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\nJennifer Jason Leigh and Mare Winningham are a good match portraying vastly different siblings, but only Winningham is able to bring something convincing or substantial to her role. Leigh, playing bar-band singer and alcoholic Sadie Flood, constantly leans on older sis Georgia, an acclaimed folk singer in the Joni Mitchell mold. Perhaps due to her double duties as co-producer on the film, Leigh seems to have boxed herself into a corner: she isn't credible as a singer and, even if this is intentional, gives herself far too much screen-time at the microphone. Probably hoping for a tour-de-force, Leigh is wire-drawn and nervous and jagged; however, we simply do not see any talent within this character (Leigh is obviously a solid actress, but she makes decisions here that wall us off from her). If Sadie had even the slightest bit of charisma or appeal, we might be able to buy into the concept that she gets the (small) breaks that she does. As it is, the likelihood of her ever getting up on stage is slim. Director Ulu Grosbard crafts a few intense dramatic sequences, and the editing at the finale juxtaposes Sadie's bar performance with Georgia's sold-out arena show--both singing the same song--and it's a sadly nuanced moment...but really, what's the point? *1/2 from ****
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm not going to say that this movie is horrible, because I have seen worse, but it's not even halfway decent.
The plot is very confusing. I couldn't really figure out what was happening and where things were going. When the movie was over, I was left scratching my head. I watched through to the end of the credits to see if they had something after them that may clear things up, but once the credits were over, that was it. I felt like I was jarred from one weak plot point to another throughout the whole movie, with little or no transition between the two.
Character development is very shallow. I couldn't figure out when somebody was angry or had a grudge against someone. I couldn't tell if half of the characters were just supposed to be drunk, stoned, mentally challenged or they just had a bad actor to portray them. This film seems to be based around stereotypes (to it's credit, they are hard to avoid using when you are making a film about a singer in a rock band), which SHOULD make character development easier, since so many other films have already illustrated the suffering of an abused child, or the trials of a heroin addict trying to come clean. Stereotypes are easy to depict, which would explain why so many bad films tend to overuse stereotypical characters. This film, on the other hand, uses stereotypical characters left and right, but then tries to keep them as incomprehensible as possible.
Another problem with the characters is that they seemed to be dismissed with no explanation. I guess that's OK because so little time was spent developing the characters that I really didn't get a chance to know any of them, so I never really missed any of them.
And last but not least was Sadie's singing. It's awful. The music backing her up is not prize winner, but it is usually drowned out by the screeches that are released from Sadie's vocal cords. I swear that there's one point in the movie where she sings a song for at least 10 minutes. I seriously thought I was going to have to turn it off during this howl-a-thon.
As a whole, this movie is confusing. Characters are ill-developed, Georgia's acting is wooden and stiff, Sadie's character is yanked from one bad situation to another, with no back story or explanation. The music was unbearable, and I can think of no good reasons to see this film unless you have a thirst for cinematic pain.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere were a lot of truly great horror movies produced in the seventies - but this film certainly isn't one of them! It's a shame The Child isn't better as it works from a decent idea that takes in a couple of sometimes successful horror themes. We have the idea of a vengeful child, which worked so well in classic films such as The Bad Seed and then we have the central zombie theme, which of course has been the backbone of many a successful horror movie. The plot is basically this: young girl blames a load of people for the death of her mother, so she goes to the graveyard and raises the dead to get revenge (as you do). This is all well and good, except for the fact that it's boring! Nothing happens for most of the film, and although it does pick up at the end with some nice gore; it's not enough of a finale to justify sitting through the rest of it. The film was obviously shot on a budget as the locations look cheap and all the actors are rubbish. There's really not much I can say about the film overall as there isn't much to it. The Child is a dismal seventies horror flick and I certainly don't 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\nThis movie was seriously awful. The acting was the worst! It was worse than a student film. Super cheesy, and I think the worst actor was the old lady. At first I thought to myself, well it's an old movie. Then I remembered that that is no excuse! I've seen older movies with way better acting and such.
The music was terrible to. It was really choppy. The editing was poor (most of the dialog was out of sync.)
