empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA man brings his new wife to his home where his former wife died of an \"accident\". His new wife has just been released from an institution and is also VERY rich! All of the sudden she starts hearing noises and seeing skulls all over the place. Is she going crazy again or is the first wife coming back from the dead?
You've probably guessed the ending so I won't spell it out. I saw this many times on Saturday afternoon TV as a kid. Back then, I liked it but I WAS young. Seeing it now I realize how bad it is. It's horribly acted, badly written, very dull (even at an hour) and has a huge cast of FIVE people (one being the director)! Still it does have some good things about it.
The music is kinda creepy and the setting itself with the huge empty house and pond nearby is nicely atmospheric. There also are a few scary moments (I jumped a little when she saw the first skull) and a somewhat effective ending. All in all it's definitely NOT a good movie...but not a total disaster either. It does have a small cult following. I give it a 2.
Also try to avoid the Elite DVD Drive-in edition of it (it's paired with \"Attack of the Giant Leeches\"). It's in TERRIBLE shape with jumps and scratches all over. It didn't even look this bad on TV!
\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\nWelcome to a bad ghost story and someone's nightmare. This horror tale finds a newly married husband(John Hudson)and wife(Peggy Weber)haunted by the memory of his previous wife and screaming skulls found throughout their empty mansion and lily pond. Is the husband really trying to drive his already anxious bride insane? Or is it the learning challenged gardener Mickey(Alex Nicol)who has taken care of the mansion's grounds since the death of the original mistress of the house? This low budget horror flick has a story line that keeps you involved all the way the finale. Special effects are pretty bad even at 1958 standards. I swear at times the screaming skull sounds much like it should be in a Godzilla movie. Also in the cast as Reverend Snow is character actor Russ Conway. By the way...the lurking gardener(Nicol)is the film's director. You can catch this as part of AMC's Monsterfest.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"The Screaming Skull\" opens with a warning and an offer for free burial services if you should die watching it - Now there's a hook! The story itself has a fairly interesting premise for a horror flick: scheming husband marries a wealthy woman with a history of mental illness, then attempts to convince her that she's going insane with shrill noises, mysterious knocking and skulls that turn up at inopportune times. Add to the formula a sufficiently creepy gardener who still cherishes the memory of the man's first wife who he was devoted to. Maybe it's just that the 1950's didn't have the technology to pull off some of the scare scenes needed to juice up this movie, the techniques used here seem contrived and mundane. But then again, when I first saw \"House on Haunted Hill\" as a nine year old, it gave me the heebie jeebies in the same way I'm sure this film did for young viewers of the same era.
Don't get me wrong, the film is not terrible, it just seems to get tedious at times. But there's some great atmospheric tension in the generally huge but unfurnished Whitlock home, and the gardens and pool are a nice touch. For me the best played out scene involves Eric Whitlock (John Hudson) going maniacal in the pond attempting to retrieve the hidden skull, he just wades right in clothes and all, in neat contrast to the mentally challenged gardener (director Alex Nicol in a dual role). It makes you wonder who the real dimwit was.
In it's own good way, perhaps the most shocking thing about the film: how about that neat roadster the Whitlock's make their first appearance in - gull wing doors in 1958! That at least made me jump out of my seat!
\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 you have a disembodied skull, an empty mansion, a schizophrenic wife, a scheming cad and a nutzo gardener, throw in a minister and his wife - what have you got?
AIP's answer to insomnia.
\"The Screaming Skull\" gets points for audacity, offering free caskets for anyone who dies of fright from watching the film. Pretty safe bet, when you're lulled into a stupor by people who think they're in a production of \"Suspense for Dummies\".
But Peggy Webber was a cutie, anyway. She had a few good moments of acting here and there (especially when trying to communicate with the gardener) and no one else fills a nightgown like she. But that scared face she makes - scary in itself. Whoa.
As a whole, though, there is little suspense here and everything is telegraphed like a punch thrown by a mime. You can't be scared by this film, it's impossible. It has its moments, but not enough of them.
HOWEVER, thanks to a certain Mike Nelson and his two robot pals, there are several moments of pure joy, especially in the copy THEY got hold of (\"The film jumped, and it was really scary!\").
One star for \"The Screaming Skull\", eight and a half for the MST3K version.
Talk about a \"Screaming\" bore....
