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\nI haven't seen the first two - only this one which is called Primal Species in England. I don't think I'll be bothering to look them out though.
This is an awful film. Terrible acting, bad dialogue, cheap rubber monsters. Everything about it is so nasty. The most sympathetic characters die really quickly and leave you with the annoying ones, especially one called Polchak, who is an incredible jerk. No-one like that would survive 5 minutes in the army. He lasted for ages but I was pleased when he finally got his head got chewed off - I was having nightmares he was going to survive. The Colonel was rubbish too - all moody pouts and clueless shouting. And the specky Doctor looked and acted like she was out of a porno. I was waiting for her to take her glasses off, shake her hair and turn into a vamp, but she didn't. Pity that, as it would've livened the film up no end.
Didn't Roger Corman used to make half decent films once?
\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\nArg. The shuffling dinosaurs are back to take another bite out of our sanity in this all-awful third film. This time, European terrorists(Irish I'd say) hi-jack an army convoy supposed to be transporting uranium. They pull into a shipyard, open the truck and discover our old friends the carnosaurs. Pandemonium comes visiting then when the rubber dinos chomp the terrorists, the cops and some marines. The whole film seems to be (again) largely inspired from Alien(as Carnosaur 2 was) with the pathetic marines going through the \"claustrophobic\" shipyard? guns at the ready. This third opus is probably the driest and ungoriest film of the lot, with only one spurt of blood when a rubber dino rips a marine's head off. The dinos are stiff, shuffling creatures as usual and the T-Rex sounds like an enraged elephant when it roars(it also appears to have no eyes). One of the goofiest scenes of the film is when the coppers arrive on the scene: they enter the building where the hijacked truck is kept and hear some weird noise coming from another truck. On opening it, surprise! The Rubber Reptile Gang burst out and devour them. Why were the dinos locked up in the second truck after escaping from the first? How did they get locked in as the truck door could only be locked from the outside? What was the point of filming this scene???? Oh bother, who cares? Both thumbs down for the Over-sized Rubber Iguanas.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nLike all Carnosaur movies, this is a joke. The way the dinosaurs move, reminds me of when my sister plays with her dolls, because they cannot be any stiffer or more fake-looking than they were.
The plot had no sense whatsoever. I mean, first they're on a bus, then in a warehouse then, all of a sudden, they're on a boat. And let's be serious, does it make sense that a couple of dinosaurs can stay together on a van, or on a ship? I thought dinosaurs were the biggest animals, and now they can fit on a moving van. It sounds stupid even when you think about it.
The only reason for which I gave this a 3, is because it's still entertaining. I found it better than the first one (haven't watched the second yet). Just, don't rent it. I saw it on TV and it's a good thing I did because I wouldn't have wanted to waste money renting it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one of the funniest movies i've ever seen. I rented it as a joke, expecting to get a giggle out of the first few scenes, and let me just say I've never laughed so hard in my life. The first scene where ninjas randomly pop out of the air and start a huge and ridiculous fire fight is one of the most incredibly funny stupid action movie moments of my life. This is not a dinosaur movie, but more a movie that makes fun (and doesn't mean to at all) of the action genre. I didn't see the first two, but judging by the complexity of the plot, I don't think there's to much I missed. If you wanna see a movie that goes great with a six pack or any herbal remedy, than I insist you rent this movie and sit back and watch a 100 years of advancement in cinema get thrown in the trash and get shat on by carnosours
\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 this is your first time experiencing the wonders of cinema, if you've never seen a \"Moving Picture\" before, you'll think this movie is a child of the gods. BUT if you've seen a movie, a TV show, even Barney the Dinosaur, then you won't be very impressed by this film. Heck Barney the dinosaur was even more realistic than the dinos in this flick.
Now I like B movies. I just watched \"The Giant Gila Monster\" right before I watched this swill, and I liked that movie much better. It works as a B movie. It has lamer dialog,hokier acting, cheesier effects and an honest to gosh real Gila Monster as the monster! Carno 3 just doesn't pack much of a B movie punch. It has some gore, and that Polchek guy comes close to being funny a few times but this movie is underwhelming, almost....flaccid. It's the Little Engine That Couldn't of Dinosaur movies. I'm not saying you shouldn't watch the movie.