Overall, this movie doesn't even deserve a 1. I only watched it because I was so bored, and the movie hardly entertained me. It was just laughable. My dead grandmother's left pinkie toe could make a better movie than this.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAnd that comes from someone that will withstand almost ANY viewing. The acting and sound is awful. This might qualify for a \"so bad it's good\" point of merit,,,for some. However I take my horror movies seriously and this is just crap-it's just soooo cheap, I think that's my major complaint. The dialogue is often hilarious-attention to how many times \"you startled me\" is used. The \"child\" actress is seriously god awful-I pray her acting career ended here..her line \"DONUTS! I HATE DONUTS\" is worth repeated viewing however.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you're going to look after a child, make sure they don't live anywhere near a graveyard. Especially if said kid has a habit of drawing gory pictures and disappears at night among the tombstones to see her 'friends'. But, our long haired heroine, oblivious to all the signs, shacks up with her family the Nortons, which include a strict father and a dullard older brother who becomes a love interest for our budding babysitter. Even more spooky than the zombie gang outside is the cast's tendency to talk even when their lips aren't moving, and for the words to not match the movement of their mouths. But enough of that.. domestic animals are being sacrificed, old ladies are having eyeballs torn out and the orchestra won't shut up during any scene, even the quiet ones. Oh, and the editor is having a day off going by the way the film drones on.
In fact, it would been better if everybody involved had taken a breather, smelt what they'd signed up for and gone AWOL. Yes, I know it's hard to get into movies these days, but this sort of starter point is not one on your CV you'd want. If would be like a trainee farm labourer having a conviction for chicken molesting. Featuring one of the worst lead performances ever by the shrill Laurel Barnett, and another almost equally as bad by the charisma-free child actress Rosalie Cole (The next Dakota Fanning she ain't) the film meanders on and on with nothing but padding until we get what passes for a climax.
This involves five or six members of the undead barricading our utterly useless heroine in a shed, while her bit of rough fends off these ghouls with a plank of wood, a one shell shotgun and whatever he can lay his hands on. But back up a minute.. earlier on they were in the car, and they accidentally discovered that the creatures found the noise of the horn so repellent they shuffled off at the sound of it. So do they stay where they are safe? No of course not, they run off to this abandoned building in the middle of nowhere, so the bloke can prove what a hardnut he is the girl can act like she's having a nervous breakdown.
Finally, the film closes. It doesn't end, it just goes to a grinding halt. The main character wanders back to her vehicle covered in fake blood, as if nothing horrible had happened. But, my dear viewer, something horrible has happened. You have just sat through one of the most lamebrained, boring horror films you're ever likely to see, and lost 82 minutes of your life you'll never get back. Just think.. years from now on your deathbed, what you'd trade an hour and 22 minutes for just to spend a bit of extra time with your family. Sadly, it's already too late for me. Don't you make the same mistake :( 2/10
\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\nAlicianne (Laurel Barnett) becomes a live in babysitter for young Rosalie Nordon (Rosalione Cole) who has recently lost her mother. But Rosalie misses her dead mother a lot and continuously visits her grave (conveniently located in a cemetery right behind the house) late at night...where she also meets her \"friends\"...
This starts off good with a truly eerie sequence in the cemetery...then falls apart. The story is thin and there is TONS of padding to make the film 85 minutes long. The acting is terrible across the board (with Cole easily being the worst). Badly directed with some of the WORST editing I've ever seen in a motion picture. Scenes (and sound) are just cut off with no rhyme or reason. Also the film has terrible (and obvious) post-production sound.
As for blood and violence--forget it! There's very little and what there is looks incredibly fake. I've NEVER seen such fake-looking blood--looks like ketchup! Boring, pointless--a rightfully forgotten drive-in movie. You can skip this one.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe Treasure Island DVD should be required viewing in any film production course! It's a textbook example of how NOT to make a movie. Watching the movie and then listening to the writer/director's commentary demonstrates graphically the vast chasm between what he knows about the characters and what he communicates to his audience about them. Call me old-fashioned, but I think of movies as a means of communication, and communication isn't complete if the audience doesn't know what the hell the director is talking about. The director's avowed purpose is to make a movie void of \"Hollywood conventions\". Among those conventions, alas, is consistency of character and clarity of concept. The director himself realizes that audiences often don't understand points where he has purposely avoided a \"Hollywood cliché\". However, he never seems to grasp the idea that clichés exist for a reason. They are shorthand for conveying complex ideas quickly and clearly. It's fine to avoid them, but they need to be replaced with some other way of communicating the same idea, not simply eliminated. The film is built on an intriguing premise, rich with potential. Two puppets are assigned to fabricate a personality and background for an unidentified corpse that is to be used in a disinformation mission in the closing days of WWII. Soon each begins to populate their personal fantasies with the character and their invention becomes increasingly real to them. Someone with less disdain for the \"Hollywood convention\" of traditional storytelling could create a wonderful film with this idea. This film certainly isn't it! The puppets do everything they can to bring consistency to these characters, but they are all too often defeated by the dazed and confused script. In particular, I'm becoming increasingly impressed by Gonzo, who plays the lively corpse. In a number of muppet films, he always stands out as a very charismatic puppet.
