empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis was a disappointing film. The people seem to have no substance, the lead protagonist Martin Cahil has zero redemptive values, in fact everyone in it including Jon Voight epitomizes sleeze. I would not recommend this film to anyone. The violence is distasteful, though artfully done. The filming is to black, at least the print i saw fit this category. A disappointment.
\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\nBill Maher's Religulous is not an attack on organized religion. It's an attack on Christianity and Islam. Apart from ridiculing a bunch of Rabbis inventing warped machines to get around Sabbath regulations, he really doesn't attack Judaism and seems enraged when a Rabbi actually challenges the existence of the State of Israel. If Bill Maher followed his hypothesis to its logical conclusion, he would realize that the very creation of Israel in the Palestinian Territories is based on the so called 'holy books' of organized religion. This is evidence of his complete and utter lack of objectivity or focus in the creation of this film.
I find it really hard to believe that the man is atheist or even all that intelligent. Anyone can go up to a religious person and laugh at them and call them stupid for their beliefs but what do you have to offer them in return? Nowhere does he actually tell them why he thinks they're stupid. What makes him the \"rational\" person in the room? In a way it reflects how he really isn't and in the process ends up looking just as stupid as those people.
If you want to watch a good movie/documentary about the actual evils of religion and how religion can actually be detrimental to the human civilization, watch Richard Dawkins' 'Root of All Evil?'. It is a brilliantly researched documentary, clearly outlining what it hopes to achieve and how.
Bill Maher's Religulous is not funny, poses no interesting questions nor does it provide any insight on so controversial a topic. It seems to be the rantings and ravings of an old man disgruntled with his Catholic upbringing. I almost feel sorry for him.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSome funny bits, but come Bill! A film? Quoting Zeitgeist? Keep the TV Show and the interviews, but a film? I'm probably overreacting but what a unnecessary provoking film... I don't know. I laughed, disagreed, agreed... this film is very confusing and inconsistent.
Bill's a funny guy... but also very cocky... Bill's rhetoric is similar to Bill Hicks, a brilliant comedian. But like many comedians, the borderline between comedy and preaching can be annoying. I think that the major problem in this film is his lack of sensibility. This might be just a personal taste, but comedy that constantly demeans somebody cannot be taken as truth. Bill is obviously emotionally reactive to religious fundamentalism. I agree with Bill that religious fanaticism is not sensible, but the response to it cannot be sensible. It will create unnecessary turmoil. We can do better than just react to fundamentalism. His conclusion is that \"we don't know\" and he fervently tries to convince the spectator that nobody knows anything, to the point that the agnostic community has been concerned with his lack of serious research in comparative religion. His humility that he only knows that he doesn't, is a contradiction as he tries to insist that all religious thought is non-sense.
I had great trouble seeing bits of Zeitgeist, the movie in Bill's film. All the astrotheology-influenced non-sense that simplifies all religions as the same is simply disappointing. Zeitgeist has provoked a lot of controversy and has messed up the validity of so much of the valuable Religion Studies scholarship. It is very sad how wrong facts have been tossed around with no reliable scholarly sources. Astro-mystic sources that reduce everything to \"the stars say it all\" seem to be from the Middle Ages. This film is a confusing statement from a confused \"agnostic\". Agnosticism is far more complex and philosophically academic than defending every single issue as \"we don't know\".
This film is an obvious proof of how postmodernism has been able to oversimplify and generalize major issues in human history.
Watch the film (it has hilarious interviews and bits) but PLEASE do not behave like Bill. You cannot expect anybody to have a mature conversation if you are making sardonic comments in every other line. His arguing techniques are demeaning and insulting, provoking emotional reactions rather than rational and logical argumentation.. There needs to be a more mature way of dealing with these issues.
\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 ONLY Bill Maher's interpretation of religion. There are several funny moments, and some interesting points, but don't go into this expecting an even-handed discussion of religion. This is what I consider to be the worst kind of documentary - Everything is arranged ahead of time and in editing to provide you with the opinion of the director, rather than letting you make your own decision.
EDITING - It's very chopped up, inter-spliced with clips from pop culture and the media to reinforce the point. The interviewee barely has a chance to finish a sentence before he is interrupted by the editing. The only people given a fair chance to speak their mind are those who say what Bill Maher wants them to say. Once someone deviates from the gospel according to Maher, they get edited.