Some people can watch gum drying on a sidewalk and feel entertained. If you're one of those people, then give this movie a shot.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is the worst movie i have ever seen... it is humorous how bad it is.. the entire time i was watching it i half expected music to start and the doctor starts dancing..(i've seen porno's with a better plot) When the raptor was trying to get in the door i think someone was throwing a plastic doll against the door from about 2 feet away. But as i said it is so bad you need to watch it so that you can see just how bad it is me explaining it isn't going to do anything compared to if you watch it .. i don't recommend renting it but if it comes on TV watch it for about 30min just to see what i mean. I couldn't watch more than 30min but if you can sit through the whole thing then you have some good willpower
\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 general I like dinosaur movies but this one is pure crap. No script, no dialogues, no acting. And the brave colonel Rance trying to show he is tough and so curving his mouth resembles as a twin brother the stupid Proctor from the Police Academy. So this was a complete waste of time (fortunately not waste of money as I saw the film on TV). And I really cannot understand 7 people who graded this sh*t 10. They must've joked. My advice, if you see this title run from 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\nSome people might consider this movie a piece of artwork - to be able to express your imagination on film in order to create a movie filled with antagonizing pain and death.. I personally think that this movie is a disgust, which should have never been released. This movie is repulsive, illogical and meaningless. Not only is it a complete waste of time but it makes you sick for days to come. The appalling images shown in the film not only make you grasp for air but they set in your mind and it takes days to forget them. Such a shame that people waste their imagination on such inhumane suffering.. \"Kill Bill\" would be another example but at least \"Kill Bill\" has its purpose, meaning, climax and resolution..
\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 wasn't really fond of the first \"Cube\" movie. It was a good idea, but the annoying acting and characters always kept me from liking it too much. Didn't really feel the need to see its sequel but when I heard they were making a third movie that would act as more of a prequel to the original. I was intrigued, thinking that maybe they would fix some of the original's problems and provide us with a memorable cast of characters. Well I thought wrong.
\"Cube Zero\" starts well enough by introducing us with the two characters in charge of watching and maintaining the never-ending maze of traps that plagues the people in the Cube. The filmmakers succeed in providing a sense of mystery with the establishment of the two men's daily routine. Several questions are created from it, concerning the reason why people are send there and also the true nature of the ones who run the entire operation. All of which are left entirely to the viewer. The acting was a bit weak but all in all the movie's first half moved relatively well.
With the story moving on, one of the two \"watchers\" begins to develop serious doubts about what he is doing. And later decides to go and help a group of the people trapped. Here is where everything rapidly starts to dissolve into dull cheese.
Sent by the people who run the Cube program we are introduced to the character \"Jax\". Along with his two underlings play a major reason as to why this movie is failure. To start of \"Jax\" looks and talks more like a third rate villain taken directly from a James Bond movie complete with the ever \"popular\" glass eye, that alone ruins any atmosphere created by the first half's relatively nice pace. Whats more is that it begins to feel more like a comedy rather than a serious movie. With some incredibly corny lines, perhaps the screenwriter got bored and didn't care. The acting itself degrades to a further low when the former \"watcher\" meets the group in the Cube. The entire interaction is painful to watch as is everything else following it.
Again failing to impress on anything but weak characters, dialog and acting \"Cube Zero\" is a waste of time for those searching for a good horror movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIncredible. Does it get any dumber than this? Not a chance. The stupidity in this movie would shame even Ed Wood, De Palma, and Woo. If the first part in the series had mediocre dialog and the second one had bad dialog, then this one has cretinous dialog. Amazing. But this time the story has been lowered to the level of the dialog, too. In spite of the acting and the dialog, I liked the first two films, but \"Cube Zero\" will surely kill the franchise. The utterly moronic plot so obviously stems from the pen of a frustrated left-winger.
I sometimes wonder if such leftists even themselves realize just how anti-democracy and pro-dictatorship they are. In this movie they obviously target the US  a democracy. Why don't they target Korea, Iran, Syria, China, Zimbabwe etc. in anti-military movies? Sure, most of these places are hardly likely to produce a cube like this any time soon, but that's beside the point. It's obvious: writers of garbage like this actually admire these kinds of regimes, whether they are aware of it or not. I would even go as far as to say that ANYONE who adamantly attacks US foreign policies all the time, has anti-democratic beliefs in his core.
