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\nThe actors did a really good job playing their roles--particularly the mom. However, as the movie progressed I found I was watching it more for their acting and not because I cared in the least for the people. And, at times, I felt irritated by the irresponsible and hands-off approach to parenting displayed again and again. The daughter is a 17 year-old shallow skank whose main ambition in life is bedding famous men and becoming a dancing nyphette (complete with lots of \"booty shaking\"). The son is a guy with low self-esteem that seems very desperate for a relationship and friends--so much that he throws a drug party late in the film. The husband and wife are both bored, but rather than put energy into their stale relationship would rather seek out new partners (though the wife picks poorly, as the man she \"throws herself at\" happens to be gay---OOPS!). I just felt that ALL the characters needed to grow up and had a hard time caring for such shallow jerks. I think the author's attempt was to demonstrate the utter banality and hollowness of the capitalist system. However, given that these characters are NOT typical of the average western family, it seems disingenuous.
\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 plot it's not so original. If someone saw \"L'ultimo Bacio\" there's nothing new. A wealthy family in Rome living everyday life that's is boring and false, with everyone asking to others what they think about them. Really boring after an half of hour because it's simple to understand where the story is going to finish. This because it's simple to see the moralistic view of Muccino in this movie, so even the hardest parts seem normal. To summarise in the first 2 minutes of the movie it would be enough and the aim of the movie were already said. the family saw from a 30 years old, i don't like to see movie that want to show the reality but for be coherent to his thoughts has to push more than the normal the situations. Really good how Muccino put the camera in the right place moving with the carathers and it's the only reason that bring me not sleeping in the cinema though always in the movie scream from the begining. Perhaps it could be good to see the family how they are in reality and not put the blame to something out of it. Morante was intense and great as usual but unfortunatly on a bad 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\nThe film starts with a voice over telling the audience where they are, and who the characters are. And that is the moment i started to dislike the movie. With all the endless possibilities any film director have in hand, i really find it a very easy and cheap solution to express the situation with a voice over telling everything. I actually believe voice overs are betrayals to the film making concept.
I hate to hear from a voice over saying where we are, which date we are at, and especially what the characters feel and think. I believe that a director has to find a visual way to transmit the feelings and the thoughts of the characters to the audience.
But after the bad influencing intro, a very striking movie begins and keeps going for a fairly long enough time. The lives of a middle class family and all the members individually are depicted in a perfect realistic way. I think the director has a talent for capturing real life situations. For example, a father who has to make his private calls from the bathroom might seem abnormal at first, but life itself leads us some situations which might seem abnormal but also very normal as well. I think the director is a very good observer about real life.
But that is it. After a while the realism in the movie begins to sacrifice the story-telling. I really felt like I'm having a big headache because of the non-stop talking characters. It was as if the actors and actresses were given the subject and were allowed to improvise the dialogs. It is realistic really, but characters always asking \"really, is that so\" etc. to each other, or characters saying \"no\" or \"are you listening to me,\" ten times when saying it only once is just enough causes me to have a headache.
I also think the play practicing and book reading scenes are more then they should be. I understand that the play and the book in the movie are very much related to the plot, but i think the director has missed the point where he should stop showing these scenes.
\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 Scorsese's worst. An average thriller; the only thing to recommend it is De Niro playing the psycho. The finale is typically of this genre i.e. over-the-top, with yet another almost invincible, immune-to-pain villain. I didn't like the 60s original, and this version wasn't much of an improvement on it. I have no idea why Scorsese wasted his time on a remake. Then again, considering how bad his recent movies have been (I'm referring to his dull Buddhist movie and all the ones with his new favourite actress, the blond girl Di Caprio) this isn't even that bad by comparison. And considering Spielberg wanted to do the remake... could have been far worse.
\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 this movie is rated so highly, although if I were to go with typical grade scale 71 is a c- or d so perhaps that's all right but this movie was just a typical thriller except boringly slow and unrealistic. Not that a typical thriller is realistic but this one seemed to be trying to, and yet the woman who got rapped didn't press charges because she didn't want to be cross examined in a court even though she would be putting the man who broke her arm beat the crap out of her and raped her away for life not but also protecting the lawyer whom she had feelings for and his family not just random people she didn't even know. There were other similar problems with the movie which would have been all right if there was some kind of moral to take away from the movie but the few moral questions like whether it was right to try to kill/beat Kady before he did anything illegal were presented a little one sided since Kady ended up being just a crazed bastard bent on revenge so sure the lawyer was justified in protecting his family since waiting for Kady to actually rape his daughter so he could do something legally about it would be a bit absurd. So now I've just waisted more of my life for this stupid movie so please don't see it so at least your life won't be waisted and that way my 2 1/2 hours or so has meant something.
