, seing James Cagney with this big cowboy hat on his head, said that he looks like a mushroom. True! Cagney and Bogart are too urban, too XXe century to be credible in a western movie. The story here had no suprise, and it did't help. Every 10 minutes, I figure I can see Bogart and Cagney drops their little guns and put hands in a machine gun to get away from the set in a 1930's black car.
\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 started watching this movie expecting some barely tolerable Hammer horror film wannabe... and I wasn't far off. There's a fair amount of glimpsed gore, and they threw in lots of nudity, but the latter half of the movie presents a few ironic twists. Holy cow, they actually put a little thought into the story, and didn't completely fall into the predictable stuff one expected at the outset. And dare I say it, some of the \"gratuitous\" nudity wasn't so gratuitous after all, because it fit in with the story and setting.
Don't get me wrong, it's still overall a bad movie, but as bad movies go, it's a shade more intelligent than the REALLY horrible tripe like Mesa of Lost Women and Robot Monster.
\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\nMan, what the hell were the people who made this film on? And more importantly where can I get some? The opening scene sets the tone for the film: a woman writhing naked in a circle of fire, transforming into a werewolf. And this is no Rick Baker 'American werewolf' transformation, folks. We're talking some of the worst makeup ever captured on film here. I can just imagine some stoned Italian spreading glue on naked Annik Borel (who plays Daniela, the film's protagoness (is that a word?)), and asking her to roll in fur. That's how bad it is.
From here on in it doesn't get much better. Minutes are wasted as the scenery chewing male actors waffle on about Daniela and her condition or something (I can't remember, but the dialogue is so bad if you don't laugh at it you'll cry).
The funny thing is Daniela isn't even a werewolf, she's a psycho who goes mental whenever there is a man around (understandable, as she was raped as a child) so she thinks she becomes a werewolf like her ancestor (the opening scene). She can't help but tear out the throat of every man she meets, and she only wants to be loved! Things start looking up for Daniela as she meets and falls in love with a buff stuntman who doesn't trigger her 'episodes'. Check out the montage here, one of the cheesiest you'll ever see (laughing and hugging after diving headfirst through a window).
Daniela's luck doesn't hold out as the film takes a brutal turn, she is suddenly viciously beaten and raped by a group of thugs who kill the stuntman. Reminiscent of \"I spit on your grave\", Daniela extracts bloody vengeance on her rapists.
This is 100 minutes of my life I will never get back. But hey, that's the game you play when you're a film geek.
\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 listen to the misleading title \"Werewolf Woman\". The Europeans are well known for putting an emphasis on sex and nudity over actual scares in their horror films, but this one here is just a bit too much. \"Werewolf Woman\" seems to have a sleazy sex scene copped off with the title character going crazy and brutally killing her partner. Fun the first few times, but a hundred minutes of this becomes very monotonous quickly. Shes not even a werewolf, but a schizo chick whose ancestor was hanged for lycanthropy. The film can't even decide its tone, with the first ten minutes (a flashback) being legitimate supernatural horror (I thought I was in for a trash classic after these) to a rather poor character study of the female being repeatedly abused and tortured to a revenge thriller. At the end, the director insists this is based on a true story. Yeah, all right.
To be fair, there are a few entertaining aspects of the production. The title werewolf woman is a looker and there are a few nice gore effects and nude scenes. However, these become rather monotonous quickly. Also, the dubbed dialog is pretty hilarious in a camp fashion, especially the worlds most swinging doctor (he drinks on the job). Unfortunately, the film becomes pretty irritating fast. There's no actual plot or anything else really. Its a shame, because reading a description I felt the film had some real potential. \"Werewolf Woman\" is far overlong, slow moving, and a bit too pointless, even by the standards of the exploitation genre. (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\n\"La Lupa Mannara\" aka. \"Werewolf Woman\" of 1976 is a film with a highly promising title, but, sadly, the film itself is pretty far away from being a must-see for my fellow Italian Horror buffs. You won't hear me say that Rino Di Silvestri's film is entirely bad - it has its stylish moments, and the first half is actually great fun to watch (though the fun is unintentional). The film also profits from an exceptionally exhibitionist leading actress, Annik Borel. However, the film, which has no real plot (at least no linear one) often makes no sense at all, and it drags incredibly throughout the mostly superfluous second half.