Back to the movie: apart from being so far-fetched that it isn't even funny any more, the film has many obvious illogicalities. For example, for some reason the two men who supervise the cube have done it for a while and are oblivious to the pain and sadism that the project entails, yet the first one than the other suddenly turn against the system! Anyone who has any idea at all about human nature will see right through this idiocy. Or how about that cretinous character, the one-eyed evil bureaucrat who talks as if he's in a bad Mel Brooks comedy. In fact, as soon as this creature appears the movie loses ALL seriousness and hence any chance of being exciting: it really does become 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\nPretty disappointing prequel to the first two films, it's got none of the suspense of the first nor the interest of the second. By concentrating on the guys who 'run' the cube, it basically takes away any of the sense of tension inside the cube, as we simply don't care about the characters inside. Much of the film is simply boring, and it only becomes truly terrible with the introduction of the glass-eyed superior and the green-eyed crazy marine. After that, though, it just descends into over-the-top unintentional hilarity. The ending is fitting though, tying it back into the first one in an indirect way. The script is terrible, the acting mediocre at best, and the direction unimpressive. A much lesser follow-up.
\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\nAs far as the movie goes, it's an OK science fiction movie. It has a lot of cool stuff in it, and some quality scenes. That said, it's not that good, and some of the stuff is pretty far fetched...
As for calling this another cube-movie is utter and complete bullsh!t. This is the very definition of milking a great and inventive original movie... The whole feel to it can be somewhat translated into the core of the first, but the introduction of people/androids as part of the \"team\" behind the cube itself is somewhat a stretch...
I gave this a 3*** because of the backstabbing of the original. This one should have been kept sterile in so many parts of the movie that there is no place or time to mention them all...
Watchable for those who have not seen Cube & Hypercube, but not recommendable for fans of the series...
\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 had high hopes for this movie, because I enjoyed the book so much. However, I don't think I would have understood the premise of the movie if I hadn't already read the book. The movie is a noble attempt to show the despair of people trying to break the bonds of overpowering government rule, but the book portrays the suffering much more thoroughly. The corrupt government officials have comfortable, almost luxurious lives, while the common people struggle to obtain the bare necessities for survival. Perhaps most people feel this way toward their leaders and rulers regardless of whether or not they are actually oppressed or repressed. Orwell's dystopia seems as if it could exist in many places in our modern world. It has been several years since I've read the book, but one hears references to Big Brother, the Thought Police, and Newspeak frequently in the media and casual conversation. Probably many people using these terms don't realize where the terms came from. I strongly recommend that you read the book.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAfter hearing about George Orwell's prophetic masterpiece for all of my life, I'm now 37, but never having read the book, I am totally confused as to what I've just seen.
I am very familiar with the concepts covered in the novel, as i'm sure most are, but only through hearsay and quotes. Without this limited knowledge this film would have been a complete mystery, and even with it I'm still no more educated about the story of 1984 than I was before I watched it.
On the plus side...
The cinematography is amazing, Hurt & Burton deliver fine performances and the overall feel of the movie is wonderfully grim and desolate. The prostitute scene was a fantastically dark piece of film making.
Now for the down sides, and there are plenty...
There is a war going on, (at least as far as the propaganda is concerned), but why & with who? Nothing is explained. There are a couple of names bandied about (Eurasia etc), but they mean nothing without explanation.
Who is Winston? what does he do? where does he come from? where does he work? why is he changing news reports? why isn't he on the front line? Why doesn't he eat the food in the canteen? What is that drink he's drinking through the entire film? Why is he so weak & ill? Why isn't he brainwashed like the rest of them? What's the deal with his mother & sister? What happened to his father? A little back story would have been nice, no scrub that, essential for those like myself that haven't read the book. Without it, this is just a confusing and hard to follow art-house movie that constantly keeps you guessing at what is actually going on.
The soundtrack was dis-jointed and badly edited and the constant chatter from the Big Brother screens swamps the dialogue in places making it even harder to work out whats going on. I accept that this may have been an artistic choice but it's very annoying all the same.
Also, I know this has been mentioned before, but why all the nudity? It just seemed totally gratuitous and felt like it had been thrown in there to make up for the lack of any plot coverage.
I personally can't abide the way Hollywood feels it has to explain story lines word for word these days. We are not all brainwashed simpletons, but this is a few steps too far the other way. I can only imagine that it totally relies on the fact that you've read the book because if this film really is the 'literal translation' that I've seen many people say, I would find it very hard to understand why 1984 is hailed as the classic it is.
There's no denying that it was light years ahead of it's time and has pretty much predicted every change in our society to date, (maybe this has been a sort of bible to the powers that be?), but many sci-fi novelists have done the same without leaving gaping holes in the storyline.
I guess I have to do what I should have done from the start and buy a copy of the book if i'm to make any sense out of this.