INTERVIEWEES - They are meant to represent the absolute MOST extremist religions. From the TV evangelical to the ultimate Jewish stereotype, to a TRUCK STOP chapel (Seriously. A TRUCK STOP CHAPEL). He's picked the worst money-grabbers, the heavy extremists, and those who don't have the budget to say no to pick on. And when he does get a good person to interview, he edits the hell out of them.
STEREOTYPING - All religions are portrayed as stereotypes. Especially hard hit are the Muslims. During the Muslim segment, he barely gives anyone the chance to speak before interrupting them either himself, or through editing in pieces with suicide bombers. ALL Muslims are portrayed as gun-toting extremists through the editing, and none of the people interviewed is edited fairly.
ENDING - The message at the end is INCREDIBLY heavy-handed, and while it is an interesting idea, it's not presented with fairness to the countless people who are not religious extremists. Bill Maher explains himself while clips of destruction play in the foreground. This literally gives the message that religion is stupid and dangerous, and that it will destroy the world. He also states that everyone involved in religion is stupid.
With the faults to the film, it has some good points, and the humor, while very unfair, is actually funny. But know going in, it is a very one-sided view, Bill Maher's view, of religion. He's not discovering anything. He's telling you what he thinks.
4/10 - Some good moments, but heavy-handed with an extremely irresponsible documentary style.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw it, I agree with him 100%, but I didn't care for his delivery. He just came off as an asshole in a poorly edited, contrived juvenile smear campaign. Edit cuts galore, etc... The camera would be focused on him, and you'd see 2 or 3 edit cuts just over the course of a minute or two of dialog. Add in the constant boom mikes in the camera shot, which is a film no-no.
This documentary hits a topic with so many angles, so many interesting stories, that the movie is just so easily done. Picking on religious fanatics is like picking on the retarded kid. It is so easy it is just wrong. I mean how hard is it to make these people look like nut bags? To make them contradict themselves, you just let them recite more then a verse or two. I do like when he jumped back in forth between people of the same religion and showed them completely contradicting themselves.
I just think he could have done something a little more creative. The part with the neurologist talking about brain activity was never fleshed out. It could have been interesting to show brain scans of people during religious fits compared to drugs, or sex, or ???? He could have played more on the women all rejoicing over the Passion play that looked more like a snuff scene in a new Rob Zombie movie. More could have gone into the history of John Smith, the Mormon founder who had quite the colorful past. Delve into science v.s. religion. One is a very methodical, very strict process for increasing the confidence in theories. It builds on itself from a solid bottom up, a new layer on top of a more proved layer. An enormous burden of proof is required each step of the way. The other starts at the top and comes down with unchallengeable claims. It is so, because well I said so.
Done right I'd say turn it into an HBO original series hit a different religion every week.
It was an eye opener about one thing. I must have been blind. Good ole G.W.Bush... no wonder he got elected. He had the religious majority. And well... now that is the blind leading the blind.
Bill Moyer.. Well.. what can I expect from a guy who hands out at Sutra in Newport beach?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNow don't get me wrong. If you need an insightful summary of everything that been wrong with the history of human civilization as well as a flawless path to brighter future for mankind, who better to turn to than a comedian and practitioner of pop culture? If you need a healthy dose of all the solid, sound reasons why religion has outlived it's usefulness then turn to Sagan or Dawkins, not BILL MAHER for God's(?) sake! That's a good point in and of itself. Maher dismisses our religious past as a neurological disorder conveniently ignoring how his entire society, art and science is rooted in it.
In this film, he relies heavily on his keenly-honed skill set of irony and cynicism to make his point while attempting to appear erudite and wise. Unfortunately, his intellect isn't up to the task.
Maher makes us laugh but is clearly not the brightest bulb in the box. As an example, he responds to an interviewee's (and I use the term loosely as they were clearly all \"ambushees\") assertion that the existence of Jesus is historical fact with a deadpan \"No, it's not\" followed by a long stare meant to convey contempt at the subject's naivety (a device nauseatingly overused in this film). The problem is that the person was correct and Maher dead wrong in his assertion that Jesus is mentioned only in what he considers to be the historically- suspect gospels. I guess Mr. Maher has never read the contemporary historian Josephus.
But the masses will flock to this pseudo-documentary as they do the fictional works of other intellectual giants like Michael Moore, and they will loudly bray and guffaw (they certainly did at my showing).