\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\nWhile I can't deny that his movies are often entertaining, I have always personally felt that Martin Scorsese is just a little overrated in his abilities. His use of flashy stylistics in a good number of his movies seems to scream \"Look at me, aren't I an imaginative director?\". His best film that I have seen is the one with the least added flourishes, the superlative \"Raging Bull\".
For this remake it appears it was business as usual, though. The dull film stock to convey a 1950's setting was so bland as to be a distraction in itself. The melodramatic close-ups combined with the sub-par imitation of the classic \"Psycho\" score are more likely to provoke smirks of derision than a sense of atmospheric terror. The score for \"Psycho\" was brilliantly unnerving, this 'homage' just sounds shrill and annoying. Even the cast, who can be decent at times, deliver histrionic performances that just scream 'caricature'; the notable exception to this being an intelligent turn by Lewis as the impressionable teenage daughter of the Bowden family.
The worst acting offender here is surprisingly De Niro. Sure, he looks suitably menacing but as soon as he opens his mouth that aura just drains away. Now I'm no expert on American accents, me originally coming from near Manchester in England an' all, but surely he could've come up with a more convincing Southern drawl than that? Being the gifted physical actor he is, he almost overcomes this fatal flaw, but not quite. It was disconcerting for me, as a De Niro fan, to be wishing he was off screen, rather than rapt at his performance.
(POSSIBLE SPOILERS.)
The over-the-top style of the whole movie extends to the ridiculously overblown finale. When will Scorsese learn that underplaying the situation can sometimes build tension just as effectively as giving the viewer a visual and sonic bombardment? I also thought that he was too respected a reputation to resort to the 'killer-not-dead-yet' cheap trick that less talented individuals might employ.
All in all, a thoroughly ridiculous 'thriller'. Scorsese and De Niro have done MUCH better work together.
\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\nWorst De Niro Scorsese collaboration in this horrible agonizing violent overlong mess. Scorsese is totally out of his element in this film with the horror cliched suddenly loud phone ringing and door slamming gimmicks that seem laughable and embarrassing coming from such a master craftsman. The cast is totally wasted here and the southern accents are very annoying and forced. Nick Noltie plays the wimpiest lawyer in history who would ever believe he can defend anyone ! De Niro's psychotic Bowden is nothing more than the typical 90's movie psycho killer. The scene with De Niro and Lewis early on is very awkward and the climax goes on and on and we should all be more than tired of the on psycho stalker that never dies. One of my most horrible movie experiences. Rent the original it's 100 times better.

\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 remake of the 1962 orginal film'o the book has some very good parts to commend it and some fine performances by some fine actors - however Scorsese opts toward the end for the most formulaic of plot twists and an embarrassingly overacted shakespearean demise that had me looking at my watch.
DeNiro is a superb actor, dedicated to giving his all in the work he does, however he needs direction to focus his talent, and this is sorely lacking in the last five minutes of the film.
Gregory Peck's cameo is serviceable but nothing more whilst Robert Michum is always fun to watch, even with as few lines as this.
Nick Nolte turns in a better performance than Lorenzo's Oil but is not on the same form as \"Weeds\". Joe Don Baker has some great lines while Juliette Lewis proves yet again that talent sometimes skips a generation.
Some good points? The start credits(!), the first view of Cody's back when doing dips in the prison, the scene where Cody is attacked with baseball bats, Sam Bowden's decent into full-fledged panic, Cody's outwardly calm but unnerving prescence.
The worst? The \"Cleaning woman - BUT NOT REALLY!!!\" part. Clinging bare-handed to the underside of a car for a hundred miles at high speed. (Are there no speed bumps in the US?) The \"He's dead - BUT NOT REALLY!!!\" partS and the aforementioned rambling ending.
I may watch the original again, but I've yet to be tempted to watch the remake in four years since seeing 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\nWhat ever possessed Martin Scorcese to remake this film? And not only did he remake it, completely ruin it? The nonsensical decision to make the character played by Robert DeNiro (in his most overdone performance, and that's saying a lot) into a religious fanatic is ridiculous, and exemplary of attitudes harbored by Hollywood (and Mr. Scorcese especially)- attitudes that compel writers to think that the best way to make a character insane is to tattoo a crucifix on his back. In any case, this movie is awful.