Daniella (Annik Borel) has strange dreams about a dancing around naked in the night before turning into a Werewolf Woman. Since she was a raped as a girl, Daniella is afraid of men. Then, when her sister (cult siren Dagmar Lassander) comes to visit with her husband, Daniella suddenly feels attracted to the husband and subsequently turns into a Werewolf Woman herself... or something. The storyline really doesn't make the slightest sense, which makes the film a lot of fun to watch throughout the first half. The leading character Daniella is some schizophrenic mixture of frigid hysteric and lusty nymphomaniac, who occasionally turns into a werewolf woman. Director Di Silvestri chose to make up for the plot-holes with a lot of of female nudity, which works fine for me. There are also some pretty well-done gore moments. The film is never even slightly suspenseful or creepy, but it is very entertaining in the beginning. Also, there are no attempts to hide that this is a slice of sleaze, the camera often does close-ups on the Miss Borel's private parts for the simple heck of it. I'm not complaining. Then, for some reason, Di Silvestri chose to make the film longer by completely changing the direction in which it was going. While Daniella is, at first, a typical werewolf, who cannot help but follow the urges of her curse, this suddenly changes when she meets a guy (Howard Ross, who was in Fernando Di Leo's \"Il Boss\" of 1973). Suddenly, she goes back to normal again, and the subsequent part of the film does not at all go in hand with the first half. It gets pretty damn boring after a while; all things considered, it probably would have been better for this 99 minute film to be only 70 minutes long. At the end, they even want to make us believe that the absurd story (if one can call it that) is based on true events. \"Werewolf Woman\" has some redeeming qualities; my fellow Italo-Horror fans can give it a try. However, if you wanna watch Italian Horror/Exploitation cinema from the 70s, there are hundreds of films that you should see before seeing 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\nThis Italian film from the '70's is NOT even in the class with Dog Soldiers, The Howling, or even that awful American Werewolf in Paris, BUT...it is fun to watch. I'm talking about watching the lead actress, a stunning blonde, run amok in her birthday suit. We're talking about graphic, complete nudity...it's obvious that she is a real blonde...humma humma humma!! The story is a hoot, the SFX are childish, and the acting (for the most part) stinks. The only redeeming value of this movie is all (and there is a LOT) the nudity & sex scenes. Tame by HBO standards, but still fun to see when you find yourself without a date on Saturday night. OK...HERE'S THE SPOILER...There is NO werewolf (except in the opening scene of the heroine(??)'s ancestor. The girl just imagines that she's a werewolf...in other words, a clinical Lycanthrope.
\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 thing I noticed in this movie of course, was the unnecessary amount of nudity. It's not oozing nudity or anything, but a lot that was not needed. Annik Borel plays a disturbed woman believing her families ghost stories that her ancestor who eerily resembles her was a werewolf, and believes their fate are destined to be the same. Which actually I found quite interesting. The original Wolf Man was intended to be a completely psychological movie, but Universal threw in the actual Wolf man you were never supposed to see for n extra buck or two. I find this concept of someone not really being a werewolf interesting. Unfortunately this is not the film I was searching for.
Instead we know shes not a werewolf from the beginning, so there's no thrill or twist, also they attempt to make the film seem like a this really happened scenario. They fail there too adding one or two parts of the film referring to this being reality. At first I was excited upon reading the description of the film. But I slowly realized it was a cover just so they could expose the main characters breasts as often as possible.
Annik Borel is either a decent actor playing a great psychotic role, or a really bad actor playing a psychotic role. Since the character Danniele has no brains and is just a nut who runs around insane and snarling and snapping like a wolf, it takes little skill to play. She has moments were her performance breaks through for a creepy moment but is quickly ruined by the poor camera work and light. The idea is great, but hideously executed throughout the film. 3/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"A young woman suffers from the delusion that she is a werewolf, based upon a family legend of an ancestor accused of and killed for allegedly being one. Due to her past treatment by men, she travels the countryside seducing and killing the men she meets. Falling in love with a kind man, her life appears to take a turn for the better when she is raped and her lover is killed by a band of thugs. Traumatized again by these latest events, the woman returns to her violent ways and seeks revenge on the thugs,\" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.
Rino Di Silvestro's \"La lupa mannara\" begins with full frontal, writhing, moaning dance by shapely blonde Annik Borel, who (as Daniella Neseri) mistakenly believes she is a werewolf. The hottest part is when the camera catches background fire between her legs. The opening \"flashback\" reveals her hairy ancestor was (probably) a lycanthropic creature. Ms. Borel is, unfortunately, not a werewolf; she is merely a very strong lunatic.
As a film, \"Werewolf Woman\" (in English) would have been better if Borel's character really was a female werewolf; with her sexual victimization a great bit of characterization. But, as far as 1970s skin and blood flicks go, this one is hard to beat. Bouncy Borel is either nude or sexily clad throughout the film, which features a fair amount of gratuitous gore. Dazzling Dagmar Lassander (as Elena) and hunky Howard Ross (as Luca) are good supporting players.
\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\nDaniella has some issues brewing under her attractive exterior. She starts to lose her mind when she finds out about a distant relative (who she resembles) that was burned for being a werewolf. She goes a bit feral when she beads horny men and slashes out their throats. She does eventually find a man that helps contain her inner beast but when others ruin their bliss she extracts her violent and furry revenge.