\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 first saw this movie on MST3K. And although I laughed my posterior off at the jokes, I don't particularly think this movie was all that bad. Sure it was a little hard to understand it is quite obviously low budget, But it had a very Hitchcock-like plot and I can honestly say that when I viewed the non-MST3K version, I was genuinely entertained. This movie is crying out for a Hollywood remake.
\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*SPOILERS*
I'm sure back when this was released in 1958 it was much appropriate for its time. Back then films were slower paced to allow audiences to follow and analyze the story. Here a man moves into a house owned by his last wife that died mysteriously with his new wife. The gardener Mickey (played by Alex Nicol, who also directed he film) really is an underappreciated character. He gets a skull to indirectly warn Jenni that she is in trouble, since he knew that there was foul play in the first wife's death. He can't tell Jenni directly what happened, so he tries to scare her off with the skull. Jenni, we also find out, saw her parents die, thus causing a lifetime of mental anguish that lead to institutionalization. Like many audiences today, I found the pacing to be a little too slow for my tastes. But if you like slow-paced horror without a lot of gore, this film is for you.

\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 couldn't tell if \"The Screaming Skull\" was trying to be a Hitchcock rip off or a modernized Edgar Allen Poe tribute. These days, someone would have chopped it up a bit and presented it as one of those TV anthology episodes from the old \"Tales From The Dark Side\"...but only after an extensive rewrite.
The sad thing is, there seems to be a nice, nasty little story trying to get out from under the rubble of this movie, and the actors are obviously doing the best they can with both their talent and the material they have to work with. But the director just didn't know how to stage or pace a dramatic scene; the special effects simply didn't work; the screenplay telegraphed its threadbare plot points so plainly that a bivalve could have seen them coming; and the soundtrack kept playing German \"oompah band\" music when it was supposed to be trying to scare the audience.
They tried; they tried really hard. But this is of interest only as a period piece.I suppose someone very young who hadn't seen a lot of suspense or horror might get a charge out \"The Screaming Skull\", but someone that young probably wouldn't get most of the subtext or plot motivation. (\"Mommy, why is that nice man trying to scare the twisty faced scaredy-cat lady??\")
\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 the film begins a narrator warns us THE SCREAMING SKULL is so terrifying you might die of fright--and if such happens a free burial is guaranteed. Well, I don't think any one has died of fright from seeing this film, but a few may have died of boredom. THE SCREAMING SKULL is the sort of movie that makes Ed Wood look good.
Very loosely based on the famous Francis Marion Crawford story, SKULL is about a wealthy but nervous woman who marries a sinister man whose first wife died under mysterious circumstances. Once installed in his home, she is tormented by a half-wit gardener, a badly executed portrait, peacocks, and ultimately a skull that rolls around the room and causes her to scream a lot. And to her credit, actress Peggy Webber screams rather well.
Unfortunately, her ability to do so is the high point of the film. The plot is pretty transparent, to say the least, and while the cast is actually okay, the script is dreadful and the movie so uninspired you'll be ready to run screaming yourself. True, the thing only runs about sixty-eight minutes, but it all feels a lot longer. Add to this a truly terrible print quality and there you are.
There are films that are so bad they are fun to watch. It is true that THE SCREAMING SKULL has a few howlers--but the film drags so much I couldn't work up more than an occasional giggle, and by the time the whole thing is over your head will roll from ennui. If it weren't for Peggy Webber's way with a scream, this would be the surefire cure for insomnia. Give it a miss.
GFT, Amazon Reviewer
\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*WARNING* Possible spoilers below
The film is more boring then anything else. There seems to be some attempt to build tension through badly lit shots of empty rooms and empty lawns, but none of it works.
MST3K did a fairly good job with it, but on its own the movie is mostly tedious.
Funny moments:
When the fake skull rolls out of a pile of ashes, the wife becomes hysterical and woozy while the husband (who is trying to drive the wife crazy) says in a deadpan voice \"There is no skull there, there's no skull.\"
When the real ghost-skulls have the husband caught in a pickle, as if trapped between first and second base.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOkay, so the introduction, with its hokey offer of a free coffin to anyone who dies of fright during the film, is so lame it's funny. And so the first \"skull scene\" is so drawn out and un-suspenseful it's funny. The actual plot of the movie is somewhat decent, there's at least a little bit of genuine food for thought in the behavior of the characters, and the plot twist is decent as horror flicks go. The acting is average, not truly bad.
