empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis story had a different angle that intrigued me, enough to buy a previously-viewed VHS sight-unseen. That was a mistake.
In what could have been a very nice story - about badly crippled people at a hospital, and their various personalities - turned quickly into a very profane soap opera with unlikeable characters.
We have \"Bloss\" (William Forsythe) the stereotype racist white person, who says the f-word every other sentence and is so despicable they didn't give him a first name in the movie. He's a lot of fun to be around. Then, there is \"Raymond Hill\" (Wesley Snipes), a fast-talking womanizer. Snipes must have liked those fast-talking \"hip\" arrogant roles because he played in a number of them, like in \"White Men Can't Jump.\" Then there is sweet Helen Hunt playing \"Anna\" that wonderful caring, loving person who is having an adulterous affair with the leading character in the film, \"Joel Garcia\" (Eric Stoltz).
Yup, this is heartwarming, feel-good type stuff. It just makes my heart melt watching these nice folks. But, if you are one of those who loves sleazy characters portrayed by sleazy people in this sleazy film.....you might really like this! Add in a dose of Hollywood political correctness and there you go! What more could anyone want?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis really doesn't match up to Castle of Cagliostro. Lupin isn't as funny or wacky or as hyperactive. The scenery and music are uninspired and plot just isn't interesting.
The only good thing about this 'un is the nudity (only in the uncut version) provided by Fujiko. It helped spice up some of the tedious scenes. CoC had a formidable villain and set up the movie for some imaginative set-pieces. The locations in TSoTG are not very vivid or engaging.
Zenigata, Goemon and Jigen don't even provide decent sideshow entertainment this time. It's like they were just filling a contractual obligation by appearing.
The DVD is in full-frame with Dolby Stereo sound. It has a decent amount of extras, including quite a few trailers. But one curious thing. There is no chapter selection on the disc or timecode displayed on the player once inserted. Though you can still skip to the next scene number using the remote.
\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 know that movies aren't necessarily supposed to mirror reality, but this one got on my nerves. It perpetuates ignorant stereotypes about \"psychological trauma\" and mental illness. The \"psycho mom\" thing has been done too many times before (and usually done better) and much of the rest of the plot is far-fetched as well. The acting was not horrible but nothing to rave about.
One highlight: I am a long-time fan of General Hospital and it was a trip to see one of the roles played by former GH regular, Jon Lindstrom.
Anyway, if you can overlook the bogus psychoanalytical part of it, in the same way a person must suspend reality / judgment when watching a lot of movies, then this movie might be tolerable. If you have nothing better to do and fairly low standards.
I'm sorry I spent my time watching it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you have plenty of time to waste ... it's OK. It moves at a good pace but to pull this movie off it would need to be a little longer with a little more background on the sitter.
The acting is OK. Mariana Klaveno as the sitter does the best job and is the most believable.
William R. Moses played a pretty good part as the husband.
Gail O'Grady, as the wife, had a weak part and the reasons for her going back to work were not developed.
The ending is sort of silly. Like most of these sitter movies ... there are parts that are interesting ... but overall it leaves you wondering why you spent the time.
\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 delivers. the best is when the awkward teenage neighbor tries to bike away from the babysitter and in the background looks like he's never been anywhere near a bike in his life as he attempts not to fall off.
but this movie doesn't stop there, when less than 5 minutes later it delivers a scene of nothing but an arm reaching through a fence and into a cooler pulling out a beer.
stereotypical grilling dads, several plot lines that go nowhere, and a former seaQuest actress with a bluetooth cell phone all add up to making this the perfect Saturday night at home.
\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\nWith Goldie Hawn and Peter Sellers in a movie you figure this one won't go wrong. But what can I say? This was a horrible misfire. The movie is about Peter Sellers as an older gentleman who suddenly finds himself in a relationship with a really strange young not to mention attractive hippie in Goldie Hawn. The movie is incredibly disjointed and I did not understand anything about it. Peter Sellers and Goldie Hawn are very funny people but this movie does not prove it.
That song about arabella Cinderella' is pretty cool, but that is it. I only recommend this movie to people that like to watch an extreme novelty movie, this is almost the definition of one. I guess this movie more than anything else is a sign of the times, in terms of it's definite experimentalism and all around unconventionality, the problem is the quality is completely shot and the writing, not to mention the direction is just so out there.