All in all, very disappointed in something I've waited for years to watch.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am a massive fan of the book and Orwell is certainly my favourite writer ever since studying Animal Farm at GCSE. I bought the DVD out of sheer curiosity, Burton is an actor I hold in high regard so when I heard that he played the role of O'Brien I was swung.
I watched the trailer on the DVD first and some fears started to set in, mostly regarding the frankly terrible \"Theme song\", hearing the Eurythmics mechanically shouting \"1984!\" over and over again to an electronic beat is as bad as it sounds.
The acting on a whole is pretty good, Burton and Hurt play their roles well and the tension that exists in the Ministry of Truth towards the end can be felt, especially in the harrowing Room 101 scene. However this is also where the movie is let down. The movie spends too much time focusing on the Love affair between Winston and Julia, which frankly isn't what Orwell was writing about. He was writing about a harrowing future, about how Ingsoc build up a mans beliefs and then shatter them all in the name of him being made to love Big Brother. The movie skips over what is essentially the most important part of the book, Winstons coming to terms with his position in life and the world, and his re-education via O'Brien.
The comment on IMDb at the moment states that the movie sticks to the book is completely incorrect. Julia is not present when Winston visits O'Brien, they do not commit themselves to Goldstien's Brotherhood and confess their crimes. There is no obvious mention of the initial instances where Winston finds the article with the Unpersons but it does get mentioned near the end, if you have not read the book it is completely confusing.
A terrible screenplay, which some excellent acting cannot rescue. Michael Radford seems to have completely missed the point Orwell was trying to make, and the electronica sound track is frankly terrible.
\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 heard about this novel a long time ago, many of my friends have recommend me to read it. I searched it in every place and finally found it. This is a book that every man should read, because it is genius and because of it's vision. I enjoyed every page.
I knew about the movie and could not wait to see it. When I finally did I was very disappointed, many things that are in the book are not in the movie (I do not think that this is a spoiler) that just makes the movie not logical... Michael Radford might be a good director, but a bad writer. Especially as a book adopter. The movie is not dark at all, the writing is really bad, the only thing that is good, even great, is the acting. John Hurt is an amazing actor and the only face I myself could see as Winston Smith.
What angers me the most are the people in IMDb that called this \"The Best Adaptation Ever\" without even reading the book! Or knowing anything about screen writing!
You can only understand the brilliance of the story by reading the book, do not consider this as an alternative. As a fan of the book, I was very disappointed.
The points I gave for this movie goes for the acting.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA few weeks ago, I read the classic George Orwell novel, 1984. I was fascinated with it and thought it was one of the best books I've read recently. So when I rented the DVD, I was intrigued to see how this adaptation measured up. Unfortunately, the movie didn't even come close to creating the ambiance or developing the characters that Orwell so masterfully did in his book. The director seems to think that everyone watching the movie has read the book, because he makes no attempt to demonstrate WHY the characters act and feel the way they do. John Hurt, the main actor, is droll the entire way through, and hardly does any acting until the end. We never really find out what he does for a living, or why his love affair is forbidden, or what the political climate is and why the main character desires rebellion. This book cannot be done justice in movie form without proper narration and explanation of the political system oppressing the characters, and the fact that those are missing is the greatest shortcoming of this film. Besides that, John Hurt was a terrible casting choice, looking about 15 years older than the 39 year old Winston he was supposed to be portraying. On a more positive note, however, the rest of the cast was well chosen. It's just too bad they were put in such a horribly adapted film with the wrong lead actor. -Brian O.
\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'Ninteen Eighty-Four' is a film about a futuristic society in which the government controls everything and no one can be trusted. It is a very dark film, and it is one that will not make you feel good about yourself. It is about a romance taking place in this society and the betrayal of the lovers and about human nature being self-centred. The film has some very good ideas and is done well in portraying this society with the dark tones in colours (contrasting with happiness and bright colours in the dreams) and a general feeling of loneliness through objects and people and places. However, despite the film's cleverness at portraying this idea, the film was very slow and did not seem to quite get the idea across. It seemed to spend too much time being clever rather than telling a story.