\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 shame of it! There I was, comfortable in the arm chair with a beer and a bag of popcorn, bouyant in the hope of another splendid Muppet night of entertainment. What did I get? Disappointed! How can the Muppets go from the sublime Christmas Carol to this? The humour was dreadful, the songs were worse than Country and Western (and that's saying something) and the plot was as confused and poor as Blind Pew. I think the main problem was that they bit off too much in attempting Treasure Island. A short tale, such as Christmas Carol, is perfect because you can weave the Muppet high jinks around it....here the need to drag the plot along stopped all the fun. Where do the Muppets go next? How about Muppets Wizard of Oz?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI must say this movie is a Mork and Mindy knock off, when watching it i got the chills, I even wet myself a little. When that Korean guy with the spiders in his neck started kicking people i was like oh my lord Asian people smell and suck cause they eat dogs all the time. Any way back on track Chuck had a somewhat terrible performance and lacked the intelligence of a regular non robotic human being. Some people would compare it to his earlier days when he was a car wash analyzer and believed in the holy ghost and the ghost of Christmas past. This movie is so bad I put my new born child in a box and left it in Mr. Norris mailbox. He can raise my kid I'm not letting him into a world where he thinks chuck Norris is a karate expert Ill let him see what that hack is like in real life for the rest of his life.
\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\nANDY HARDY MEETS DEBUTANTE (1940) is the ninth (9th) film of the series and it shows the direction it was inevitably headed into. Characters ANDY HARDY (Mickey Rooney) and JUDGE HARDY (Lewis Stone) were going to be front and center. The rest of the cast was going too just punch the clock and collect their checks. The series would rise to the occasion again and have its moments but a fatal decline had set in.
Lewis Stone throughout the series would continue too portray the character of JUDGE HARDY in a sympathetic manner. The rest of the cast would be professional even though given less and less to do. Mickey Rooney on the other hand would continue his character as if there was no learning curve. ANDYs' reaction to any situation was in a naive and unbelievable way. Even after he returned as a veteran of World War II service in LOVE LAUGHS AT ANDY HARDY (1946) his reaction to any 'teapot tempest' was the same, juvenile.
In this film it is clearly illustrated. ANDY gets himself into several unbelievable situations that with a simple explanation would have been resolved. This screen writing device was known as the 'idiot plot'. A means of stretching a poorly written scenario. Maybe it was less Mickey Rooneys' fault then the Director and the Writers. Most likely George B. Seitz had directed one too many and a firmer hand was needed too control Rooneys' excesses. To see our overview of the entire series go to YOU'RE ONLY YOUNG ONCE (1937).
\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 always thought people were a little too cynical about these old Andy Hardy films. A couple of them weren't bad. Modern film critics are not ones who usually prefer nice to nasty, so goody-two shoes movies like these rarely get praise
Nonetheless, I can't defend this movie either. You can still have an dated dialog but still laugh and cry over the story. Watching this, you just shake your head ask yourself, \"how stupid can you get?\" This is cornier than corny, if you know what I mean. It is so corny I cannot fathom too many people actually sitting through the entire hour-and-a-half.
The story basically is \"Andy\" (Mickey Rooney) trying to get out of jam because he makes up some story about involved with some débutante from New York City as if that was the ultimate. People were a lot more social-conscious in the old days. You'd hear the term \"social-climber\" as if knowing rich or beautiful people was the highest achievement you could make it life. It's all utter nonsense, of course, and looks even more so today.