Peter Sellers in particular is very hit and miss, he will go from Dr. Strangelove and Being There throughout his career, to dumb movies like this and the Magic Christian, which was very similar to this one in context and style, but that movie did have a few funny moments. This one is senseless, and I am sad that someone as great as Peter Sellers was in this movie. Not recommended for anyone.
\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 read that \"There's a Girl in My Soup\" came out during Peter Sellers's low period. Watching the movie, I'm not surprised. Almost nothing happens in the movie. Seemingly, the very presence of Sellers and Goldie Hawn should help the movie; it doesn't. The whole movie seems like they just randomly filmed whatever happened without scripting anything. Maybe I haven't seen every movie about middle-aged to elderly people trying to be hippies, but this one gives such movies a pretty bad name.
All in all, both Sellers and Hawn have starred in much better movies than this, so don't waste your time on this. Pretty worthless.
\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\nPeter Sellers (one of my favorite actors) is mildly amusing in this 1970 turkey, but the script is so lame and insulting that even Goldie Hawn's youth (just after her Oscar win) cannot begin to pull this one out of the mud. As a skirt-chasing celeb in his 40's, Sellers mostly embarrasses himself to the nth degree.
A 3 out of 10. Best performance = ? Nicky Henson plays a young study type.
I hope Hawn and Sellers were paid well, because I see no other reason for tripe like this in 1970 (a very good year for films - CATCH-22, M.A.S.H., HUSBANDS, JOE, WUSA, FIVE EASY PIECES and many others). You can't win them all!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDear me... Peter Sellers was one of the most oddly talented actors there has been. But his choice of films, say, after 1964, was very unfortunate. He didn't seem to realize how to use his talents. He would have been better off working with more of the Kubricks of the film world than the people he did. Of his later films, only \"The Optimists of Nine Elms\" and \"Being There\" have impressed me of those I have seen.
That said, the Boultings and Sellers had made a few films prior to this that hardly sound that bad - I have yet to see \"Carlton Browne\" and \"Heavens Above!\" - at least in the sense of using Sellers well to a degree. But, \"There's a Girl in My Soup\" really is a poor film and a dire choice on Sellers' part in terms of character. In his films from 1955-64, you can usually expect at least some very inventive twist and always an enigmatic conviction in his roles. Here, you have Peter Sellers trying to play a typical romantic lead. It's almost Sellers playing a Niven cad without the joviality. He certainly does not convince, try as he might, or create an interesting character. He should have left such parts to masters of suavity such as Cary Grant, and concentrated on those intriguing dramatic and comic roles that he was famed for.
Hawn and Sellers really do not establish any genuine chemistry; this is no easy, genial romance of the like perfected by William Powell and Myrna Loy. It is very artificial seeming, all the way through - I know that it is part of Danvers' character that he is a dry procurer of ladies, but he doesn't really change from that in a way that convinces. Sellers has a very grating way of playing \"charm\" as well... this character really has no depth, and really does not gain the viewer's sympathy or interest. Sellers goes through the motions in a way one would not think possible when remembering the magnificence of his shifty, iconoclastic performance in \"Lolita\".
There really is nothing to say about the plot, direction or characters, as frankly they leave little or no impression. This is truly one of the most anaemic, complacent, misguided and lightly dull films I have ever seen. A nonentity of a \"vehicle\" for Sellers' undisputed talents.
Rating:- * 1/2/*****
\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\nAnnoying, static comedy with a painfully miscast Peter Sellers as a smarmy, self-centered Casanova who always has his way with the ladies. A major blemish on Sellers' filmography, and, even worse, a film that seems to have been made solely to satisfy the ego of its star. (*)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nCaught part of GEORGE 2 on TV recently, but couldn't get myself to watch it through to the end. Just awful! I can't even remember the plot. All I know is that George and Ursula were not the George and Ursula of the first movie, which was bad enough. There's a lot of scrambling around, but the direction and editing were so shoddy and choppy, it was like watching outtakes or deleted scenes. Having the original voice of Ape the Ape back was not nearly enough to make me warm up to this. GEORGE 2 is probably the single worst sequel I have ever seen, and that is saying something. Jeez, because of IMDb's 10 lines rule, I have to keep typing when I have nothing more to say about this crapulastic made-for-TV sequel. Disney, hang your head in shame.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere are just so many things wrong with this movie.