\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 book is fantastic, this film is not. There is no reason this film could not have embraced a futuristic technological vision of the book. Hell, total recall was released a few years later and that did a good job of it, even a clockwork orange released in the 70s did a good job of trying to make a futuristic world. The bleak German expressionistic colours, the black and white footage from the vision screens, there is no reason for this approach for when the film was made in 1984. The main character is in a white collar writing job yet he dresses like he works with oil and grease in a garage. This film decides to take a mock-communistic approach to set design, atmosphere and theme, yet the novel did not necessarily dictate a communist, worship-the-humble-worker theme itself. This book seriously needs to be adapted in a modern context as this book is more relevant today than ever before. I could not watch more than 20 minutes of this crap. The soundtrack is annoying, the lack of foresight is annoying, this film seems to have been made to deny a sense of realism or believability when that is exactly what is required to hammer the novel's messages to the viewer.
\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 think that the shots and lighting were very poor. When I watched it for the first time I thought it was the old version(1956). When I really found out the true year of the film I was shocked. I didn't know that there could be such a bad film made so recently. Thats really all I wanted to say. This film had a good plot though, nothing you couldn't miss out on if you would simply read the novel that George Orwelll wrote. All I really want to say has already been said except for this: I can't believe that this film could have possibly received so many awards and nominations.I gave this film a One (awful), because I felt that it was very badly made. Well that is all. So long
\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 must admit, there are few books with corresponding movies that I have actually read before seeing the cinematic adaptation. Nineteen Eighty-Four happens to be one of those rare cases. The book was great. It was immersive and interestingly prophetic. But the movie just plain sucked. It is easily the worst film I have ever seen. The only reason I didn't turn it off after the first 5 minutes was the fact that watching the movie was half of a two-part assignment for a class. It was dark and grotesque, but did nothing in the way of achieving the proper atmosphere. The acting was nothing above average, and considering the fact that there wasn't much to act out, this was severely disappointing. The book, for example, didn't give me the impression that Winston was unable to blurt out more than a single syllable at a time. Boring, disturbing, and visually unappealing, the movie totally cannibalized the book. Wait a second...Isn't it British?
\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 movie last year in Media class and I have to say I really hated it. I was in year 10 (and aged 15) so that may have has something to do with it. But for English this year, year 11, we had to read Animal Farm, also by George Orwell. Aside from the fact that the book is based on the Revolution, my opinion is that it is a terrible book, and I also hated it.
But 1984, I think it was the most disturbing movie I have ever seen, and I think that George Orwell is one of the most deranged people ever to live on this planet. I'm sorry to everyone who loved his work, but I unfortunately did not. The themes in the movie were well portrayed, but the way the whole movie was set and the events that took place within it were not to my standards. This is only my opinion, and I'm sure many many other people thoroughly enjoyed this film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nJohn Wayne & Albert Dekker compete for oil rights on Indian territory, and for the attention of Martha Scott in this Republic Pictures film shot out of Utah, USA.
An interesting Western of sorts due to its characters and its more modern setting, with Wayne & Dekker playing the old and new factions of the West. It's based on a story by Thomson Burtis who co-writes the script along with Eleanore Griffin and Ethel Hill. Albert Rogell directs in the workmanlike way that befits his career. A pretty mundane story is in truth saved by its final third, where thankfully the action picks up and we are treated to something resembling a pulse. The light hearted approach to the romantic strand doesn't sit quite right, and a glorious fist fight between the two protagonists is ruined by Rogell being unable to disguise the stunt men doing the work. But hey, stunt men deserve their moment of glory always. Solid support comes from George 'Gabby' Hayes and Wayne as usual has much screen charisma, particularly when rattling off his pistol. But in spite of its better than usual Republic budget, it remains a film of interest only to 1940s Wayne enthusiasts. 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\nI bought a set of 4 DVDs for 10 bucks at my local Suncoast, which contained this movie and three other trashy horror flicks (including its sequel \"Witchcraft XI\"). So basically I paid the rock bottom price of $2.50 for this movie, if you do the math. I can't exactly say I was ripped off. I have a thing for trashy horror movies, but this is the kind of trash that gives trash a bad name. The budget couldn't be over $1,000 (though it appears as if they spent a total of $1.50). I know it's a low-budget film, but that's no excuse for totally uninspired camerawork. The film \"Blood Cult,\" though not very good, was made for an extremely low budget and still had fairly good camerawork and acting. The acting in this movie is the definition of \"effortless,\" especially from that muscular guy with the Texas accent. Everyone is pretty much reading their lines off the page. You can take that figuratively or literally. I wouldn't be surprised if the script was off-camera as they were performing. I said before that I've never seen a bad English actor. This movie has quite a few bad ones. And though English movies aren't always good, they always seem to have at least a level of sophistication, which is why I don't see why any Englishman, or Englishwoman, would volunteer to do a home-video-style schlock flick like this. Did Merchant Ivory put a hold on their casting calls? Usually, I think people are too hard on directors and actors. Even some of the worst movies in Hollywood have some level of professionalism in the directing, acting and cinematography departments. Even when you watch a movie like \"Glitter\" you can't honestly say it looks like a third-grader shot those scenes (though a third-grader could've written the script). I've seen home movies that are shot better than \"Witchcraft X,\" and that's no exaggeration whatsoever. Even the gore is minimal since the filmmakers only had money to buy some fake blood on sale at Party City. Not a single effort was put into making this movie--let's just sum it up like that. You get the picture. There's a good deal of nudity, though that doesn't save it. However, I must say that girl with the red-orange hair, who's either naked or wearing a cleavage-popping outfit throughout the film, is really hot!