However, it's about as innocent and clean a story and series (there were a half dozen of these Andy Hardy films made) as you could find. Also, if you like to hear Judy Garland sing, then this is your ticket, as she sings a couple of songs in here and she croons her way into Andy's heart. Oh man, I almost throw up even writing about this!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am at a distinct disadvantage here. I have not seen the first two movies in this series, although I have seen a lot of Larry Cohen films. Fans of the series seem to think this is a good film. Judging it on it's own, it was pretty boring.
You never get a real good look at the maniac cop's (Robert Z'Dar) face, but what I did see was pretty grim. The death scenes seem to be staged to eat up the most film, not to give any thrills. Maybe if I saw the NC-17 Director's Cut, I may be more impressed.
The ending with the car chase with Z'Dar, Caitlin Dulany, and Robert Davi was pretty intense. best part of the 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\nMatt Cordell is back from the dead for a third go-round, although I'm not sure anyone cared at this point except for rabid MANICA COP fans. Cordell, who died in the last flick, is resurrected through voodoo, and is now hot on the trail of several miscreants involved in the shooting of a fellow officer Cordell is very fond of. I missed part of this early '90s low-budget quickie, but it was pleasing to see Cordell wracking up the body count in various, gruesome ways. Problem is, the overall film is pretty static, and Cordell simply ain't Jason or Freddy. The interest wanes pretty fast, even with that grand B-movie master Robert Forster as a doctor who ends up with his brains scrambled. Stick with the first film in the series, which is funny and scary and exciting, all at the same time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe supernatural, vengeful police officer is back for a third installment, this time acting as guardian angel for a wrongfully accused female cop. Standard stalk and slash picture, yet well acted and directed, thus making it oddly interesting and watchable, though the violence isn't for the squeamish (especially the director's cut which was originally given an \"NC-17\" rating).
*1/2 out of ****
\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\nLook, it's the third one, so you already know it's bad. And \"Maniac Cop\" wasn't good enough to warrant the second installment, so you know it's even worse. But how much worse? Awful, approaching God-awful.
When Maniac Cop goes on a killing spree, a reporter exclaims, \"What happened here can ONLY be described as a black rainbow of death.\"
1-- Rainbows are not black, and can never be. 2-- Rainbows are harmless, and can never inflict pain or death. 3-- A news reporter, one valuable to his agency, might find another way to describe the aftermath of a killing spree. \"A black rainbow of death\" is not the ONLY way to describe the given situation.
This is what you're in for.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI read somewhere where this film was supposed to be a remake of the 1949 film noir, \"Criss Cross.\" I found the latter to be disappointing but it was still better than this film.
This movie is a \"neo-noir\" since it's modern-day and it's in color, two things that purists would make it be disqualified for film noir status.
The biggest negative to it, however, wasn't the cinematography (that was fine) but the muddled storyline. Hey, some of '40s Dashiell Hammett stories were similar but I didn't care for some of those either. The filmmakers here did not help the situation by placing flashbacks into the story what seemed like every three minutes. No wonder it was the keep up with this story. It was ridiculous! What happens is that by the 45-minute mark, their is so much confusion nobody cares anymore. I know I didn'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\nThere aren't many good things to say at all about Underneath, Soderbergh's untrue endeavor into neo-noir. Soderbergh remakes Robert Siodmak's decent noir Criss-Cross faithfully, not altering the plot very much at all, however the adaptation drains it of every ounce of its state-of-the-art film noir atmosphere, giving it the same story set in the very least appealing places, lifestyles and anachronisms. Soderbergh, who would later make wonderful crime films like Out of Sight and the Ocean's series with great style and atmosphere, takes the dangerously obvious route to modernization by renovating the story with the ugliest, dullest and flattest fashions of the early 1990s. Nightclubs have terrible, revoltingly dressed garage bands, Peter Gallagher's uninteresting version of Burt Lancaster's anti-hero is left by his femme fatale girlfriend for compulsively buying cinematically lifeless modern appliances like stereos, TVs, and other up to date pieces of equipment that suck the reaction out of the film.