'Werewolf Woman' isn't a very goof film but it does pose as a good crowd film. A fun time could be had by harping the bad acting / dubbing / translation and the just plain cheesiness of the production. But on it's own it moves slowly but does have ample nudity to keep you awakebarely.
\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 ends with a speech in which the narrator tells us the fates of two of the lead characters and that the names of people and places have been changed...before telling us that relation to actual people and events are purely coincidental. This ending line actually sums up everything that has gone before it; as Rino Di Silvestro's messy film completely lacks vision, and if there is any point to the plot; it wasn't put there on purpose. Werewolf Woman is often seen as a guilty pleasure or a 'so bad it's good' film, but I completely disagree. Normally, I enjoy films like this; but Werewolf Woman is indeed a bad film, and despite all the sex and savagery on display; it doesn't even make for a fun watch, and that really is unforgivable. The film really doesn't have much plot, but the thin sliver we are given involves a young woman, who also happens to dream that she is a werewolf. She dreams of going out and finding men, having sex with them and eventually killing them. Back in the real world, she falls in love, but her lover is killed and she goes out for revenge...
The film is made up of scenes of sex and gore, which are padded out with extremely dull talking sequences in which various characters mull over the recent events. These scenes are probably there to forward the plot and build characters; but they really don't do that, and succeed only in turning what could have been a passable exploitation romp into an extremely underwhelming film. It would seem that the director was more interested in style and atmosphere than the plot, and this is shown by the fact that the film looks and sounds nice. The sex scenes are often overlong and not very erotic, but the gore works well. The premise is ripe for giving way to a very sexy slice of exploitation, as there's plenty of naked women, and the fact that the central character has a werewolf origin means that there could be plenty of erotica; but this isn't capitalised on, and while I can stomach huge doses of bad acting and poorly done plot lines, I really can't stand watching films and being bored. Overall, I wouldn't even recommend this film to big exploitation fans. There's plenty of better stuff than this out there, and while the title may sound intriguing - the film isn't.
\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\nVery strange but occasionally elegant exploitation movie with no real story, but benefiting from its stunningly ravishing lead actress and a handful of nice, gruesome make-up effects. Daniella is a beautiful twenty-something girl, carrying with her the trauma of being raped at the age of 13. Nightmares and hallucinations lead her further into believing she's the reincarnation of a female ancestor who was said to be a werewolf. She kills her brother-in-law during a nightly encounter and gets submitted in a hospital. She escapes again, however, and randomly devours more men whilst on the run for police detectives, doctors and relatives. It's all pretty to look at and listen too (really great soundtrack), but the absence of plot and continuity become irritating quite fast. Luckily enough, leading lady Annik Borel rarely ever wears clothes and she fills up the boring moments by dancing naked around a fire. The film is too long, too weird and too forgettable. The biggest surprise comes at the end, when suddenly and out of the blue, director Rino Di Silvestro tries to make us believe that his movie was based on true facts. Yeah, right...
\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\nLet me begin by saying I am a big fantasy fan. However, this film is not for me. Many far-fetched arguments are trying to support this film's claim that dragons possibly ever existed. The film mentions connections in different stories from different countries, but fails to investigate them more thoroughly, which could have given the film some credibility. The film uses (nice!) CGI to tell us a narrated fantasy story on a young dragon's life. This is combined with popular-TV-show-CSI-style flash-forwards to make it look like something scientific, which it is definitely not. In many cases the arguments/clues are far-fetched. In some cases, clues used to show dragons possibly existed, or flew, or spit fire are simply invalid. To see this just makes me get cramp in my toes. Even a fantasy film needs some degree of reality in it, but this one just doesn't have it. Bottom line: it's a pretentious fantasy-CSI documentary, not worth watching.
\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 documentary (or I should say mockumentary) is the perfect example of how ridiculous can the people be, when they have full enthusiasm on something like that. Honestly, I hate Cryptozoology. It is unscience, it just destroy it. However, something positive in this was the visual effects (dragons were beautiful), but some of the information in this mockumentary was totally fake, and that is really disappointing because it was coming from scientists, so that is the reason why it deserves a 1 of 10 and not a 0. An example of false information would be the hydrogen idea: It is true that, according to Chemystry, the hydrogen is produced in the stomach but it is impossible to be produced in that proportions, so in that case, you need a good explanation of what really happens in a dragon stomach. There are a lot of substances whit hydrogen in the nature but not the necessary to aloud an animal like that to fly, and the hydrogen does not appear from nothing, so it is impossible. Anyway, there is actually something worse, the idea of the platinum: This element is more difficult to find than gold, and I cannot explain myself how dragons survive depending of that. It is ridiculous, they present dragons like creatures with low chances of conquering the planet Earth, but off course at least that explain why they got extincted. Probably cryptologist's call themselves scientists, but they are not. People like them say lies like in this mockumentary, and what is worst, some people buy them. But I do not think that a person who cares about Science would believe in dragons after watching this. Those fake scientists waste their time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"