My score: 1 (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\nEd Wood is eclipsed and becomes Orson Welles. This film is fantastic. Vampire witches who fight in terribly choreographed scenes and dialog that could have breaking ribs with laughter. Plan 9 From OUterSpace dons't stand a chance against this. Described by the writer and psychic Stephen Armourae on the Vampire Forum as a masterpiece- he's from England and thoroughly sarcastic.
It has Stephanie Beaton and the producers know whats going to save them from bankcrupcy by repeatedly using her. Though she leaves me cold as she looks more like the undead than all the devil raisers. And Eileen Daly is just a lower rate Elvira. The whole thing is badly done.
Watch it for the script though
\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\"Mistress of the Craft\" Celeste works as an agent for the London branch of Interpol's Bureau 17, which specializes in (I think) occult criminals. She possesses the Eye of Destiny, good in her hands, dangerous if anyone else got it.
Bureau 17 has caught a Satanist from California, Hyde (no relation to Dr. Jekyll). Detective Lucy Lutz of LAPD flies to England to bring him back to the US. Lutz is the connection to the earlier Witchcraft movies, having been played by Stephanie Beaton before in Witchcraft 9. In part 7, Lutz was played by another woman; in 6, Lutz was a man!
Lutz's part in 9 was not terribly big, but she's one of the main stars in this one. Though she's left behind her high heels and short skirts, she still has revealing tops in this one. And this time around she has nude and sex scenes. Beaton is pretty appealing in the role.
As usual, there are a number of sex scenes. An anonymous clubgoer has a fatal threesome with two vampires, the Satanist and head vampire get it on with some kink, Lutz finds an English pal, and Celeste and her boyfriend make love.
The main recurring character of the Witchcraft series, Will Spanner, does not appear in this one, although Lutz mentions him to Bureau 17 agent Dixon in a conversation about vampires. She also phones her partner Detective Garner (parts 6, 7, and 9), though we don't hear his end of the conversation.
Hyde is sprung from jail by a group of vampires led by Raven, for a Walpurgis ritual having something to do with a god named Morsheba (I think). Hyde delivers all of his lines in a very flat manner, while Raven overacts to a campy degree. The fight scenes are terribly choreographed.
The audio in the movie was pretty poorly recorded, and poorly edited. Additionally, some dialogue gets lost under blaring music or sirens. Cinematography isn't great either. Having the movie set in and actually shot in the UK was a bit of a novelty though, at least for this series.
Wendy Cooper is very good as Celeste; attractive, certainly, but more importantly she's easily the best actor in the movie (bad fight scenes notwithstanding). I'm quite surprised her filmography is so small. If there's ever a Witchcraft XIV, and I would bet there will be, they should bring her back, even if it means flying her to California!
Witchcraft X is available on its own, or in the DVD collection Hotter Than Hell along with Witchcraft XI and two unrelated movies.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nYeah i saw the rough cuts. The unedited sex scenes. The dire cut scenes. Almost on a par with the film 'The Need' for awful acting. This movie is as bad as bad films get.the bad script, bad acting, bad effects, bad locations, bad stunts bad everything. The best 'actors' in the film were the lap dancers they hired for the vampire extras!
Sean Harry, the 'foppish actor' as someone else put it, makes a matchstick look talented here. His amazing ability to badly drive a car, when it is obviously being shook by people on the bonnet (check out the reflection in the windscreen), his inability to turn left, which is class. OH and don't forget the sex scene. plus his noteworthy use of a toy gun which the props guys couldn't even be bothered to disguise as a real gun. The other actors on screen could barely deliver their lines.It was as if half the time they were waiting for a line that wasn't there!