It could've been more entertaining and less boring had it a few saving graces like a good score, more flesh to its characters, more than just William Fichtner giving performances that aren't wooden, a crisper pace. Unfortunately, Underneath has none of these things. Soderbergh, a fine director, does not utilize his dry detachment to the benefit of his film this time. That disposition works wonderfully when he's helming a crime movie with more tongue in its cheek like the George Clooney pictures previously mentioned, or a social or character drama like Traffic or sex, lies and videotape. With a movie like Underneath, it intensifies the boredom experienced by the viewer.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen i got this movie free from my job, along with three other similar movies.. I watched then with very low expectations. Now this movie isn't bad per se. You get what you pay for. It is a tale of love, betrayal, lies, sex, scandal, everything you want in a movie. Definitely not a Hollywood blockbuster, but for cheap thrills it is not that bad. I would probably never watch this movie again. In a nutshell this is the kind of movie that you would see either very late at night on a local television station that is just wanting to take up some time, or you would see it on a Sunday afternoon on a local television station that is trying to take up some time. Despite the bad acting, cliché lines, and sub par camera work. I didn't have the desire to turn off the movie and pretend like it never popped into my DVD player. The story has been done many times in many movies. This one is no different, no better, no worse.
Just your average 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\nBen Masters,(Kyd Thomas),\"Dream Lover\",'86 plays a sort of Mike Hammer character, a private eye who does any old job for a buck and never misses out on all the sexy curves of good looking gals. Kyd makes one big mistake when he stops Morgan Fairchild,(Laura Cassidy/Eva Bomberg),\"Arizona Summer\",'73 from getting beaten up and raped. Kyd takes Laura home to his pad and when he wakes up, she is out on his patio eating his eggs and orange juice and making herself right at home. By the way, Kyd sleep in his bed and Laura slept on the couch for this particular scene. Laura is mixed up with all kinds of hoods and there are some hot scenes between Kyd and Laura. All said and done, this is a lousy picture and I purchased the DVD for only $1.50 and I really got ripped OFF !
\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\nManipulative drama about a glamorous model (Margaux Hemingway) who is raped by a geeky but unbalanced musician (Chris Sarandon) – to whom she had been introduced by her younger sister (played by real-life sibling Mariel), whose music teacher he is. While the central courtroom action holds the attention – thanks largely to a commanding performance by Anne Bancroft as Hemingway’s lawyer – the film is too often merely glossy, but also dramatically unconvincing: the jury ostensibly takes the musician’s side because a) the girl invited assault due to the sensuous nature of her profession and b) she was offering no resistance to her presumed aggressor when her sister arrived at the apartment and inadvertently saw the couple in bed together. What the f***?!; she was clearly tied up – what resistance could she realistically offer?
The second half of the film – involving Sarandon’s rape of the sister, which curiously anticipates IRREVERSIBLE (2002) by occurring in a tunnel – is rather contrived: Mariel’s character should have known better than to trust Sarandon after what he did to her sister, but Margaux herself foolishly reprises the line of work which had indirectly led to her humiliating experience almost immediately! The climax – in which Sarandon gets his just desserts, with Margaux turning suddenly into a fearless and resourceful vigilante – is, however, a crowd-pleaser in the style of DEATH WISH (1974); incidentally, ubiquitous Italian movie mogul Dino De Laurentiis was behind both films.
It’s worth noting how the two Hemingway sisters’ lives took wildly different turns (this was the film debut of both): Margaux’s career never took off (despite her undeniable good looks and commendable participation here) – while Mariel would soon receive an Oscar nomination for Woody Allen’s MANHATTAN (1979) and, interestingly, would herself play a glamorous victim of raging violence when essaying the role of real-life “Playboy” centerfold Dorothy Stratten in Bob Fosse’s STAR 80 (1983). With the added pressure of a couple of failed marriages, Margaux took refuge in alcohol and would eventually die of a drug overdose in 1996; chillingly, the Hemingway family had a history of suicides – notably the sisters’ grandfather, celebrated author Ernest, who died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound in 1961.
\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 a heavily censored version of this movie on television years ago, I was curious to see the unedited version. I was surprised that it was more believable and well acted than I remembered, but one thing really stood out. I think other reviewers have mentioned this also, namely, what exactly is the nature and motivation of the Chris Sarandon character? Has he raped other victims before? Is he completely psychotic or an \"average\" sociopath? How did he expect to get away with his attack on the younger sister? Is this character at all credible, or is it just a matter of more background being necessary? He seems almost simultaneously to be an uncomfortably believable character, and too crazy to actually be able to hold on to a teaching job that puts him in contact with young, vulnerable girls. This seems to to be the biggest complaint of viewers in general. It has nothing to do with his performance, which is terrifyingly convincing.The movie occupies an uneasy position between sheer exploitation and a half way serious treatment of the subject, without quite settling into either mode. Not the worst movie ever made, but not all that good, either.