Altogether, this movie doesn't quite fall flat in the way a 1/10 movie would. It's not terrible enough to get the lowest rating or even second lowest. If I just read the screenplay, I'd say there was potential for this to be a decent movie. It's just that the horrid direction and production that ruin the movie. So it's a bad movie, but there are much worse ones out there.
\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 cinematography goes, this film was pretty good for the mid 50's. There were a few times that the lighting was way too hot but the shots were generally in frame and stayed in focus. The acting was above average for a low budget stinker but the direction was horrible. Several scenes were dragged out way too long in an attempt at suspense and the effects were non-existent. The attack by the skull in the pond should have been completely removed from the final cut and every attempt to bring life to the skull was obvious with stick pokes and strings. I also couldn't help but think the budget didn't allow them to furnish the house so they kept making references to the movers and that all the things in storage should be coming soon. Honestly...it would have been more entertaining if it were a worse movie. It wasn't bad enough to be a \"good-bad\" movie but wasn't good enough to be \"good\" either. Get the MST3K version...it's more fun.
\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 SCREAMING SKULL (1 outta 5 stars) This movie boasts some pretty cool opening credits (an offscreen narrator warning that movie patrons will be offered a free burial if they die of fright watching this movie, a scary shot of a skull emerging from a placid pool and the ubiquitous scary music) but, sadly, the movie is all downhill from there. A widowed man takes his new bride to his secluded mansion... admonishing his servants and friends that the new Mrs. has a very fragile disposition due to a tragedy in her past. Well, in no time at all she begins to see and hear mysterious things that no one else can. Her husband assures her that it's all merely in her mind and... well, you can probably see where this all is going. You will have figured out what's going on long before our hapless heroine... because you have probably seen the exact same plot in hundreds of other movies and TV shows (and done better, too). To add to the movie's myriad transgressions, most cuts of this movie (on numerous cheap DVD compilations) seem to be missing a few key scenes. You see the heroine slowly walking towards the window... she goes to open it... you know she is going to see something scary... and then... suddenly the scene cuts to her sobbing in her husband's arms. So what did she see??? I guess we'll never know.
\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 have to admit this was one of my favorites as a kid, when I used to watch it on a home projector as a super-8 reel. Now there isn't much to recommend it, other than the inherent camp value of actors being \"terrified\" by replicas of human skulls. The special effects are pretty silly, mostly consisting of skulls on wires and superimposed \"ghost\" images.
But there's something to be said for the sets. The large mansion in which it takes place is pretty creepy, especially since it's mostly unfurnished (probably due to budgetary reasons?).
It definitely inspires more laughs than screams, however. Just try not to get the giggles when the wife (who does more than her share of screaming) goes into the greenhouse and is confronted with the ghost of her husband's ex.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n- A newlywed couple move into the home of the husband's dead former wife. It's not long before the new wife begins to have the feeling that someone doesn't want her in the house. She sees skulls all around the house. But when the husband investigates, he can't find anything. Is someone trying to drive her back to the asylum that she was recently discharged from? Or, is the ghost of the dead wife trying to get the new wife out of her house?
- This is the first time that I've watched The Screaming Skull without the assistance of the MST3K crew. And, it will in all likelihood be the last time I watch it this way. Can you say dull? I'm not talking ordinary dull - I'm talking watching grass grow dull. There are great stretches of the movie where nothing happens. The screen could have gone blank and I would have gotten as much entertainment out of it. The characters drone on and on with the most monotonous conversations imaginable. The Screaming Skull could probably be marketed as a sleep aide.
- The actors don't help matters much. Most of them deliver lines with the conviction normally reserved for a grade school play. I haven't looked it up, but I would be shocked to find that anyone associated with this movie ever appeared in anything of cinematic value. I won't even go into the script the actors are given to work with. Let's just say that the characters are given some of the most idiotic lines ever uttered on film.
- You've been warned! Either avoid this one at all costs or, at least, seek out the MST3K version.
\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, one has to give the director credit for how gutsy he was. Gutsy would be the right term. Not only did he use a total cast of five people (no extras at ALL), but he also decided to use sub-par special effects with a confusing and boring plot, he also, and I AM NOT kidding, put a warning at the beginning of the movie that you might DIE OF FRIGHT!!! However, they do promise a FREEEEEE COOOOFFFFFFFIIIIINNNNN. To have a creepy limping gardener is always a good move. Yaaa-unique-aaawwwwnnn....