The 'special effects' were soooo good to the point that the guys who did it took their real names off the credits!
If you want a laugh at a party then rent this movie...then again there are plenty of good comedies that are just as funny and don't give money to people who don't deserve 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 still can't believe how bad this movie was. If I wasn't a massochist I don't know if I would have survived the viewing. It looks like it cost about $1000 to make, but it wasn't the money that brought them down. The acting was horrid - not just bad, 3rd graders could have read the lines better. Second, the only other reason to watch this kind of movie is the skin, and that is sorely lacking in this flick. We don't even get to see the more attractive chicas in the buff.
Ahh well, better luck next time eh?
\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\nGenerally I like horror movies, but unfortunately this fell out of the one pound bargain bin into my friends hand. We sat down to watch it, ready to be scared and ended up spraying food everywhere we were laughing so much. The concept isn't that bad, but why they decided number ten in the series would be lucky I don't know. The worst thing about the movie is the actors. The camera work was poor, the special effects are actually not bad if I am being generous, but overall the story failed to connect on any levels because the actors were as effective as a small lump of badly charred elm. They were wooden beyond measure, especially a foppish young actor who was fifteen years too young to be taken seriously as any kind of government agent. He looked more like a public school boy in fact. There was a really amusing sex scene where he looked like he was bobbing for apples as a busty lady rode on top of him and later his nappy sized underpants were hysterical, but then I remembered it wasn't supposed to be a comedy. I'm desperately wracking my brain to find something positive to say about this movie apart from the occasional flash of breasts, but there simply isn't. Let's hope ten was the lucky number and they don't do another one, I'm not sure my ribs could take 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 bought this DVD without any previous reference but the names of John Huston, Raquel Welch, Mae West and Farrah Fawcett on its cover. I found the Brazilian title very weird, but I decided to watch expecting to see a funny comedy maybe like \"Switch\". However the non-sense story is awful and hard to be described. Myron Breckinridge (Rex Reed) is submitted to a surgery to change his sex in Copenhagen and he returns to Hollywood telling that she is to be Myra Breckinridge (Raquel Welch) and claiming half the property of his uncle Buck Loner (John Huston). Along the days, Myra and her alter-ego Myron corrupt a young couple in her uncle's academy with kinky sex. In a certain moment, the messy screenplay is so confused that I believe the whole story was only a mind trip of Myron induced by the accident. Unfortunately the beauties of Raquel Welch and Farrah Fawcett are not enough to hold this flick. My vote is three.
Title (Brazil): \"Homem & Mulher Até Certo Ponto\" (\"Man & Woman Up to a Point\")
\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 I was very curious on viewing this film, and it was considered a notorious disaster when released by 20th Century Fox in 1970. It has also popped up on several critics lists of bad films, and this only deepened an interest, as I just had to see what made this movie so bad.Upon seeing it, I think I have my answers. Although I will say it does make for curious viewing, the acting, direction, and script are so laughingly bad, that the supposed satire is completely missing. Racquel Welch seems to try to carry the film, but after the opening sequence of the sex-change operation, the film goes so far down hill that she cannot handle this task alone. John Huston as Uncle Buck Loner is certainly no help, as he licks and leers at the screen, he sometimes looks like he wonders himself what he's doing there. Rex Reed bounces around as Myron, Myra's alter ego, and even has his own celebrated masturbation scene. Bravo for debut performances! Farrah Fawcett plays a dumb blonde; she certainly seemed convincing in this role. But , of course, arguably the most notorious role went to Mae west. The sight of a 75 year old woman with a plastic face making sexual innuendos seemed more suitable for a horror film. I don't mean to put this cast down personally; but in this film, no one comes out looking good. The direction seems so unassured and non-existent, that the film is not only bad, but boring as well. Throw in some old film footage of old stars, and the movie becomes even more disconnected. To each his own to anyone that enjoyed this, and I was glad I at least saw it, but Myra Breckenridge seems to be the disaster that it was always reputed to be from the beginning.
\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 hodge-podge adapted from a Gore Vidal novel (actually one of the great American writers) makes THE MAGIC CHRISTIAN and VALLEY OF THE DOLLS look like Fellini art-works. Raquel Welch, with an incredible body (and she's actually not very tall) in a lead role (except for KANSAS CITY BOMBER when she was quite good) playing Rex Reed's (bad movie reviewer; not critic) alter-ego, only to be surrounded by drag queen (great chick) Mae West, horny John Huston, a young and \"naive\" Farrah Fawcett (pre-Lee Majors; what a shame), and other various creep-azoids to pretend to spoof WAY too may things has nothing going for it except inter-spliced old films clips (i.e. Widmark in KISS OF DEATH, Lena Horne)...JUST so they can continue to bleed the life out of everyone.