\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\nModel Chris McCormack (Margaux Hemingway) is brutally raped by a teacher (Chris Sarandon) of her sister Kathy (Mariel Hemingway). He is brought to trial but goes totally free. He then rapes Kathy!
Objectionable and sick rape film. This movie was advertised as an important drama dealing with rape. What it is is a badly written and (for the most part) badly acted drama. It purports to be sympathetic to the victim of the rape but shoves the scene in our face. To be totally honest however, Hemingway's acting is so bad in that sequence that it loses any real impact it might have had. The trial scenes were boring and predictable. And the movie just went too far when 15 year old Mariel is raped (thankfully that wasn't shown). I do admit though that it did lead to a great ending when Margaux grabs a gun and shoots Sarandon dead. But seriously--having a young girl raped is just revolting.
Acting doesn't help. For instance, Margaux was no actress. She was certainly a beautiful woman (and an actual model I believe) but her acting left a lot to be desired. It lessens the film. Mariel was just OK but this was one of her first films. Sarandon does what he can as the rapist. He wasn't bad but the terrible script worked against him.
I do remember hearing that at a screening of this back in 1976 some women stood up and cheered when Sarandon was killed so maybe this works for some people. I found this boring, simplistic and REALLY sick. A 1 all the 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**WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILER**
If you can get by the extremely unpleasant subject matter, this film does offer a heaping helping of outrageously campy melodrama. Surprisingly enough, this movie has been copied and ripped-off several times over the years, although it's hard to fathom ANY filmmaker being inspired by this trashy drama. Neither one of the Hemingway women can act here (although Mariel HAS improved over the years), Anne Bancroft offers the only touch of class as a prosecuting attorney, and Chris Sarandon is by turns pathetic and unintentionally hilarious as the smirking, smarmy bad guy of the piece.
Veteran director Lamont Johnson can't make a silk purse out of this sow's ear of a script, which is stuffed to bursting with howlingly bad dialogue and outlandish situations. For example, the final sequence, where Margaux grabs her shotgun and chases Sarandon down after his latest shocking act is meant to be exciting but elicits hearty chuckles instead. Add a notoriously shrill and spacy musical score by Michel Polnareff and you have a true guilty pleasure, even though you're likely to feel grubby and needing a hot shower after viewing it. Don't say you weren't warned.
\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\nLipstick is another glossy movie failure.I am trying to think of one good thing that I could say about the movie, and I am having trouble coming up with something.I guess the red dress that Margaux Hemingway was wearing in the end of the movie was the best part.The writing and the script was not the worst that I have ever encountered,but it could have been a lot better. Lipstick was very pleasing to the eye to view.The sets were very glossy and nice to look at.The cast was okay. I felt like Anne Bancroft's character was the only feasible character in the entire movie.It was sad to see Chris Sarandon waste his time on this one.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt is hard to make an unbiased judgment on a film like this that had such an impact on me at such a young age. This is with out a doubt the worst kind of exploitation film. I was unfortunate enough to see this film for the first time in my youth, Iwill never forget it. I thought it was the most horrible movie ever made. I then saw it again earlier this year and was once again horrified.
I am not a zealot or one to say what others should and should not see but I did take great offense to the way in which something as horrible as rape was dealt with in this movie. I love lowbrow cinema but this is just plain nasty. Rent some Rus Myer instead.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film is so ridiculously idiot that you may actually laugh at it. But no, even this is too much for this lost meters of celluloid. I found it as an offer in a magazine and that's why I've seen it. I regret the time I lost to see this. 1 out of 10 (because they don't have a lower grade).