\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\nWorst movie, (with the best reviews given it) I've ever seen. Over the top dialog, acting, and direction. more slasher flick than thriller.With all the great reviews this movie got I'm appalled that it turned out so silly. shame on you martin scorsese
\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\nChrist. A sequel to one of the most cloying films of all time, this at least has the decency to leave out the songs (bar a reprise of the unbearable \"Tomorrow\") but does continue the tradition of being nauseating and unfunny. This time, Annie and her friends head off to London and get caught up in Joan Collins's plot to blow up Buckingham Palace or some such shite. The movie has a bizarrely sycophantic attitude towards its eponymous character at odds with how irritating she is: every time the little bugger squeals \"Leapin' lizards!\" I could feel my teeth grinding themselves down into powder. Drearily photographed, slushy and plodding, the movie has only one memorable line (\"Unhand me, you stupid genius!\") and the fact that it's not the original to 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\nWell where do i start? i think it's very insulting to the original Annie with Aileen Quimnn. I love the film Annie, and i was expecting this to be a brilliant film, but i was so disappointed! the acting is awful, the original Annie came out a few years before i was born, I'm now 25 and Annie is still one of my favourite films, So i was really excited to see Annie 2. The acting was awful in the film, were any of the characters original? very badly written, directed and acted. This is not a film i wish to see again, and any Annie lover i recommend that you don't watch this film because it will only leave you very disappointed. The young girls singing isn't bad but still doesn't compare to the original
\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\nUnfortunately there was not a 0 for a rating or else I would've chosen it. This movie lacks the star power that the original movie had in such abundance. Carol Burnett, Albert Finney, Tim Curry, Bernadette Peters, Edward Hermann, the innocence of newcomer Aileen Quinn, and expert directing from seasoned pro John Huston (father of actress Angelica Huston)is what made this film so charming. Even the 1999 remake with Kathy Bates, Victor Garber, Alan Cumming, and Kristin Chenoweth had more to offer than this sorry excuse for a sequel. Before she did this movie all Ashley Johnson was known for was her role as little Chrissie Seaver on the prime time show Growing Pains. She had a few bit parts in movies but I don't know who thought she had talent enough to carry a movie on her own. And adding Joan Collins as Lady Edwina Hogbottom, ridiculous! They couldn't get good enough actors to play the major roles like Daddy Warbucks, Miss Hannigan, and Annie but they will sign Joan Collins to play some British lady? It doesn't surprise me that this movie was as bad as it was. The critics were right to have not agreed with this movie, even if it was only made for TV, it was a poor sequel to an otherwise lovable 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\nThis film is absolutely awful, but nevertheless, it can be hilarious at times, although this humor is entirely unintentional.
The plot was beyond ridiculous. I don't even think a 2 year-old would be convinced by the ludicrous idiocy that the film-makers tried to slap together into a story. However, on the positive side, some of the horrifically inane plot twists provide a great deal of humor. For example, \"Wow, Lady Hogbottom has a giant missile hidden in her back yard!\" It gets worse (and even funnier), but I'll spare you.
The acting is generally laughable. Most of the kids' roles are sort of cute, but not very believable. On the other hand, Annie is pretty awful all-around. The adults don't take their roles seriously at all, but this is largely a good thing. If they'd tried to be believable, the film would've been even worse. Which is difficult to imagine.
Once you get past the overall crappiness of the movie, there are actually a few standout moments of almost-not-crappiness. The scene where Lady Hogbottom's son runs away with the maid is surprisingly hilarious, though it's an annoying letdown when they get caught by the police. The butler character, while very minor, is a ray of sunlight that almost, but never quite pierces through the gloom.
Watching this movie actually caused me physical pain. Nevertheless, there were a few redeeming parts that made it almost watchable without beginning to hemorrhage internally. Judged on its good parts alone, the movie would be about a 5; unfortunately, the rest of the movie hardly deserves a 1. Thus, I give it a 3.
That's being pretty generous, I'd say.
\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\nNot even worth watching this tacky spoiler ruins everything about 'Annie'. The characters seem almost cheapened by the poorly written storyline and they low quality feeling to the production. It was very clearly made for TV, yet if I found it on my television, I would flick it straight over. The children in the film do an alright job, yet the adults acting is unbelievable and so the movie fails to really draw you in. This film lacked the music/dance numbers thats made the original brilliant and truly does take the shine of the Annie we all love. Johnson, as Annie is at times annoying and over acted..you cannot convince yourself that she truly is Annie. The differences in character appearance continued to irritate me throughout the duration of the film. Sad to say this sequel was a total flop.