It's doubly telling, however, that the loudest and most mule-like braying occurred during the approximately 70% of the running time that the film devoted to it's anti-Christian tirade while the audience was wholly mute during the token 10% devoted to criticizing the self-described Religion of Peace. Hmmm. Either criticism of Islam is off-limits to the hip and liberal target audience or they were just afraid to laugh. Very telling, either 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\nI wasn't really hoping for much when I went to see this. After Mst3king the heck out of JasonX with some friends though, I was hoping for a similar experience here.
Unfortunately the movie took itself way too seriously. Do I care about Jason's problems? I'm sorry no. There are a legion Ft13th movies that cover that anyway. At at then end of the day, he's an undead serial killer, I'm just not going to get that sympathetic.
Freddy was by far the most interesting aspect of the movie with the hallucinations and what not, but unfortunately they were few and far between and by the end of the movie, it had degenerated into a bad episode of celebrity deathmatch...only not funny.

\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA movie has rarely left me as cold as this one. There is not a bit of tension, not a second of fear, not a moment we jump, even a little bit. The girl is cute, yeah. That's it. Was that worth a movie ? I knew it wasn't supposed to be a great movie, but I was at least expecting 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\nI've seen all kinds of \"Hamlet\"s.
Kenneth Branagh's was most ambitious, Mel Gibson's was quick and to the point, Laurence Olivier's was the best - hands down. But now we come to Maximilian Schell's take on the Bard.
For one, this is a dubbed version of a German TV production of William Shakespeare's venerable chestnut. But if there's a slower, more plodding, more lethargic and worse-staged version out there somewhere, it must have been acted at grade school-level.
Having seen it on MST3K helps, with Mike and the robots taking jolly good jabs at the old boy, puncturing the profundity of black and white TV, Shakespeare and the wisdom (?) of Germans acting out an English play and making it look like an Ingmar Bergman reject.
Of course, the best parts are the MST riffs. Best lines? \"I'm gonna unleash the Great Dane\", \"I don't think so, 'breather'\", \"Meet the Beatles\", \"Hey, Dad, will you help me with my science project\" and, my personal favorite, during a party - \"Garrison Keillor's leaving Germany (YAAAY!!)\".
But then there's Schell, playing Shakespeare's greatest character much like a department store mannequin would, only not as expressive. No doubt he's a great actor, but here he comes off about as well as Paul Newman in \"The Silver Chalice\". Ever see that one? You GOTTA watch these two on a double-bill!
In the end, this is one instance where it's true that you're much better off to just read the book. At least the book isn't dubbed by Ricardo Montalban.
One star only for this \"Hamlet\"; ten stars, naturally, for the MST3K version.
Good-night, not-so-sweet prince.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n...this verson doesn't mangle the Bard that badly. It's still a horrible minimalist production, Hamlet's Dutch uncle is inexplicably dubbed by a Spaniard (whether it's Ricardo Montalban or not is subject to debate), and Maximilian Schell overacts like never before. Most of the dialogue makes it through unscathed, and the fact that the MST3K version feels obliged to point out repeatedly that the speeches are long *duh* doesn't strike me as incredibly humorous. Mostly it's just bad acting, though.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere's really not much need to begin this little review with a plot synopsis. I mean it's Shakespeare's Hamlet for goodness sake  probably one of the best known plays ever written. I'm not embarrassed to admit that I came to this version of Hamlet the way most people on IMDb have  through Mystery Science Theater 3000. While the show may not be the best venue to use to judge a movie, in this case I cannot imagine attempting to watch it without the comedic quips. In a word, this German, made-for-TV version of Hamlet is dreary. 152 minutes? No way! It's too dark and depressing to be anything I want to spend almost three hours on. I've said it any number of times, but entertainment is the thing for me. And this wrist-slitter is far from entertaining. I will, however, give it a couple of points for what I felt was some reasonably good acting. A 3/10 sounds about right to me.
As much as I enjoy MST3K, their comments don't help to make Hamlet any more palatable. There are a few good riffs here and there, but overall, Hamlet is just the wrong movie for MST3K. Shakespeare is far too talky to allow the comedy to have any sort of rhythm or flow. As much as it pains me, I've got to give Hamlet a 1/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
\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\nTake:
1. a famous play
2. a director with now ideas of his own who is using
3. a copy of the stage design of a popular theatre production of the play mentioned in 1.