To begin with, the first twenty minutes of the film could have been compressed into just five or maybe ten. The overall movie is (mercifully) short already, but this could have been made up for by giving a little more attention to the Mean Lion (how did the miss a reference to \"The Wiz\" on that one?) and working his subplot a little more closely into the main plot. In short, the script had the seed of a good idea, but needed quite a bit of reworking.
Second, it could have done without the crude humor. The original also had some that it could have done without, but at least there it was almost an afterthought -- here, flatulence and urination abound.
Third, the show is a little too self-aware. The original series had that well enough, as did the first movie, but here it's just way, way too much. The Brendan Fraser in-jokes were just a bit over the top (and why no mention of the \"new Ursula\"?). Other gags with the Narrator, especially a couple of interactions near the end, also exceed good sense.
Fourth, a bit more attention could have been given to the CGI work. In the first it was hard to tell that Shemp wasn't a real elephant (except by behavior, of course), but here the CGI stands out like a sore thumb. Ideally special effects should merely tell the story whether they're good or bad, and they at least do succeed on that count, so it's a relatively small problem, but it's still there.
All that said, Christopher Showerman's performance as George is decent enough. It lacks Brendan Fraser's charm, but Christopher only really fails in that specific comparison -- he even managed to give George a bit of personal depth, which should have been a major foul in a Jay Ward-inspired movie but wasn't here. Julie Benz as the new Ursula surprised me as being even better than Leslie Mann in the original.
Most other performances were pretty standard, not standing out in my mind as either good or bad.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen I go to see movies I would stay up and watch it or if I did not like it, I would go sleep, but this was pure crap, I actually got up and walked out!....This was poorly script and put together, I hated it. Also, they should not have taken Brendan Frasier off, he was much better. This was not as good as I had expected, considering that I really liked George of The Jungle 1, and the graphics weren't as good as the first one, for instance, the bird, and when ever he crashed in a tree. I hope that the director of this takes heed, and next movies he make, he needs to reconsider...horrible! I really would like to give Ursla a job well done, as she made the movie worthwhile (until I walked out)...overall I give this movie a 2 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\nThis movie was on t.v the other day, and I didn't enjoy it at all. The first George of the jungle was a good comedy, but the sequel.... completely awful. The new actor and actress to play the lead roles weren't good at all, they should of had the original actor (Brendon Fraiser) and original actress (i forgot her name) so this movie gets the 0 out of ten rating, not a film that you can sit down and watch and enjoy, this is a film that you turn to another channel or take it back to the shop if hired or bought. It was good to see Ape the ape back, but wasn't as fun as the first, they should of had the new George as Georges son grown up, and still had Bredon and (whats her face) in the film, that would've been a bit better then it was.
\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 start out by saying this movie has 1 funny point at the very beginning with the exchange between the narrator and George: Narrator:Huh? Wait a minute! Who the heck are you? George: Me new George. Studio too cheap to pay Brendan Fraser. Narrator: How did you get the part? George: New George just lucky, I guess.
Sadly, that's the only funny part in the entire movie.
It was still entertaining...But then again, i'm easily entertained...
I wouldn't say this is the worst movie i've ever seen (that title goes to the terribly un-funny Disaster Movie...), This movie falls #7 on my bottom 15 list...
If your a small child who is easily entertained, you'll enjoy this movie. If you're a movie-watcher who wants a good, funny movie, You'll end up shooting yourself halfway through 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\n666: The Child starts as a plane crashes, the only survivor of flight 666 was a young boy named Donald (Boo Boo Stewart) who is adopted by news reporter Erika (Sarah Lieving) & her cameraman husband Scott Lawson (Adam Vincent) after they covered the incident for Channel 6 news. At first Donald seems like any normal kid but death seems to follow him around, after warnings from a Nun & Vicar Scott begins to believe that Donald is evil & the cause of all the deaths...