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you haven't seen this, it's terrible. It is pure trash. I saw this about 17 years ago, and I'm still screwed up from it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhile some performances were good-Victoria Rowell, Adrienne Barbeau, and the two Italian girlfriends come to mind-the story was lame and derivative, the emphasis on the girlfriend's racial background was handled clumsily at best, and the relatives were mostly portrayed as stereotypes, not as real people. I found myself wincing uncomfortably at many moments that were supposed to be funny. I can hardly comprehend why the local paper here in SF said this was a good movie, and wonder WHO posted the glowing review here on IMDb. Very disappointed in this movie, and mad I actually went to a theatre to see it, based on the faulty connection to Garden State, which is a far funnier, more inventive, and touching movie than this one. I must especially mention the emotional climax in the church, which was so wooden and by-the-numbers that I nearly left, and some in the audience actually DID. THAT was followed by a silly climax at the graveyard, which I saw coming 10 minutes before it happened. I really don't like being misled to spend my money so uselessly.
\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\nSpencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn would roll over in their graves if they knew this Guess Who's Coming to Dinner Rip Off was actually in theaters. Along with Sidney Poitier and Katherine Houghton these four brilliant actors made a great cultural statement with Director Stanley Kramer's 1967 master piece. This present day rip off is a joke. So a white guy from an overly stereotyped Italian family in Rhode Island brings his African American girlfriend home (Insert GASP here) to his grand father's funeral. His family members reactions were of course....predictable. This movie was so painfully telegraphed from start to finish my girlfriend actually started fake snoring to signal to me that she wanted to leave. Do yourself a favor and rent the original. Take a pass on Wake.
\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 really vile. It plays on the urban paranoia of the 70s/80s and puts it into a school context. I'm not saying that urban crime wasn't a problem for a lot of people or that schools weren't/aren't problem areas but this vile piece of exploitation takes the biscuit. Violence is beyond anything realistically imaginable but in this case it's not a case of social issues but a white, upper-middle class student uses it to turn himself into the crime kingpin of his local high schoiol. And of course he knows how to play the system. Does that sound familiar. Yes. This turd is pure violent exploitation, a really nasty piece of work. It's disturbing brutality dressed up as a social comment. This belongs in the same category as trash like Exterminator, Death Wish 2-5 and so on and so on. The only remarkable thing is that Michael Fox was so broke at the time that he had to do stuff like this.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe creativeness of this movie was lost from the beginning when the writers and directors left out a good story line, only to substitute with horrible special affects. This movie seemed to be focused on amusing children, but couldn't even accomplish that. Many small low budget films have the potential to become great movies, but this movie is no where near that. Fortunately this will be another film easily made, and easily forgotten. This movie was probably a chance for the actors to make a little money on the side until their chance came along for a real role in a good movie. Anyone who has a shred of respect for films, should avoid seeing this movie 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\nRelying on the positive reviews above, we saw a free screening of this last night. Now I KNOW that filmmakers plant positive reviews, because there is no way an objective individual could have written these. \"Destined to become a 'cult classic'\"?? The theater was packed, apparently with friends and families of the production crew, because only a few of us walked out by the first hour.
The songs were the most literal I've ever heard in a musical  \"don't take the short cut, honey, there's a wolf in the woods..\". Debi Mazar's eyes blinked furiously as she struggled to sing. Fortunately, most of the tunes lasted for only a few lines.
Now, whoever plays the wolf in this tale should be charming and seductive. Instead, we get Joey Fatone, ex N'Syncer, living up to his last name as he's not aged well. He's not exactly lithe with his extra 50 pounds and junior high school-quality makeup and out-of-tune singing. Seriously, this guy was in vocal group? The rest of the actors are semi-adequate, but can't do much about the unimaginative script. You know, it is possible to write for adults and children at the same time  see under \"Pixar\".
On the positive side, the virtual sets looked nice and were well-integrated with the actors. And it wasn't as offensive as \"Crash\".
\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\nCreepy & lascivious wolf. The young \"Red\" is wearing full make-up, and extremely short shorts & robe. Got about 20 minutes through and realized it could be a pedophile's dream come true. The \"up-beat\" music sounds a lot like something I'd hear at a strip club. I actually think this movie is a sick joke - it's not a family movie. Gross, glad I was watching this with my daughter, I don't want her to think it's normal for families to view quasi kiddie porn together. Very bad, Very sad it's sold as a family film, Joey Fatone will probably be embarrassed he was in it. And what's with advertising it as a \"special effects spectacular\"??? The effects do look low budget, gawd 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\nJust because someone is under the age of 10 does not mean they are stupid. If your child likes this film you'd better have him/her tested. I am continually amazed at how so many people can be involved in something that turns out so bad. This \"film\" is a showcase for digital wizardry AND NOTHING ELSE. The writing is horrid. I can't remember when I've heard such bad dialogue. The songs are beyond wretched. The acting is sub-par but then the actors were not given much. Who decided to employ Joey Fatone? He cannot sing and he is ugly as sin.