4. an actor for the lead - who has no feeling for the part he's playing And you'll get: \"Hamlet, Prinz von Dänemark\"
I listened to the radio play of \"Hamlet\" with Maximilian Schell as Hamlet and I was so disappointed. I hoped that the filmed version would be better, that Schell would at least have a body language to underline what he's saying - nothing. Then the set... the minimalistic design is not everyone's taste, but usually I like it when there's just enough on the stage to make clear what's the setting and nothing more. Alas, that's on a stage, in a theatre. It won't work in a film based on a play that actually has believable settings. That the idea for the set was copied from the theatre production in which Schell played the Hamlet already... let's say if that was the only thing to complain about... I ask myself how Schell could get the part of Hamlet anywhere in first place and how anybody could allow him to play Hamlet a second time. If you've got the choice to view any of the about sixty films based on \"Hamlet\", don't watch this one, unless you're a masochist, or really hardcore, or like to poke fun on untalented actors.
\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\nYay!... I think. It's hard to say. It's hard to have an emotion about a movie that has no emotion. This movie is as sterile as a surgeon's scalpel. For a setting, it has a few stone pillars, some stone seats, a couple stone crosses and some stone actors. They have no emotion! The only thing that saves this movie is the fact that it is Hamlet, and Hamlet is a terrificly written piece of literature. The dubbing really wasn't all that bad though. The voices stuck true to the dull, gloomy, dreary, life-sucking atmosphere the movie gave forth. I have seen this version of Hamlet on the fabulous Mystery Science Theater 3000 three times, and each of the three times, I was on the brink of turning off the TV, despite it being MST 3K.
Not an uplifting production of a drama that deserves so much 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\nAlas, poor Hamlet. I knew him, dear reader, and let me tell thee, THIS VERSION SUCKS! I don't know who of all people put up the money for this flotsam, but I hope that they're proud of themselves. They took THE classic play and turned it into the most boring melodrama imaginable. This version is quite literally so bad, that not even the presence of a great thespian like Maximilian Schell in the title role can save it. This movie's only redeeming quality is that it made great fodder for \"MST3K\"; Mike, Servo and Crow had a lot of fun with this one.
But either way, I'm sure that Shakespeare, had he been alive when they made this, would not have wanted his name associated with it. This \"Hamlet\" is not even so bad that's it good; it's just plain bad. Absolutely dreadful.
\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\nnote to George Litman, and others: the Mystery Science Theater 3000 riff is \"I don't think so, *breeder*\".
my favorite riff is \"Why were you looking at his 'like'?\", simply for the complete absurdity. that, and \"Right well did not!\" over all, I would say we must give credit to the MST3K crew for trying to ridicule this TV movie. you really can't make much fun of the dialog; Bill S was a good playwright. on the other hand, this production is so bad that even he would disown it. a junior high school drama club could do better.
I would recommend that you buy a book and read 'Hamlet'.
\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 a fan of both Shakespeare and MST3K, so I waited anxiously to see this episode. I'll comment on the movie first, then the MST3K episode. The recipe for this movie: take talented actors, rich and beautiful Shakespeare material, and a $1.25 budget. Mix well, then drain of all life and movement, until dull and lifeless. Serve cold in a big, plain stone cauldron. Movie, I give 3 out of 10, because the actors at least deserve a little bit of credit. Okay, now the MST3K episode. I'll admit it, the first time I saw it, I fell asleep halfway through. I understand that was the reaction of several other veiwers as well. However, when I watched it a second time, I realized that there was a whole host of intelligent references and good lines I missed the first time around. The trick with this episode is: listen carefully! It takes a couple of viewings to catch each line. Give it a second chance, and You'll see what I mean. MST3K Episode: 7 1/2 out of 10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nPoor Will would be rolling over in his grave if he could this this horiible German-TV adaptaion of his classic play. It's obvious that very little money was spent on it. A stage riser, a catwalk and some randomly placed columns pass off as a set. The movie was ineptly dubbed into English, with the English voice actors occasionally mumbling their lines. The whole production had an incredibly dark and dreary feel to it. And just where was Fonterbras in this movie anyway? MST3K gave this sorry production the treatment it justly deserved.
To be or not to be? I wish this movie never was in the first place.
\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 literally fell asleep 3 times watching this movie. Granted, it's Shakespeare and that takes a certain mindset to be interested or not. But this movie exceeds any barrier of long soliloquies and what not, that may prevent many from just not caring about a Shakespeare based story.
The largest roadblock to this production is the complete flatness of the characters. Often during character's interacting, it's nearly difficult to distinguish who's lines are who's. Granted, I believe this movie is dubbed in English. Certainly they could've obtained voice actors which could've added a bit more drama to these classic, literary lines.