This straight-to-DVD horror flick was directed by Jake Perez under the pseudonym Jake Jackson & one has to say 666: The Child is really rather poor. Whenever I see The Asylum is responsible for a film I get worried, I get very worried since their track record is awful. They seem to specialise in making &/or distributing low budget horror films which are usually rip-offs of some recent successful big budget horror film & in the case of 666: The Child you don't need a degree in rocket science to realise that it's a complete rip-off to cash in on the recent The Omen (2006) which was released the same year. The script by Benjamin Henry & Austin Laurel is terrible & simply can't match the ambitions of the the Hollywood equivalent, I mean just what exactly does Donald the Antichrist expect to achieve from a middle class family in a small town? It's hardly a great starting point to bring about the destruction of thew world is it? Every character in 666: The Child is some form of the main character's from The Omen, the adopted parents, the Priest who tries to warn them & the sinister babysitter. There's a real lack of incident, there's barely any gore & the plot is poor. I mean Donald killing a dentist because they were trying to fix his teeth is just so random & needless, what were all the disgusting pictures Donald drew all about, where did the babysitter come from & there's just nothing that ties everything together & it's just a disjointed mess that just becomes very boring very quickly. The references to the number 6 also becomes annoying & are very unsubtle.
Director Perez does alright I suppose, it's competent if nothing else. There's virtually no blood or gore, there's a few sprays of blood, a cut off hand & someone gets a circular saw stuck in their face but it sounds a lot better than it looks on screen. It's certainly not scary, there's no atmosphere thanks to a throughly bland contemporary setting in a suburban house & there's no tension because we never really know what Donald is trying to do & there fore there's no threat from him.
Technically the film is alright, it's reasonably well made but since the actual film is so poor it makes little difference. The acting isn't that great but at the same time I've seen worse.
666: The Child is a poor mans The Omen rip-off, I'd sooner watch either the original or the remake over this any day of the week. Not good & definitely not recommended. Followed by the sequel 666: The Beast (2007) which also went straight-to-DVD.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWell I watched this last night and the one thing that didn't make it completely terrible is that it was straight forward. There was no beating around the bush that this kid was the Anti-Christ. However the movie was just poorly written. For example, they never explained how they made the dentist incident an \"Accident\" or at the end how the cop just miraculously ended up at the house in time to save the kid without the police even being called yet. The death scenes were just really bad and not entertaining at all. The kid they chose to play the Anti-Christ was boring and they really could've picked a better kid. Just don't waste your time watching this.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nPoor Robert Englund makes another flop and to the expense of Tobe Hooper who usually makes pretty good horror movies but he failed pretty bad at this one. Englund plays the well known Marque De Sade who in the 17th century was enprisoned for his obsession of pain and the pleasure of bringing pain upon himself as well as watching others also be in pain. The story is so confusing with the flip flop from one century to another and I became confused as to what was going on and what was the purpose of this movie. All I saw was a young lady that became entrapped by a strange lesbian who desides to keep her to herself and the young lady became fascinated by this Arabian with alot of money and finds out that he's out to have her killed and then Englund steps in from one century to another claiming to be a descendent of the de Sade and tries to kill her because she reminded him of the Madam Momoselle(spelled that wrong) or whoever it was in the picture above De Sades wall. The movie was terrible, I am surprised at Hooper for hireing Englund in this film and the special effects were so fake and laughable, especially the part about the eyes. Englund tries to make a comeback from his once hit move \"Nightmare on Elm St.\" by using these pull in and out needles to put out peoples eyes. Terrible, absolutely 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\n1st watched 8/26/2001 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Tobe Hooper): Scary, yet sadistic(which makes sense) portrayal of a relative of the Marquis De Sade carrying out the same sadistic acts and enjoying it that supposedly his predecessor did. This Tobe Hooper film really doesn't do a whole lot different than his similar in style Freddy Krueger movies with the same star (Freddy himself - Robert Englund) playing a dual role(the Marquis De Sade and his relative). It is also seems like it wants to really poke at Christianity but then loses that in the end much to my chagrin but leaving an inconsistent feel to the movie. Could have been much worse if excesses were taken in sex and violence, but they try to keep this at a minimal despite some disgusting scenes. My final thought is why would Hooper want to make this movie. It obviously took awhile to actually get distributed, then it has to be advertised gruesomely and with Hooper's name in the title to hopefully make some money on his name and his gore. It's obvious this didn't work.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNormally I would never rent a movie like this, because you know it's going to be bad just by looking at the box. I rented seven movies at the same time, including Nightmare on Elm Street 5, 6 and Wes Craven's New Nightmare. Unfortunately, when I got home I found out the videostore-guy gave me the wrong tape. In the box of Wes Craven's New Nightmare I found this lame movie.