\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\nAnnie's wig does not look good. she is not cute and pretty enough to play Annie. Annie sticks out in the movie, as her outfits look like Halloween costumes. terrible acting and terrible plots. This movie is such a change from the 1982 version. I think that a younger and smaller girl should have had the lead role. Ashley Johnson portrays a very boyish Annie. Not appealing at all. At least the casting director got it right with Daddy Warbucks. Ms. Hannigan was also miscast. Camilla Belle played Molly alright. \"Warning\" this movie might insult your IQ so you might just want to only show it to very young children. 8 and younger. Some of the plots are too fictional and could hardly take place in the real world.
\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\nSince the 70s, writer/producer/director Charles Band has been responsible for literally hundreds of science-fiction, fantasy and horror B-movies. Some of them are wonderful examples of how to use a tiny budget to maximum effect; many of them are pretty bad. Trancers (1985) was one of those rare gems.
A Terminator style tale of time-travel and action, Trancers saw Tim Thomerson playing Jack Deth, a future cop given the task of tracking down bad-guy Whistler, who travels into the past by inhabiting the body of an ancestor. Whistler is capable of controlling other humans with his psychic powers, converting them into obedient zombies (the 'trancers' of the title), and attempts to alter the course of history by killing off the ancestors of the leaders of the future. Jack follows him to 1985, determined to stop him.
In this 1991 sequel, Jack is still living in 1985. Having destroyed Whistler, he has settled down and married Leena (Helen Hunt), the young woman who helped him succeed in the first movie. But, for Jack, things don't stay calm for long, and trouble appears in the form of Whistler's brother, E.D. Wardo, who is trying to build a trancer army.
Trancers II lacks the charm and simplicity of the original and is a huge disappointment considering how good the original was. The story is difficult to pick up if you haven't seen the first film (or at least not for a long while), and there is loads of unimpressive action and a few poor special effects. Gone is the inventiveness and wit that made Trancers so much fun; instead we get some cheesy one-liners and a script that feels like it was written on-the-fly.
About the only reason I can give for recommending this film to fans of the genre is the cast, which boasts many names that will be familiar to followers of sci-fi and horror movies: Jeffrey Combs, Barbara Crampton, Richard Lynch, Martine Beswicke. Unfortunately, most of them seemed to be having an 'off day' whilst filming Trancers II, and performances are mediocre at best.
The Trancers series obviously has its fans; four further sequels have since been churned out. Unless the quality has taken up massive upward swing, I can't imagine them being any good.
\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 original Trancers is not by any means a great movie. It had massive plot holes and very little in the way of internal logic. However, it was entertaining, better done than most low-budget B-movies, and could be surprisingly witty. Unfortunately, Trancers II is none of these.
Trancers II suffers from many of the same problems of most flop sequels. The plot is thin enough to see through and the writing is insipid. It seems that the people behind this movie felt that bringing the familiar faces of the first movie back would be enough, and didn't bother with anything else. Not even veteran B-grade actors like Tim Thomerson and Jeffery Combs were able to drag this film out of the muck.
A brief plot overview: Jack Deth (Thomerson) is a cop from the future who was sent to 1985 to save the ancestors of members of his government. Trancers II takes place six years after the events of the first Trancers. Jack Deth is married to Lena (Helen Hunt), the woman he met in the first movie, and both live with Hap Ashby, the man Deth was sent into the past to protect. It is discovered that the brother of Whistler (the bad guy from the first movie) has traveled back in time to create an army of Trancers, people turned into mindless killing zombies, to kill Ashby. Complicating Jack's mission is the fact that his first wife, who had died long before Jack traveled to the past, was also sent back to stop Whistler's brother, and now Jack finds himself working with her.
I have two real problems with this movie. One is that the method of creating Trancers in this movie is radically different from the methods used in the first movie. What makes it annoying is that, in a rather poor example of Soviet Revisionism, they act like it was always the technique.
The other thing that annoys me is that the love triangle between Deth, Lena, and Alice Stilwell (Jack's first wife) is given very little screen time. This bothered me particularly because it was much more interesting than the actual plot of the movie. It felt like it was just something that was thrown in to fill space in the movie. Alice's character in particular seems very unconcerned with the fact that she is reunited with her husband only to find he's re-married, making her either very shallow or very poorly written.
The only reason I can think of for watching this movie is if you're interested in watching the entire Trancers series (currently totaling six movies). Otherwise, even if you're a fan of the original Trancers, stay away from this tepid sequel.