If you watch Mystery Science Theater 3000, you might've seen this. They like to showcase horrible movies, just to let you know.
A good gift for someone you hate.
\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\nNow I get it. The title refers to each audience member's immediate post-reaction after 68 minutes of mental torture. Trying too hard to be terrifying, lacking good dialogue even any fear for that matter really makes The Screaming Skull more like A Snoring Dull. Albeit, the mansion and property set in black and white does set a dark tone for the movie, but that's about it. The only scary thing about this flop is that people actually made money on this! Remember the coffin guarantee in the beginning? That may be the funniest thing I have ever witnessed on screen. Sad thing is that viewers probably hoped director Alex Nichol was forcibly placed in a coffin, nailed shut, and buried alive for his lame effort. Jenny placed in this unfortunate horrific situation never really draws any sympathy you would feel for a woman whose anxiety is blamed on a haunted, cranial receptacle. Also, her husband John comes off as a condescending wannabe smooth talker, but this doesn't work and he ends up proving how tough he is by slapping a helpless cripple around! Ah, Mickeythe days before you could get a restraining order against estate caretakers like him. This guy's approach is not very good or maybe too much airplane glue. Still, despite his strange persona, Mickey probably is the only good thing going for this movie providing a slight sense of entertainment and I can't get enough of a guy saying \"It was Mary!\" and rummaging through pots in a greenhouse.
\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 seeing the credits with only one name that I recognize and that was the preacher in this film (Russ Conway), I did not expect much from this film and I was not disappointed. A man is planning on killing his new wife by convincing other people that she is insane and will take her own life. Unbeknown to the husband is that the plastic looking skull that he uses, in contrast, a ghost of a woman apparently his first dead wife has revenge on her mind and uses a real skull. A simple plot with a twist of irony at the end. If you are tired late one night and in need of sleep, this will help you to sleep that sleep.
\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 SURE there is some sort of IMDB cult that likes movies that MST3K made fun of. After seeing both this and \"Werewolf\" and reading dozens of comments about how underated they are, I became convinced that there is some conpiricy going on here. Alot of people are saying that people who hate it \"are only scared by gore\", \"Don't know good horror\" or stuff like that. Well, I don't really care for gore, but I do want SOMETHING to happen in a movie! Most of it is just the wife sitting and looking around! Or walking around the house/garden! A movie requires something to give it atmosphoere, you don't get it by just have pointless scenes were someone walks around and stares. Oh, and \"Makes you think\"? Yeah, I was thinking \"MOVE! YOU @#$0&%!!\" One of the worst horror movie I have ever scene!
P.s. For the record, I am a big fan of the old style of horror, Dracula, Frankenstein, That kind of stuff.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am not a big fan of horror films, and have only seen a handful of them (and none of the \"Halloween\"s or \"Friday the Thirteenth\"s) - but I can appreciate a frightening horror film not because of gore. And I'm pretty sure this isn't scary.
What's so spooky about a little plastic skull that pops up everywhere? In all of its appearances there are faraway establishing shots, so there's no real surprise in any of this film. (Not that a skull in of itself is that scary anyway, but . . .)
The plot concerns Claus Von Bulow's third cousin (John Hudson), who marries a Donna-reed look-a-like (Peggey Webber, giving one of the worst performances ever) who begins seeing skulls and hearing the mysterious screams of a group of peacocks on her husband's mansion. Did I mention that her husband lost her first wife in a mysterious drowning incident? OOOOH!!!! Wonder who did it!!!!
This is the same old plot about a rich boy trying to kill and/or drive their wife insane. If you want to see a well-done version of this stuff, try \"Reversal of Fortune\". And BTW, Jeremy Irons is one hundred times more talented than John Hudson.
The MSTing was okay but nothing special; paired with the \"Gumby\" short, however, it makes for good viewing.
Two stars for \"The Screaming Skull\"; eight stars for the MST3K version.
And now, to paraphrase Mr. Von Bulow himself: \"How bad is this film?\" \"You have no idea!\"
\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 on Mystery Science Theater 300. It sucked so much. If I hadn't been watching it on MST3K, I probably would've thrown it out the window. The characters were incredibly lame and it didn't provide much of a plot in my opinion.