A 2 out of 10. Best performance = ?. It's so bad, it's worth seeing!
\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\nTHAT'S certainly a strange way to promote a film upon which a great deal rested. And it seems like plain suicide on the part of the studio, given that (1) The feuds between the cast were well known long before the movie's release. (2) The feud between the Producer(Robert Fryer) and Director ( Michael Sarne) was also common knowledge. (3) The cast made no secret of their contempt for the film and made it public at every opportunity, with daily bulletins from the set gleefully reported by gossip columnists everywhere.
And (4) The author, Gore Vidal hated it practically from day one. Nevertheless, that tagline just about sums it up. Raquel Welch does
give a decent performance as Myra, and she looks lovely besides. John Huston is very funny as Buck Loner, the ex-Cowboy Star who runs a phony acting academy. Mae West, (in her first screen appearance since 1943) naturally rewrote her part to suit herself, and she is great as ''oversexed'' (and that's putting it mildly) ''Talent Agent'' Leticia Van Allen. Still, she must have wondered (after waiting so long for a good vehicle in which to return) how she ever ended up in this mess.
Tom Selleck (in his film debut) is one of her ''clients''. John Carradine and Jim Backus, as Doctors, also amble in briefly. Rex Reed as Myron, Farrah Fawcett and Roger Herren, as the victims of Myra/Myron's sexual passion, are neither here nor there. The same goes for the script, which not only fails to focus on the basic plot of the book, but seems to head in at least three different directions at once. Although West's part was originally larger, she was reduced to a cameo role by the time Sarne was through with the editing. And, partly because of this, she seems to be in a different movie. Apparently, at some point, the Producers realized that Mae was going to be the film's big draw, and, unable to replace most of her cut footage, they rushed her back to the set at the end of filming for the second of her two songs, both of which come out of nowhere. The device Sarne used of throwing in old film clips of bygone stars to emphasize whatever points he was making, doesn't work at all. By the time the movie concludes, all a weary spectator can do is wonder what in the hell it was all about. Not surprisingly, just about everyone connected with the production felt the same way, and it died at the box office. A technically flawless DVD includes, (among other extras) separate commentaries from both Welch and Sarne, each of whom have completely opposite opinions of just what went wrong.No doubt it's home video re-release was prompted by a 2001'' Vanity Fair'' piece, which attempted (in great detail) to do the same thing. True, the structure of the novel made a screen adaptation a dubious undertaking, but, with Sarne at the helm of what was obviously a ''troubled'' production, it really never had a chance.
\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\nMyron Breckinridge (Rex Reed!!!) gets a sex change from a doctor (John Carradine--dead drunk) and comes out as Myra (Raquel Welch). She then decides to destroy male masculinity (or something like that) and proceeds to teach film history at an acting college run by lecherous John Huston (don't ask) and break up a young happy couple (young, handsome, hunky Roger Herren and Farrah Fawcett--yes THE Farrah Fawcett).
They took a great novel by Gore Vidal that was unfilmable and, naturally, tried to film it. They also hired an English guy with a decidedly Anti-American attitude and hired a bunch of actors with questionable \"talent\" (Welch, Reed) and embarassed old professionals (Huston, Carradine, Andy Devine, Jim Backus, Mae West), threw it all together and....SURPRISE!!! An absolute disaster.
The film got an X rating at its release (it's been lowered to an R), mostly because of a truly tasteless scene in which Welch sodomizes Rusty (Roger Herren) and a scene in which Welch attempts to have sex with Fawcett.
The movie is very scattershot...scenes jump all over the place and people say and do things that make no sense. It's not good at all but I was never bored.
Acting varies wildly...Reed is horrible...really sad. Huston chews the scenery again and again and AGAIN to a nauseating extreme. Welch is actually not bad as Myra but her lines make no sense so you never know what to make of her. West is hardly in the movie (a blessing) and it's really kind of sick to hear a woman almost 80 years old cracking sex jokes. Roger Herren (whatever happened to...) was very young, handsome and not bad as Rusty. Fawcett is OK.
It's hard to find things to say about this...you just watch it in disbelief. A must see movie--to believe!!!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"