This movie is incredibly boring, the acting is bad and the plot doesn't make any sense. It's hard to write a good review, because I have no idea what the movie was really about. At the end of the movie you have more questions then answers.
On 'Max Power's Scale of 1 to 10' I rate this movie: 1
PS I would like to correct Corinthian's review (right below mine). He says Robert Englund is ripping off lingerie, riding horses naked, etc. The guy that did those things was Mahmoud, played by Juliano Mer, not by Robert Englund.
\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 film recently in a film festival. It's the romance of an ex-alcoholic unemployed man who just came out of a big depression and a single middle-aged woman who works in an employment office (INEM). I found the story very simple and full of clichés, taking the 'social' theme of the movie and turn it in to a romance comedy. The lead actor did a good job, he definitely looks like an alcoholic man, but Ana Belen is not believable as a working class woman, she looks, acts and talks very much like a 'high-standing' woman. What I mean is that Ana Belen plays herself. She does it in all her movies anyway. The whole mise-en-scene of the film was very poor. The photography is ugly, not using well at all the panoramic aspect ratio. The dialogue sounds totally scripted and dull most of the times. The comic situations are typical from Gomez Pereira, but in this case they are not funny at all and are resolved poorly. In my opinion this film is not worth watching. Only if you really love Pereira's previous films you might enjoy this one a little bit. Anyway, I walked out of the theater because I felt I was wasting my time. The film-maker was by the door. I wonder what a director feels like when he sees someone walking out of one of his films, specially one that is made to please everybody.
\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\nWill they ever make movies without nudity and sex? This came on at 3:00 on Sunday afternoon and I couldn't believe what they showed. Thank God my son was outside or I would have been freaked out if he had seen the soft/medium porn! Do people who make movies not care who they offend or corrupt? Kids could have been watching after church and that is what they show???!!! The acting was good and I enjoyed the suspense but GEE! There was violence and bad guys but that is to be expected in a western movie. Randy Travis was really good in his role. If the writers, directors and producers would just quit putting on so much uncalled for sex scenes. What has to happen to get them to quit going in that direction? Where can I complain?
\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 surprised about the many female voters who even give this film better marks. My thought about this film was that the target audience is adult and male. Whipped and tortured women, merciless revenge and a high body count are typical ingredients, introduced into film history by the spaghetti subgenre. The opening and the hand-smashing are DJANGO rip-offs. THE SHOOTER however lacks the style of e.g. DJANGO. Score, acting and cinematography are mediocre at best but if you look for the above mentioned ingredients you are in the right place here. And the actors don't have an Italian accent.
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\nWhen I look back on my college days at Ohio University, there will always be one event in which I will remember with fond memories. Channel 23 is OU's local access channel and until the last few years, pretty much played anything they were sent. This included many DIY movies ranging from a guy microwaving marshmallow Peeps and then scanning pictures of them online, to a version of Macbeth starring 8th graders who had apparently just learned how to make squibs.
However, the king, in my opinion, of the channel 23 lineup was Midnight Skater. The first time I watched it was around 2AM. I should have been studying. Or sleeping. Or watching regular TV. But no, all that is for pussies. My roommate and I watched Midnight Skater, and when it was complete, I don't think either of us believed that any of the movie had just happened. But sure enough, it was on a few nights later, and we had to come to grips that this movie did, in fact, exist.
I could go on and on about how awful it is, but its the sort of awful that makes life worth living. The plot is disjointed, the acting terrible, the everything soul scarring, but by god, if there are others watching with you, its impossible not to have a good time watching it. Its sort of like the first time you hear \"Guts\" by Chuck Pahalniuk. You hear it, you're disgusted and shaken, but five minutes later, all you want and desire is to make someone else experience the abject horror you just endured.
Long story short, Midnight Skater, for all of its epic flaws, makes for some very late night fun. Plus, I desperately want the Theme to Midnight Skater. Kudos to whoever wrote it and sang it. Sweet God I love that song.