\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 producers of this film offer to pay funeral expenses for anyone who dies of fright while watching this movie. They should have offered intensive psychotherapy for anyone who really enjoyed this stinker. A young couple moves into a house, where a woman who looks like the woman from the couple lived. Extremely boring, and very predictable. In the end I ended up not caring about anyone in this movie.
Avoid this one at all costs.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThat is the best way I can describe this movie which centers on a newly married couple who move into a house that is haunted by the husband's first wife who died under mysterious circumstances. That sounds well and good, but what plays out is an hour of pure boredom. In fact one of the funny things about this flick is that there is a warning at the beginning of the film that promises anyone who dies of fright a free coffin. Well trust me, no one ever took them up on that offer unless someone out there is terrified of plastic skulls, peacocks, weird gardeners, and doors being knocked on. And the music is the worst, it consists of constant tuba music which sounds like it is being played by some sixth grader. And you will figure out the terrible secret that is so obvious that you really have to wonder what the people in this movie were thinking. Someone dies while running and hitting their head and the police are never called to investigate. Yes in the end this is a slow paced (which is really bad considering the movie is only just over an hour), boring little tale, that is easily figured out by the average person. Apparently none of the characters in this flick were the average person.
\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\nOK, I admit I watched this movie on Mystery Science Theater 3000 (which I am a huge fan of), but I am not one of those people who automatically gives an MST3K movie a 1/10 rating. Although I hate many of the movies they play, and some are among of the worst movies I've ever seen, I have actually been able to enjoy some MST3K movies. That being said, this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. (It is no wonder, in fact, that the MST3K writers themselves commented that this one was one of the worst. Don't believe me? Check out their site.)
To me, this movie is a good example of what NOT to do in filmmaking. The dialogue is very bad, the acting is worse, the cinematography is pathetic the direction (while perhaps being the best thing in this movie) is bad.
The pacing is the worst part in this movie. A few times in this movie, the viewer had to wait literally minutes for something to happen. While minutes may not sound like a very long amount of time, it can be in a movie, particularly in this one. I'm sure it was meant to create a mood, but I was just very bored. It truly felt like ten minutes.
If \"suspension of disbelief\" means \"almost falling asleep during a movie\", then this has plenty of that. But THE SCREAMING SKULL is just so horrible, there is no way I could have possibly even gotten interested in anything that was actually going on in the film, and thus the \"suspension of disbelief\" was indeed non-existant.
One of the worst, and probably the most boring movie I've ever seen.
1/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI would of given this film a zero out of ten, but i will give it a two. Reason One is that Shah Rukh Khan appears in the film, which is not really a reason. Last Point is that Rani Appears in this film and does a smooch with Kamal. I Love Rani very much and have a respect that she is a great actress. Which is why i didn't enjoy her in this movie kissing Kamal, but its no big deal. Anyway enough of the bedroom scenes that made this film noticeable, lets actually talk about this film. Is it good or bad, I think its a completely rubbish movie that made me yawn. Me being a Fantastic critic, you can see my other 250+ review's by clicking on my name, I have great taste. The movie is not entertaining is one thing and if this is suppose to be hard hitting cinema, why is there no morale in this movie. Its a biased movie thats not a true story and it stinks. Watching Kamal kissing these actresses makes me sick, Man cant kiss properly anyway.
\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 makes a promising start and then gets very confused and muddled. Kamal Hasan has made a lot of effort in getting the period look right, pity he did not spend more time on the plot. Most of the small characters in the movie show up for no particular reason.
Overall very disappointing, I would recommend avoiding this 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\nI had high expectations for this movie and was excited about renting it but was very disappointed when I saw it. It was very poorly written and sort of just fell apart. There wasn't a lot of good anything in this movie except maybe special effects.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAn interesting idea for a film, both showing the last dragon on earth and showing the struggle he and someone evil have together. When he was younger, Einon got stabbed in the heart, so Bowen (Dennis Quaid) took him to the dark lord who gave him half his heart. Now grown up Einon (David Thewlis) is now the selfish and evil king. Meanwhile, Bowen is using a new friend Draco the Dragon (voiced by Sir Sean Connery) to get rewards for \"killing\" dragons. But because Einon has half of Draco's hear, they both feel the pain in one of them is hurt, or killed. Also starring Pete Postlethwaite as Gilbert of Glockenspur, Jason Isaacs as Lord Felton, Julie Christie as Queen Aislinn and John Gielgud as King Arthur. It was nominated for the Oscar for Best Visual Effects. Worth watching!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie has such inexorable B class cheapness to all its scenes, effects etc as to make you think they spent 80% of their budget on Connery. It's like watching some Wing Commander stuff after Star Wars (quite apart from content).