It would be difficult to rate this movie greater than 1, although perhaps that's based on prejudices of perhaps age and what would seem a very low budget. Still, it's absolutely painful and boring. If you insist on Hamlet, do yourself a favor and read the book again. 1/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMing The Merciless does a little Bardwork and a movie most foul!
\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\nYou all know the story of \"Hamlet\". I do.
Well, the \"To Be Or Not To Be\" phrase (not the speech itself) has been beaten into the ground so many times that it's not very interesting (in fact, it wasn't that great to begin with). In FACT, I find \"Hamlet\" a good but vastly overrated play. It's not even Shakespeare's best: \"Julius Caesar\" and \"Romeo & Juliet\" are ten times better, with \"A Midsummer Night's Dream\" and \"Othello\" not too far behind. \"Macbeth (knock your table, off his drawers, puck will make amends, OW!)\" isn't that bad either. There are lots of others that are better than this by Shakespeare.
I won't really comment too much on the movie, rather I will dissect the utterly horrible MST3K episode.
Okay . . . Mike and the Bots win a card game, get to pick the movie . . . they ask for \"Hamlet\", Pearl sends them this, yadda yadda yadda . . . and prepare for the most boring Sci-Fi episode of MST3K ever (admittedly, I haven't seen any of the CC Ones).
While \"Blood Waters of Dr. Z\" makes the viewing of that episode horrible, since it is not really a movie, rather random, spliced-together scenes (I'm reminded of Mike's line from \"Future War\": \"Maybe this is an anthology of short, plotless movies\"), the SOL Crew a lot got off a good many good cracks. Can't say the same for here.
The riffs fall flat, the host segments (par usual) are at best mediocre, and when the movie itself (which isn't that bad) is actually BETTER (I mean, as a quality movie, not as camp, like \"Prince of Space\") than the MST3K version of it, you know the show must be bad. I laughed (the last time I saw it was several months ago), oh, maybe eight or nine times throughout. I tried and tried AND TRIED to be entertained - but I just couldn't. Only the occasional line, like \"Hail Queen Dilbert's boss!\" (and when that's the funniest line of the episode, well, ahem) - and by occasional, I mean every ten minutes or so - maybe me even chuckle. The second time I tried to watch it, I didn't even laugh at the few jokes I'd found funny before, and simply gave up forty minutes before.
The movie isn't horrible; it's just a German version of Hamlet. The actors are good enough, and though the dubbing isn't the greatest, that's not in itself a reason to hate this film.
Four stars for \"Hamlet\"; THREE, yes THREE for the MST3K version.
PS: WHY WHY WHY, MST3K!
\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 Hamlet made for one of the boringest MST3000 episodes ever. I am not a Shakespear fan, but I do not believe he ever intended his works to be this slow paced and drab. It is also one of the hardest movies to find because there are so many Hamlets listed. Like I said though this one is quite boring. It is in black and white, the pacing is slow, and there is minimal scenery. The actors are all dubbed too so that doesn't help. This is the one MST 3000 I can't watch in one sitting cause the way the guy playing Hamlet says his lines can put anyone to sleep.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nRidiculous horror film about a wealthy man (John Carradine) dying and leaving everything to his four children, and his servants to be divided up equally. One condition--they must spend one week in his estate to get the money. And if any of them die, the others get more. Guess what happens next....
I saw a brand new print of this film on cable. The colors were bright and vivid and the house itself looks beautiful. That's about all the good things I can say about it.
Let's list just some of the problems this film has: the killer is screamingly obvious; the servants are called Igor and Elga--come on!; some of the sound recording was so bad I couldn't make out the dialogue (no great loss I'm sure); the gore was sparse and very poorly done; the other murders were simply boring, stupid or impossible and this movie contains some truly abominable acting--so bad you just stare at the screen in disbelief. Even pro Jeff Morrow was terrible! The only fairly good acting was from trouper Faith Domergue (who deserved better than this) and John Carradine (who looks painfully old and frail here). I do have to admit though--the closing line in this movie is a gem!
Why this was renamed \"Legacy of Blood\" is beyond me--there's another 1978 horror film with that name!