The worst thing is the obviousness of it all. It is as if the writers went out of their way to make it all as stupid as possible. Great children's movies are wicked, smart and full of wit - films like Shrek and Toy Story in recent years, Willie Wonka and The Witches to mention two of the past. But in the continual dumbing-down of American more are flocking to dreck like Finding Nemo (yes, that's right), the recent Charlie & The Chocolate Factory and eye-crossing trash like Red Riding Hood.
\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 collection really sucks!
I rented it, thinking I´d really would enjoy some good fighting. Man this sucked! Quick flashy cuts, an extremely annoying speaker, and the fights them selves were heavily edited and shortened (I´m thinking especially of Jet Li´s fight in Fists of legend and Jackie Chan´s fight from drunken master 2).
And what´s the deal with those brawling streetfighters?! What´s so \"cool\" about that? I´ve seen more interesting fights on Martial Law!
This a stupid collection of cuts for stupid people.
Do not ever buy this film! Do not encourage the people who made this crap to make more of this crap!
Instead, go buy the movies the fights were from and wath the fights in their uncut glory!
\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 good thing about this that's at least fresh: Almost no movies about dance music and the club scene (if even made) hit the cinemas. And it radiates lots of energy too, from the music to the portrayal of Ibiza.
But the main problem is that it can't decide what it wants to be. Although it definitely likes to be a mockumentary in the line of This is Spinal Tap, the makers also realized they wouldn't want to play copycat. However, it fails grossly on the jokes because it's not very well written and most characters are underdeveloped. And it has no arc in its script and directing to make it to 90 minutes, so why not edit it down to 75? The production department and cinematography still try to save the day (e.g. Paul's home).
In a strange way and unexpectedly so It's all gone Pete Tong works much better as a simple drama in the line of Almost Famous. Especially the scenes with Beatriz Batarda offer some acting power.
Conclusion: it's a mess, it somewhat entertains at a basic level, but you better spend a night in your favorite club.
\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 seeing another murder/mystery movie as bad as this. This movie, about a medical examiner who investigates his friend's mysterious death in a car accident, has the complete receipt for a bad movie: bad acting, boring story, lack of suspense, poor humor and no drama. I remembered seeing this movie on PAX, a TV station notable for dishing out low-budgeted and campy made-for-TV movies such as this one. TV movies, of course, do not have the edge factor or the suspense as movies from the Big Screen. But, this movie sure hit all sour tastes. The makers of this movie have missed out on an opportunity to making \"Receipe for Murder\" a great TV movie; the title does offer some suspense.
So, if you want a good recipe, don't watch this movie. This movie alone can kill your TV appetite.
Grade F
\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 script is so so laughable... this in turn, makes the actors' lines sound stiff and unrealistic and not to be believed. There's repetition of phrases -- \"my sweet little god daughter\" and minor variations of that line which comes to mind... and it's just sloppy soap opera dialog.
Worse yet, the music is so WRONG! Plus, the main bluesy \"theme\" is horribly quaint and entirely wrong for this. And it feels overused mostly because the instrumentation, texture and arrangement of this theme never changes, even when the scene's emotional context does.
Subsequently, whenever it appears, it sticks out like a sore thumb as the main transition from one scene to another.
The music's corny, and it's as if the writer were writing music for a soap or a sitcom -- a low budget 80's Canadian sitcom at that -- and this makes it feel as if we're always on the brink of throwing to a commercial.
This is so miscast, there's a lot of overacting and it's a real stretch that so many of these characters are employing only ONE type of NY accent -- a thick Bronx accent. I don't know if it's a question of the actors' limited capacity in only knowing *one* NY accent -- or whether it's a question of the director's ability to notice such an glaring anomaly.
In the end, it's the amateur script with it's leaden lines which makes this entire \"movie\"... blow. When any foundation is shaky and unstable, it's impossible to build upon it without it's flaws revealing themselves in exponentially more damaging and unflattering ways.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"