Story can be described in one word: FLAT. And oh my God I can't remember a villain so uninteresting since long long ago. We're given neither a reason he's so wicked (an inborn defect, we're lead to think:) nor any real convincedness or flair to his wickedness.
If you're out for Connery rather go rent `Hunting Forrester'.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt is incredible in that it succeeds in being terrible on so many levels. The script, the acting, the directing and the choice of cast are all appalling. The costumes, sets and pseudo-medieval language are also utterly awful. In an odd way I actually enjoyed this film, once I had accepted that it wasn't going to be any good. It seems a shame that people would spend so much time and effort producing something so poor, when really they could have made something pretty decent out of the premise (albeit not very believable!), but instead we are treated to a rather nauseating and cheesy tale of dragons and knights, that lacks any of the charm to be found in other such fantasy films. Let's just hope that The Lord of the Rings is a bit better! Oh, and David Thewlis' haircut makes him look like He-Man. It does!
\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\"Diary of Sex Addict\" is a pathetic attempt at a serious drama about sexual compulsiveness. Probably a movie marketing scam, this flick is a stylish shoot with a good cast and little else going for it. Bottom line, \"Diary...\" would have us believe that our sex addict character has the dumbest wife in the world, a stable of babes on the side who have nothing better to do than drop their panties for him at his whim, and no job in spite of being a restaurateur. At the best, this flick could have been good drama. At the worst, cheap softcore. \"Diary...\" isn't either and nowhere in between. This one's for the dumpster. (D-)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nlet me first say, i watched this movie around midnight, and usually there only is trash around this hour, but this movie broke the record
first of all the main character is an old non attractive creepy guy, yet he gets to f*ck all girls that come on his path for example he goes to a shop, talks to a girl and then you see them f*ck
secondly there are loads of sex scenes, and in many of them there is no nudity at all, i would not have been surprised if one of the characters in the movie would say: fast put your clothes on so we can f*ck!
thirdly this movie should show what a sexual addiction can do to a man or a family, this movie only shows soft bad acted erotica it makes me wonder why those actors agreed to play in such trash
\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
This movie (not a film -- clearly recorded on a cheap cam-corder) may be one of the greatest cinematic stink-bombs in history. Beware: the packaging advertises the flick as an erotic exploration of sex-addiction. The film is not an exploration of anything, and it is no more erotic than staring at one's own warts. The script is pointless and meandering, with all plot elements serving as segways between supposed sex scenes. However, even the sex scenes are lame lame lame. Except for the first, they are around three seconds long (then again, maybe my version was cut) and comically overwrought.
If you are looking for a decent film, you don't want this. If you are looking for a titillating sex-flick, you don't want this. Whatever your life's goals, desires, or perspectives, you do not want to watch this movie. How they got Rosanna Arquette, Natashia Kinski, and Ed Begly to act in this stink bomb is puzzling in the extreme.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film was so amateurish I could hardly believe what I was seeing. It is shot on VIDEO! NOT film! I have not seen the likes of this since the early 70's, when late night networks showed movie of the week 'horror flicks' shot in......video. It looks like a bad soap opera, and that is paying it a compliment. Some of the actors give it their best shot. Michael Des Barres does okay with what he is given to do, which is to act like a sex addict out of control. I can't say that it is pleasant to watch.
Nastassja Kinski as the therapist sits in a chair for practically the entire film, with very little variation in camera angles. I can't fault her for someone else's poor blocking, but she is totally unbelievable in her role. Her little girl voice works against her here. And I consider myself a Nastassja Kinski fan. She is certainly ageless and exotic, but she's outside her range with this.
Alexandra Paul is pathetically overwrought. Every line she delivers is with three exclamation points. Someone must have directed her to scream at all costs. Why would Michael Des Barres want to have sex with such a raging shrew?
Finally, Rosanna Arquette as the sweet, maligned wife comes off okay, and probably the most believable of the bunch. But that is not saying much.
This has to be the worst film I have seen in years.