\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\nWhy review good movies when you can review \"Trancers II?\"
Ooh, this film is soooo lame. I can just picture the cast and crew driving around L.A. with a camcorder, hurling extras in silly monster make-up at poor, long-suffering Tim Thomerson. The stars' families actually turn up to play cameos, probably because Full Moon couldn't afford \"real\" extras. Lame effects, lame sets, and a script so convoluted it would take eons to untie all the knots - this must be classic Trancers!
And yet...and yet...it rules. Note this is the same thing I say about \"Trancers IV.\" I say it because it's true. What can beat watching an old guy in a trench coat mow down zombies, then bust out with quips like, \"Don't worry ladies, they're bio-degradable\"? Well, lots of things could be better, but anyway this is still good stuff.
My only significant reservation is Megan Ward, who really stinks up the joint. She's a lousy rival for Helen Hunt's character - they're both young pieces of eye candy, and it would've been more effective if they actually contrasted a bit more. Oh well, you can't have everything. At least the wonderful plot device of the \"long second watch\" is back in place, and we've got more of Hap Ashby, the least-convincing athlete in the history of cinema (oh, wait a minute - he's got a rival in the form of David Ogden Steirs in \"Creator\").
I haven't seen this lately, but I do seem to remember that Martine Beswick runs away twice during the final battle. Hooray for lousy continuity! Just one of the many highlights in this fine 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 is a big step down after the surprisingly enjoyable original. This sequel isn't nearly as fun as part one, and it instead spends too much time on plot development. Tim Thomerson is still the best thing about this series, but his wisecracking is toned down in this entry. The performances are all adequate, but this time the script lets us down. The action is merely routine and the plot is only mildly interesting, so I need lots of silly laughs in order to stay entertained during a \"Trancers\" movie. Unfortunately, the laughs are few and far between, and so, this film is watchable at best.
\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\nMe and my friend rented this movie for $2.50. And we both agree on one thing:
THIS IS THE WORST MOVIE EVER MADE!
Also me and my friend counted 475 face shots. (Which makes up 95% of the movie).
So in other words: DO SEE THIS MOVIE UNLESS YOU LIKE WASTING MONEY! And I do!

\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 the debacle of the first Sleepaway Camp, who thought that a franchise could be born. SC II is superior in aspect. More inspired killings and just whole lot more fun. While that might not be saying much (compared to the first movie), Sleepaway Camp II is worth the rental.
Pros: Entertaining, doesn't take itself too seriously like SC I. Inspired Killings. Cons: Crappy acting and mullets abound.
Bottom Line: 5/10

\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\nBeing a slasher film aficionado, I typically will settle in to watch every slash movie that passes over my retinas, which sometimes does more harm than good to my brain, I will say. While channel surfing the other night, Sleepaway Camp II happened to cross paths with me. Of course, I wanted to check it out, as I had heard of the Sleepaway Camp franchise, but have never actually seen any of them (for shame, I know). I will note that since I have not seen the original, my criticism should probably not be taken too seriously, because perhaps what I think is wrong with it is totally intentional by the franchise's own design.
Now I'm assuming that the franchise of Sleepaway Camp is, in itself, a joke on itself. Hell, even the name comes off as an intentional joke. Sleep away camp? It's good fun. I can appreciate the film for wanting to just put together something for pure camp horror value, but that's about as far as I can go. The acting in this movie made the cast of the original Friday the 13th look like thespians doing a rendition of Macbeth. Campy requires bad acting, but come on. Pamela Springsteen as the evil out-of-touch-with-reality killer did a better job of killing off my interest than she did killing off the entire cast. As far as comedy goes, there were a few times where I chuckled, but it was few and far between.
Ultimately, SAC II is pretty boring, and I really did want to sleep away the camp. The deaths are so obviously staged and fake that you can barely appreciate them. If you're looking for a slasher film comedy with good camp, I recommend Club Dread. If your channel surfing takes you across this one, check and see what else is on.
\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 wonder Pamela Springsteen gave up acting to become a full-time photographer; it's a much better idea to have her behind a camera than in front of one. While this movie is not without its interesting elements (mullets from hell, etc.), it is outweighed by flaws. For one thing, Angela, the murderous counselor, appears to be about the same age as the campers. Having an older, more threatening camp director would have done a lot for the film. And then you have the murder scenes. The budget was apparently too low to execute most of them properly (no pun intended), although drowning someone in an outhouse toilet is certainly original. But overall, there are a ton of movies out there that are scarier/more fun to spend an hour and a half of your life 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 is an immoral and reprehensible piece of garbage, that no doubt wants to be a Friday the 13th (1980) clone. The poster for this movie makes it look like there's going to be some sort of a cross between Jason and Freddy, which is likely to attract movie-goers. There is NOTHING good or entertaining about this movie about this movie. It just makes me sad, just thinking that some people are going to stumble upon Sleepaway Camp II: Unhappy Campers (1988) on video or DVD, and waste their time with this sad, cynical, depressing movie.