\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 cast of 1980's TV movie and TV series guest stars (Misty Rowe, Pamela Hemsley,Clevon Little, Seymour Cassel among several others)in the story of a photographer who has dreams about killing his models. Of course the models and other people start turning up dead causing all sorts of complications.
Over done not very good thriller has enough nudity and violence to get an R rating but not enough good material to engender any real interest. This is best described as the sort of movie that gave the cable channel Cinemax the alternate name of Skinamax. I really can't see the point of watching this unless you need to see every sleazy thriller out there. (I also have to comment that this film is filled with smoking, to the point that it becomes laughable when anyone lights 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\nMichael Callan plays a smarmy photographer who seems, nonetheless, to be regarded as a perfect \"catch\" by any woman that runs across him; could this have anything to do with the fact that he also co-produced the film? He's a \"hero\" whom it's very difficult to empathize with, so the movie is in trouble right from the start. However, it's troubles don't end there. It has the production values of a TV-movie (check out that head made of clay or something, near the end), and the ending cheats in a way that I can't reveal, in case anyone wants to see the movie (highly unlikely). Let's just say that the killer knows more than we were let to know he knows. (*1/2)
\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 worst kind of film. Basically, the US Declaration of Independence was replaced with a plasma screen and this fooled the museum's security for several days. Eh?
The plasma screen that would theoretically run for less than 2 seconds off that watch battery, assuming it had a low enough internal resistance to deliver the required current, which it wouldn't.
It would be possible with a dozen large car batteries and an inverter, but that system wouldn't fit into the case. Sorry to be anal, but this isn't even close to being plausible. The rest of the film wasn't a great deal better and I'm left wondering why the budget couldn't have been donated to charity or 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\nThis adaptation positively butchers a classic which is beloved for its subtlety. Timothy Dalton has absolutely no conception of the different nuances of Rochester's character. I get the feeling he never even read the book, just sauntered on set in his too tight breeches and was handed a character summary that read \"Grumpy, broody, murky past.\" He plays Rochester not as a character or as a real person but as an over the top grouch who never cracks a smile until after he gets engaged at which point he miraculously morphs into a pansy. There is no chemistry. The only feeling that this adaptation excited in me was incredulity and also sympathy for Charlotte Bronte who is most definitely turning in her grave. GO AND REREAD THE BOOK. ROCHESTER HAS A PERSONALITY. AND BY THE WAY: A \"PASSIONATE\" LOVE SCENE DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE TO EAT HER FACE.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've probably been spoilt by having firstly seen the 1973 version with Michael Jayston and Sorcha Cusack so the 1983 adaptation is such a disappointment. I just didn't get any chemistry between the 2 main stars. A lot of staring and theatrical acting just doesn't do it for me, and what was all that about putting Tim in the role of Rochester. Had the casting director actually ever read the book. Very strange! He's a fine actor but Mr. Rochester he definitely isn't! And Zelah was just, well, strange, bit of a mix matched couple. In it's favour the supporting cast were pretty good and the Lowood scenes for me were the best of the adaptation, but overall didn't capture any of the magic of the novel. Certainly wouldn't ask anyone to watch it as a true adaptation of the novel. A real let down!
\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 limits of this film (The entire movie in one setting - a music studio - only about 5 or 6 actors total) it should have been much better made. IF you have these limits in making a film, how could the lighting be so bad? And the actors were terrible, were talking a hair below the acting in Clerks, except that was an enjoyable movie, this had no substance. Well it tried to, but really fails.
It makes attempt to be self-referencing in a couple parts, but the lines were delivered so poorly by the actors it was just bad. And the main character Neal guy, what a pathetic looser. Clearly like 10 people total made this 'film' and they all knew each other, and it probably was a real rock band that they had, but unfortuntly these people really have no idea how terrible they are all around. This was made in 2005, but they all look so naieve it smacks of just pre-grunge era.
Thankfully I didn't pay to see this (Starz on Demand delivers again!) but it was under the title \"The Possessed\" not Studio 666, it doesn't matter what you do to the title, it can't help this. This could have been a much better made movie - there is no excuse for this bad film-making when you have the obvious limited parameters the filmmakers had when they made this, working within those limits you should make the stuff you can control and the stuff you can work with the best you can. Instead they figured mediocrity would be good enough. And that music video, wow that was bad, I fast fowarded through that.