\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 fell asleep on my couch at 7:35pm last night watching Larry Sanders (I usually DirecTivo it, but not last night). Woke up at 3am (invesment banker on the west coast), and was fascinated to see this on HBO2. I was shocked on how poor this 'movie' was. Seriously. shocked. So shocked that I had to write a commentary on iMDB. This is really really bad. the writing is boring, but the directing and editing are simply below those of a freshman at a film school.
Yes it is shot video. Mind you, that is shot on VIDEO, not DIGITAL VIDEO. It does look like a soap opera. The clips from skateboard videos have a more 'film' feel to them then this horror.
I wanted to describe the poor directing but i honestly cant remember anything. The shots and blocking are stupid. yes, i chose the word 'stupid'. not unconventional, not daring, not bold, not boring, just stupid. I know people reviewing this review will say \"well give me an example\". I cant. It was 3am. but trust me, I know you will watch it anyway, you will be drawn by the horrible reviews.

\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 sexually obsessed chef leads a duplicitous life: one as a \"happily\" married man with a ten year oldish child, the other as a sex fiend. The bulk of the documentary-like film follows him for five consecutive days and is told in flashback with Nastassja Kinski as a clinical sex therapist, listening to his story and intelligently probing him. Nastassja's role is very restrictive and she is the only principal adult character who does not take off her clothes. If she had, I would have rated this movie a big fat \"F.\" As it is, it rates an F+, implying that it is still a failure unless one likes to be bored. It is probably a lot more interesting to spend ninety minutes cleaning out the garage. \"Diary of a Sex Addict\" falls into the category of films that once one has seen it, one wishes that one hadn't.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was subjected to this atrocity by my wife, tried to turn it off after 10 minutes, but was forced through the whole thing. This must be, hands down, the most gruesome pretense of a movie ever...
There were great script moments, such as:
Sammy - \"If she gets over here right away, she gets a bonus\" Madam - \"A boner?\" Sammy - \"No, a bonus\"
To summarize: Horrible script, terrible acting and incredibly illogical.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI wouldn't normally write a comment on-line, but this is the worst movie I've ever seen. Not only that it's filmed just like a soap series (\"The young and the restless\" is really filmed by professionals compared to this), but it also has awful cuts. It has no action. It is full of useless garbage.
Here's an example: a guy wants to kill the main character as he got fired because of him. So (after loads of crap) here they are: the guy puts a knife at his throat and says something like \"You're dead now\". Then the main character says: \"If you kill me you're dead. I've told the police you're threatening me\". So the (killer) guy goes like (just about to cry): \"Oh no... the cops are following me!?!! Oh... my God\".
Remember: this is just an example. I really cannot believe this movie actually exists. So: IF you want to see the WORST movie ever... go ahead, I recommend 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 really tried to like this movie. It deals with an important problem in any society: sex addiction.
In this story we learn that you can lose everything when you're addicted to sex. In this case, our main character and hero, for having non-stop sex with all kinds of women (crazy, kinky, neurotic) puts in jeopardy his marriage, job, and even his life.
The production values are terrible; mainly the acting. Oh, you won't enjoy ANY of the sex scenes, most of them are done in very poor taste and you might think you're watching a home made flick.
Second, the plot is just non sense. How could such a smart and beautiful wife stand all the nasty stuff from the husband? How could she believe him?! The threesome situation is priceless and will make you chuckle for a while.
Also, the scene with the black movie theater attendant is just pointless and will leave you thinking \"wtf?\".
Scenes like those you will find plenty.
Avoid this movie. Please, avoid it; it's not soft core, it's not a documental, it's not a dramatic feature. It's a pretentious effort form a so called documentary director or whatever.
Only Mrs. Kinski's legs on display are worth the watch. I caught it on HBO and I'm glad I didn't spend my money on it. But those 90 minutes of my life won't come back.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs many others have stated, this is a terrible movie, from every aspect of movie making. How they ever got some known name actors to take on this project is amazing.
Many people have complained that it was shot on 'cheap' video cameras. Yes, it was shot on video, but not 'cheap' video. What made it bad was the lighting, white balancing, shooting technique and editing.
There were so many different shooting and editing techniques used that it was a production mess. Harsh, inconsistent lighting, over use of hand held shooting (ala Woody Allen), choppy editing (another Allen technique), but poorly done, without real purpose.
The lack of white balance in the restaurant kitchen scenes is embarrassing; very amateurish.
The simulated sex scenes had no acting value at any level.
How this video ever made it to print is beyond me. It is worth watching if only to be amazed at how bad it is.