Angela Baker (Pamela Springsteen) is a camp counselor at Camp Rolling Hills, who hopes that the other campers are as nice as she is, and that they stay out of trouble. Meanwhile, the other campers are realizing that people are disappearing one by one, with Angela making up the excuse that she had to send them home. Could Angela be the killer, who was once a man, who underwent a sex change operation years earlier? Who knows? Who cares?
The 1980s was home to a lot of movies that made the cross between the Mad Slasher and Dead Teenager genres, in which a mad killer goes berserk. Some have a plot, some don't, but they're all about as bad as this one. Sleepaway Camp II: Unhappy Campers is 80 minutes of teenagers being introduced and then being stabbed, strangled, impaled, chopped up, burned alive, and mutilated. That's all this movie is. It is just mindless, bloody violence.
Watching this movie, I was reminded of the Friday the 13th movies, in which the message for its viewers was that the primary function of teenagers is to be hacked to death. The filmmakers of Sleepaway Camp II have every right to be ashamed of themselves. Imagine the sick message that this movie offers for its teen viewers: \"The world is a totally evil place,\" this movie tells you, \" and it'll kill you. It doesn't matter what your dreams or your hopes are. It doesn't matter if you have a new boyfriend, or a new girlfriend. It doesn't matter what you think, what you do or what your plans for the future are. You can forget those plans, because you're just going to wind up dead.\"
And the sickest thing is--and by not giving too much away--the movie simply sets up room for a sequel. Well, why not? They've probably and already taken the bucket to the cesspool by making three or four of these movies. I missed out on the original Sleepaway Camp (1983), and, after watching its first sequel, I will hopefully stay away from the other sequels, as well as the original. And for parents, if you know kids who actually LIKE this movie, do not let them date your children.
\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 bad from the start. The only purpose of the movie was that Angela wanted to get a high body count. The acting was horrible. The killings were acted out very badly. Like when Ally got stuffed down that toilet I guess it was in the abandoned cabin. But when the end of the movie comes and Molly and the other guy are in the cabin you see Ally so Angela must have gone in to get her. The part that really got me was when the black girl and Angela were in the cabin and Angela took the guitar string and chocked her. One it was horrible acting and two why wouldn't you just turn around and punch the bitch?!?!? Then when Molly is getting chased by Angela if you have the neigh why not just turn around and stab her??? So stupid. This movie sucked...
\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\nDespite being a sequel to the more potent original, this is more of a comical remake of Friday THE 13TH concerning the further antics of psychopathic Angela, killing more nubile teens for their \"immorality\" at a camp.
Pamela Springsteen (sister of Bruce) looks great. There are some pretty darn funny sex scenes with some pretty darn attractive girls, but the movie's so (unintentionally) comedic rather than suspenseful, it's a stinker.
* out of ****.
MPAA: Rated R for graphic violence and gore, nudity, and for some sexuality, language, and drug use.
\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\nAngela Johnson (Pamela Springsteen--yes she's related to Bruce), the killer from the first film, is up to her old tricks again. She's one of the counselors at Camp Rolling Hills. As long as the girls at camp are nice and stay away from sex, drugs and swearing things are fine. But a few step over the line and Angela kills them--cracking bad jokes all the way.
The original \"Sleepaway Camp\" was a vicious and nasty splatter film but had some good points to it. This is vicious and nasty too but has NO good points to it. The plot has been done to death and this adds NOTHING new to the formula. There are plenty of gory killings in here (people are burnt alive, heads are cut off, throats slashed) but all the gore is so obviously fake it actually become comical. This also has the smallest amount of campers I've ever seen and virtually everyone is far too old for their roles (especially Higgins). As expected there's the gratuitous female nudity (here provided by the tremendously untalented Valerie Hartman) and the obligatory good girl/good boy team (Renne Estevez and Tony Higgins). With the sole exception of Springsteen and Higgins the acting is lousy--even by slasher movie standards. There's also a cruel edge to this movie in which one character is drowned in an outhouse! Boring and sick with a stupid plot, pointless nudity and bad gore. Skip 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\nSo Angela has grown up and gotten therapy and an operation to turn her into a real life daughter, rather than the son that she was born, and now holds a job as - wait for it - a camp counselor! How appropriate, right? I know, I love it. Anyway, the first sequel to the Sleepaway Camp franchise obeys all the rules of horror sequels - more blood, more imaginative killings (which aren't imaginative, but still more so than the original), more nudity, a more elaborate plot, and generally worse than the original.