So 2/10 is fair, if you are into the whole b-movie crap I suppose you'll go and see this.
\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 if I went to a first school somewhere deep in the countryside and asked the bottom set of English to come up with a script, it would make more sense than this. I could then go to the first year drama group and they would act it out better than the jokers in this film. This sounds really mean, but I'm certain that they made this as a joke and are entirely aware that they possess (see what I did there?) neither the skills to act or to write anything, ever.
Watch this only if you're incredibly drunk, high or in need of a good excuse as to why your decaying corpse was found with slit wrists. I will now go to my fish bowl and collect all of the poo at the bottom. After that, I will mould it into the shape of a disc and put it into my DVD player, fully expecting it to produce something far better than this trumpery.
Acting - 0/10 Plot - LOL/10 Breasts - 9/10
\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\nAfter a quasi-Gothic, all-fruity music video, the movie starts with Cassidy the lead singer killing herself. In a perfect world that would be that and the end credits would roll. We don't live n that world. The insipid band members decide to go to some clown to contact her dead essence. When I say clown, I mean actual clown. He tell them they're all going to die via Cassidy's ghost (the spirit possesses Dora, one of the band-mates) We couldn't care less as the characters are all boring, vapid, and extremely horribly acted. Written by Adam Hackbarth (an incredibly apropos surname if there ever was one), and directed by Corbin Timbrook (who after The attendant, and Tower of blood, HAS to know that he keeps making crap for a living), this movie s a constant battle between the film's incompetence and the viewer's need to stay awake. Not enough blood to appease gore-hounds, nor enough nudity to satisfy pervs. This movie in fact has absolutely nothing to recommend to absolutely anyone.
My Grade: F
Eye Candy: Amanda Carraway gets topless
Where i saw it: Starz on Demand
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOne of my best friends brought this movie over one night with the words 'Wanna watch the worst horror movie ever?' I always enjoy a good laugh at a bad horror flick and said yes. I had expected your typical cheesy b-slasher but this was beyond B. This is Z-slasher, the lowest of the low. With obviously low budget, extremely bad acting, bad lightning, no plot, really bad so-called 'special effects', shaky cameras and a horrible soundtrack this makes movies like House of Wax look like Oscar-winning masterpieces. The only good thing about it is about 15 seconds of one of the characters getting topless - she had some very nice tits. Most of what I said during this film was along the lines of 'Wow this is actually SO BAD', 'This is the worst movie ever' and 'I'm not drunk enough for this'. So in conclusion: don't waste your time (or money!).
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhoever wrote the script for this movie does not deserve to work in Hollywood at all (not even live there), and those actors need to find another job. The most dreadful hour and some minutes of my life... and I only kept watching to see if it would get better which, unfortunately for me it did not.
Even at the end, the credits gave me anxiety. I guess there weren't a lot of people behind the movie so they had to roll the credits slowly... very slowly.
This movie is definitely a great \"How Not To Make a Movie\" guide. Too bad I can't give a 0.
\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 bad. If you are thinking about watching it, there is only one decent scene in the movie, and it lasts about 5 seconds (Amanda Carraway's topless scene). The rest of the movie is horrible. I think high school plays probably have better acting. The plot makes no sense at all. The set was pretty lame, and it wasn't even good to make fun of. It was just dull and very very bad! I watched this on Starz so I thought it had to be at least decent. The mini description sounded like it'd be alright. The girlfriend kills herself for apparently no reason at the beginning of the movie, after you have to watch some horrible music video. The transitions between scenes are VERY abrupt and its like someone just put a ton of clips into a movie without even thinking about how to transition them. Just cuts from one scene to another, no smoothness. Kind of like my random switching from talking about how bad the movie is, to explaining why the plot sucks. The audio gets low at some points, where you can barely hear it, then gets loud with gay 'horror screams' thrown in at random points in the movie. It is the same sound every time. This is now officially the worst movie I have ever seen
Acting: 0/10 Effects: 1/10 Storyline: 0/10 Music: 3/10
Lame-meter : 1,000,000 / 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 am a MAJOR fan of the horror genre! I LOVE horror/slasher/gore flicks of all kinds. Some of my favorites are the really \"good\" bad horror flicks. But this movies has NOTHING to warrant it's viewing!! I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about everything that's wrong with it.