\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\nMy husband rented this from a video store thinking it was suspense. (He never reads the synopsis).
Well, it would be funny if the thing was watchable. It simply isn't. The same thing over and over, no intrigue, and WHERE did they find the leading man?. The leading man, Michael Des Barres, is not even feasibly good-looking, especially for this role he is given. Also, sexual harassment at work is something, if you want to see, rent Michael Crichton's \"Disclosure\". At least Michael Douglas looked good in the early 90's.
Alexandra Paul, who is usually watchable, plays an embarrassing scene here. There are also lighting effects cheaper than your at home web cam. Don't even waste time renting this. 0/10.
\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\nOk, I wrote a scathing review b/c the movie is awful. As I was waiting another review (for Derrida) of mine to pop up, i decided to check out old reviews of this awful movie. Look at all the positive reviews. They ALL, I say ALL, come from contributors have have not rated any other movie other than this one. Crimminy! and wait till you to the \"rosebud\" [sic] review.
Checkout the other movies rosebud reviewed and had glowing recommendations for. Oh, shoot!, they happen to be for the only other movies by the two writers and director. Holy Window-Wipers Batman.
Joe, Tony, you suck as writers, and tony, you couldn't direct out of a bad script. No jobs for you!
ALWAYS CHECK POSITIVE REVIEWS FOR A LOW RATED 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\nDon't let the title trick you into watching this movie. I read the title, saw that it came on in the middle of the night, and figured it was one of those soft porn movies. This movie is bad. If you like soft porn movies, then I'm sorry to say this isn't one. There are a lot of sex but nothing shown and they only last for 5 seconds or so.
\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 could had been an interesting character study and could had given some insight on its subject but real problem with this movie is that it doesn't have any of this in it. It doesn't give any insight-, or solutions to the problem. It's just the portrayal of 'old' male sex addict and the problems this is creating for his every day normal life and family. Why would you want to watch this? It's all so totally pointless and meaningless.
It also really doesn't help that the main character is some wrinkly 50+ year old male. You'll have a hard time identifying yourself- and sympathize for him. He just seems like a dirty old playboy, who is an a constant hunt for woman and sex. He has all kinds of sexual intercourse's about 3 times a day with different woman and not just only with prostitutes.
It also doesn't have a bad visual style, though it all feels a bit forced. But nevertheless it's all better looking than most other direct-to-video productions. Who knows, if the film-makers had been given better material to work with, the movie would had deserved a better faith.
The story really gets ridicules at times. There are really some pointless plot-lines that are often more laughable than they were obviously supposed to be. I'm talking about for instance the whole Ordell plot-line. Things get worse once they movie starts heading toward the ending. Also the whole way the story is being told, cutting back and forth between the events that happened and the main character's sessions with his psychiatrist feels a bit cheap and simple.
But as far as bad movies are concerned, this just isn't one of them. It's not really any better or worse than any other random straight-to-video flick, with similar concepts.
Still seems weird and quite amazing that they managed to cast Nastassja Kinski and Ed Begley Jr. in such a simple small insignificant production as this one is. Guess they were really desperate for work and money.
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\nNo reason to bother renting this flick. From the opening credits on, I knew I was in trouble.
It was filmed as though it was a soft porn movie, but there really isn't anything erotic about it. The look into the world of sex addiction is intriguing, but only to a point.
Boring sex scenes, bad plot, and cameos by Ed Begley Jr. and Rosanna Arquette aren't enough to save 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\nThis movie could have been a decent B-movie if 3/4 of the the movie wasn't so much focusing on the sex scenes. I mean, he's a sex addict, and I'm sure that there's a lot more that goes on with sex addicts outside of having sex on a constant basis. Michael Des Barres did a good job considering what all he had to do, which wasn't much. At one point or another, one would have to laugh at him, because his character was so pitiful. Nastassja Kinski was alright in her role as the concerned sex therapist, she could've of done more though and I'm not suggesting her having sex. The person that stood out the most to me in this movie was Rosanna Arquette in her convincing role as the loving and concerned wife. There's something about beautiful inside and out that strongly appeals to me. She played that role and as you watched the movie, you start to feel bad for her.
\"Diary Of A Sex Addict\" while not Oscar material or a modern classic to anyone's standards, is quite informative and does a fair job in showing you how one's personal demons can take over and ruin the very things in life you think highly of.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"