It is entertaining in the same way as the original was, in that the characters and wardrobes are so goofy and so authentically 80's that you can't help getting a good laugh. At one point, a guy asks Angela out, and she says \"I'll call you,\" and then quickly walks away. The guy says to himself, \"How is she gonna call me? I don't have a phone!\" and then he sniffs his armpits, wondering what turned her off (it's the hair, dude!!).
It is a well-known fact that in 80s slasher movies, the murdered teenagers were more often than not being punished by their killer for some kind of bad behavior, usually for being too promiscuous. When I first started getting into horror movies and saw the Friday the 13th movies for the first time in the mid 90s, I didn't realize this. I learned it in a film class a year or two later and was amazed that their was some method to the madness. I was pretty impressed, not only that the movies were passing on some kind of message, albeit a morbid one, but that there was actually some thought put into it.
But not in this movie! At one point just before Angela kills one of her victims, she says \"Let this be a lesson to you. Say no to drugs!\" Real subtle screen writing there, guys. Then again, the dialogue is the most entertaining thing in the movie. Angela (who, by the way, went through all that therapy and those operations and all that trouble to clean up her past and reinvent herself as a normal and well-developed person and then changed her name from Angela to, umm, Angela), says at one point, \"I don't like being the wicked witch of the west, but I know what happens when things get out of control.\" (People start getting killed...by me! HA!)
Then later, she demands that one of the counselors, Mare, make an apology, to which the girl replies, \"I'd rather die!\" Sorry, Mare, but you really walked into that one...
Two years ago I was a camp counselor at a sleepaway camp similar to the one portrayed in this movie (except the camp that I taught at had more than three kids to the 15 or 20 counselors and it also had rules, which the one in the movie doesn't). This made me notice the myriad of discrepancies in the movie from what camp life is really like.
That's okay though, you can hardly make a movie like this with a lot of 9 year olds running around, although there were some 10 or 11 year old kids killed in this movie. I hadn't seen that kind of thing much before.
Definitely bad taste, even for a cheesy 80s slasher 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\nthis movie is not good.the first one almost sucked,but had that unreal ending to make it worth watching.this one has nothing.there's zero scare,zero tension or suspense.this isn't really a horror movie.most of the kills don't show anything.there's no gore to speak of.this could almost be a TV,except for a bit of nudity and a bit of violence.the acting is not very good,either.and don't get me started on the dialogue.as for the surprise ending,surprise,there isn't one.i suppose it could have been worse,although i don't see how.but then again,it is less than 80 minutes long,so i guess that's a good thing.although it felt a lot longer. apparently this is the cut version of the film.i found it for a very cheap price,but it still not worth it.if you want the uncut more graphic version,check out the Anchor Bay edition.anyway,this version of Sleepaway Camp II:Unhappy Campers gets a big fat 1/10 from me. p.s.if you watch this movie,you will probably be a bored and unhappy camper.if you are a real fan,you might want to pick up Anchor Bay's Sleepaway Camp(with survival kit) three disc collection containing the first three movies uncut and with special features
\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\nAbsolutely putrid slasher film has not one redeeming quality. It has Camp Councellor Angela(Pamela Anderson..awful as the killer;her quips when she wastes people aren't even amusing)on the warpath slaying teenagers who act the least bit naughty or resist her pleadings for good behavior. We run the gamut of boring, clichéd killings such as the slashing to the throat to one kid looking for his Freddy clawed glove, a kid who gets a chainsaw, one girl who gets drilled, one who gets shoved into the crapper(filled with leeches), one who is roasted, etc.
It doesn't have one original idea to offer and is merely a waste of time. That is unless you want to see Valerie Hartmen's(who plays the slut Ally)tits. Most of the violence occurs off-screen so even that will not satisfy.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is not horror, as the first part was: This is (\"campy\") light and humorous entertainment. Like in so many sequels, the action starts right away with no explanations. But there's boobs, so I don't complain. And real boobs that is. If I understand correctly, those are quite rare today amongst the teenage girls in U.S. of A. Which brings to my mind the fact that the main actress here is Pamela \"Bruce's sister\" Springsteen.