The script is horrid. The acting is horrid. The FX are not even worth discussing. The \"set\" is an absolute JOKE!! The sad thing is I think there MAY be some real potential in a couple of the actors, but this vehicle left them NOTHING to work with!!!
Suffice it to say I saw it for \"free\" & feel I was robbed!! The time you'd WASTE watching this would be better spent flossing your cat.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nfor the most part, On Demand delivers some pretty horrible horror movies, and only offers other horror movies everyone has already seen, and already have an opinion on. It was either this, or Invinicible (I like Mark Wahlberg movies), which I haven't seen, and I was actually in a movie watching mood, which doesn't happen often anymore because I've already watched all the movies i own a million times, and that's a lot of movies, and I don't have much interest in new movies, and boy, this movie made me regret it. I'm not going to put in any spoilers, I'm just going to tell you that only a FEW of the very FEW actors in this movie ,are half way decent. I think the main girl, the dead one who kills everyone, is very annoying looking, but convincing; I'd take her for psycho bitch anyday, so she fits her roll well, though it is lame. The blood isn't that great, only a few of the kills, or may I say \"woundings\" are alright, but you don't see much and there are no body part props in the movie to make the injuries look more convincing. Towards the end of the movie I was begging my girlfriend to turn it off, and being a band member, the 'recording' parts weren't very interesting either, though what happened would truly happen when going about recording. I'm done, if you want to watch this, suit yourself.
\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\nCassidy(Kacia Brady)puts a gun in her mouth blowing the back of her head out on boyfriend Neal(Jason Dibler). Cassidy was the lead singer of a \"demons and death\" rock band who couldn't shake the sad feelings of her boyfriend's neglect towards her(you know, I can find other reasonable ways to solve this other than putting a bullet through your head). She returns, however, possessing the soul of Dora(Jill Small)her friend who is to replace her on vocals so that the group can finish the album halted by Cassidy's untimely death. But, Cassidy made a deal with the dark one and souls are to be collected..she's consumed by this anger towards mainly Neal, but all the band members or anyone within the music studio get dead when they fall prey to whom they believe is a rather distraught Dora..not Cassidy returning for payback.
Lousy micro-budget horror flick looks cheap, has a cheap cast who should make plans in another line of work, and boasts cheap kill-scenes which aren't effective one bit.
\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\nWell, because I'm a musician I thought, maybe I'll check this movie out on TMC, nothing else good on. One of the worst mistakes of my life so far, and it's only half done. I seriously thought it was one of those soft core movies with crappy plot and crappy acting, crappy filming and crappy effects. But nope, I don't even get the pleasure of that. Even the \"musicians\" weren't very good. I was hoping for maybe some laughs, but I wasn't sure if they were attempting to throw in one-liners or not. But now I have to sit here and watch the rest just until Pulp Fiction starts. Or maybe something better. And now i get to sit here typing until i have 10 lines
\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 ranks way up there on my top list of worst movies I've seen so far on Starz on Demand. They seem to pick up every straight to DVD crap-fest they can find and put it on here.
Why? Who knows! Apparently anyone with a digital camera and a shoestring budget can come up with a horror movie and get it put on TV. To be honest, this looked terrible from the moment I saw the trailer--but I did give it a real chance.
I always try to have an open mind about low-budget movies. Some of the best movies I've ever seen were films that worked around their low budget or in other cases only required that low budget to be great.
This is not one of those movies.
You know the plot by now, I'm sure, if you're reading this. Either you heard about it on Starz on Demand or for whatever reason you ended up on this page out of boredom. It's about a pathetic and whiny girl we get to know for all of 3 minutes in an incredibly bad \"heavy metal\" music video. Whoever put it together must have thought it looked really interesting, but it really, really doesn't. Anyway, she kills herself. Then she possesses someone. Then some killing starts. It's really unmemorable and as completely average and boring as possible. When the first gunshot goes off in her apartment it quite seriously sounds like a piece of popcorn popping. Was that the best sound effect they could come up with? I could find a better sound effect to use for free, (with no copyright,) on the internet... right. now.
Don't let the other reviews claiming this is a 10 star movie fool you. They are obviously either distributors of the film or maybe even the director trying to con you into thinking this piece of junk is worth buying.
Laughable.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"