This cannot be thought without the first movie, so I compare this to it. Again there is too small clothing (mainly pants) and funny hair, it's not hard to tell what decade this film is made in. Again there is really strange characters, this time even more visibly \"pathological\" ones. Especially the personnel of the camp. It's like some mental rehabilitation summer camp. People are older: Most of the actors must be at least 25, but I think they're supposed to be 16 or something. Some \"methods\" used by the Evil Dyke are quite unpleasant. Actually this movie don't have much in common with the first part, and this is worse than it in every way.
\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 Deadly Look of Love\" is essentially \"Fatal Attraction\" with a couple of twists added onto the back half. The ending will not surprise anyone who has seen more than two or three Movies of the Week. It is yet another cautionary tale about succumbing to temptation, and it adds nothing fresh to the genre.
Brett (Vincent Spano) is engaged to a beautiful woman who just happens to have a sizable trust fund. Even though he has it all, he risks losing everything by starting up a steamy side affair with Janet (Jordan Ladd). Janet, a doe-eyed blonde from Cedar Falls, falls hard for Brett, and she does not take it particularly well when he comes clean about his engagement. Shortly after the wedding, Mrs. Brett turns up dead in the master bedroom of the large, luxurious home she shared with her new husband. When the police question Brett, he promptly points the finger at Janet. Following her arrest, Janet seems to get loonier by the minute - not that she was the picture of stability before. Her defense attorney (Holland Taylor) is convinced that Janet is innocent and is hell bent on proving it.
Did she do it or didn't she? How will it end? You can find out the answers to these questions the next time \"The Deadly Look of Love\" airs on your local station. And be sure not to miss the moral of this beautiful story: men are pigs, and women are crazy.
\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 happened upon this flick on a rainy Sunday, intending to tune-in to something else. Out of curiosity, I accessed the comments here, and found myself watching it to the end. I really didn't do so with intent -- this was one of those movies where you're \"fascinated,\" and watch it for \"another couple of minutes,\" until you finally just watch to the end. And the indictment of it in most of these comments made it more fascinating to view. The one comment where the person really liked it seems to be solely as a result of liking Ladd and Spano, and their earlier roles. But great isn't anywhere to be found anywhere here - story, performances, and particularly the absurd courtroom hi-jinks. We all know that Perry Mason (before Raymond Burr passed the 300-lb. mark), and Ben Matlock, are granted some leeway in cavorting around the courtroom, instead of being boringly confined to a lectern. And Matlock is especially granted the privilege of entering exhibits often by simply going to the jury and showing them, before the judge and prosecutor have even been informed of, or shown, them. No real-life judge or prosecutor would stand for this.
Both Perry and Ben almost always ended the proceedings by wringing a confession of the real killer. Actually Perry nearly always did this, but often Matlock would simply present overwhelming evidence of the true culprit, pronounce it \"reasonable doubt,\" and then leave it to the cops and prosecutors to proceed against the guilty party - sometimes on-camera, sometimes presumed at the end of the show.
But that said, Holland Taylor's histrionics and the amount of leeway afforded her, in the courtroom portion of this story, made the actions of Matlock/Mason more-closely resemble the slow, often boring detail such as seen on Court TV and in real-life courtrooms.
Every character in this presentation was either insipid, unsympathetic, obnoxious, boring, improbable - or some combination of two or more of these.
The ending was the most banal, absurd, even silly conclusion possible - but again, fascinating because of this. Ladd and Spano are attractive individuals, and t.v. movies would appear their best forte - probably best in 2nd-lead (probably better if \"3rd-\") roles, even in this venue. Taylor could be cast as the aunt or mother of one of them. Give this one 1 star for the story/performances, and 3 additional for the fascination factor.
\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 don't remember \"Barnaby Jones\" being no more than a very bland, standard detective show in which, as per any Quinn Martin show, Act I was the murder, Act II was the lead character figuring out the murder, Act III was the plot twist (another character murdered), Act IV was the resolution and the Epilogue was Betty (Lee Meriwether) asking her father-in-law Barnaby Jones (Buddy Ebsen) how he figured out the crime and then someone saying something witty at the end of the show.
One thing I do remember was the late, great composer Jerry Goldsmith's excellent theme song. Strangely, the opening credit sequence made me want to see the show off and on for the seven seasons the show was on the air. I will also admit that it was nice to see Ebsen in a role other than Jed Clampett despite Ebsen being badly miscast. I just wished the show was more entertaining than when I first remembered it.
Update (1/11/2009): I watched an interview with composer Jerry Goldsmith on YouTube through their Archive of American Television channel. Let's just say that I was more kind than Goldsmith about the show \"Barnaby Jones.\"
\n
assistant\n0
\n"