Whatever its name is, it's a bad movie. To be avoided 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\n***SPOILERS*** With a gathering of family members and servants of the late Christopher Dean, John Carradine, to hear his last will and testament they get somewhat of a surprise in that the Dean fortune, some 140 million dollars. The money is to be divided between them but only after they successfully spend a week at the Dean mansion. There seemed to have been a mix-up in the story when we later find out that it's really an overnight sleepover, not a weeks vacation, at the mansion for the guests to qualify for Dean's money since almost everyone ends up dead by sunrise.
The first victim of the Dean Curse have nothing at all to do with getting and money from the departed Christopher Dean estate the local sheriff Dan Garcia, Rodolfo Acosta. Acosta has his head chopped off refrigerated and then served on a platter to a shocked group of guests. Later that evening cute little Chin Greg and Laura's,Jeff Morrow & Marry Anders,little pet pooch is found dead outside floating in the pond.
The movie has all the people staying at the Dean Mansion being picked off one by one until it's revealed who the killer really is. We then have what seems to be a double-twist in the story where the original killer is suddenly killed together with two of the last remaining guest. The real killer ends up not only getting all the loot, 140 million dollars, but then ends up not having to split it with his accomplice by doing him, or her, in by giving him a poisonous cookie that kills him on the spot.
Nonsensical who done it, and haunted house, movie with a cast of such immoral and unlikable characters that even a mother, much less the audience, would have trouble liking. There's everything you can possibly think of in the move involving the selective guests that includes incest S&M sadism and of course double-dealing and back-stabbing not even counting murder. You just couldn't care less who of the guests survives to collect the Dean fortune at the end of the movie hoping against all hope then none of them do.
Even the big surprise at the end isn't really that much of a surprise since the killer's identity is divulged with the film-maker having forgotten to keep his face in the shadows so you actual see who he is even before he reveals himself! We then have a plot-twist that eliminates the killer together with a number of remaining guest just to make the movie a little more confusing then it already is. The final plot-twist, that you can see coming from as far as ten miles away, was just to show how smart the very obvious killer was which fooled almost nobody watching 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\nTerrible...just terrible. Probably the worst film I have ever seen. And I did see some pretty bad pictures, throughout the years. The sound sucks so does the quality of the picture, the direction, the acting...etc, etc. The only good shoots( meaning funny, because they're so bad ) are the special effects. Overall there are about 5 minutes worth of laughs. The rest of the flick gives you brain damage.
\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 happen to have bought one of those \"Legacy of Horror\" 50 movie pack collections and would you believe I'm still looking through them to find a good HORROR movie in it. Sometimes you find an enjoyable yet campy one like The Devil's Messenger or The Devil Bat, or one of the great Alfred Hitchcock's films (some aren't horror however and are only on there because Hitchcock directed some horrors and suspense) but other times it seems that they put movies like The Island Monster and this on because they can't accept the fact they would easily be forgotten and should be for that matter.
So we open up to sort of a Westing game idea. The rich yet cruel and abusive father played by Carradine (the one standing feature of this) has died and left his inheritance to his children and servants who he still hates. Carradine gives a good enough performance as always, but he's left mainly in a voice recording and flashback sequences leaving us to sit through the mediocre/terrible performances. The rest of the cast either overacts or underacts in scenes. Given this was an independent film of the 70's the lighting and effects are pretty limited. It's hard to build a lot of tension when the viewer can't see what's happening that well in some scenes. Some actors like the servants Igor and Elga give an effort at least and I'm ashamed to admit kind of left me chuckling at the end mainly for the sheer stupidity but still with some very minor happiness that they pulled some version of a twist to an otherwise pretty obvious who-done-it but not enough to enhance the quality of the film. You aren't meant to like the characters as they are either selfish and cruel or psychotic, but it takes it to a whole new level and makes many unwatchable. The death scenes are pretty bad and the suspense is not really there. It proves that you would probably enjoy the 20 movie pack \"Chilling\" containing films like House on a Haunted Hill, Little Shop of horror's with Jack Nicholson, and Night of the Living Dead over it. This is best avoided.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA grade-Z horror filmmaker Carl Monson was one of the most prolific directors operating within the field of the low-budget gory mayhem.His movies are full of inept gore,laughable acting,boring sub-plots and woeful dialogue.A mysterious black clad figure is savagely murdering guests staying at the family mansion.Unfortunately this film is almost bloodless.You don't actually see the murders except with shadows and a few blood splatters.The pace is lethargic and the plot is rather uninteresting.The acting is merely competent,but the lack of gore and mutilation left me disappointed.A generous 4 out of 10.Just beware:do not mistake Monson's film with Andy Milligan's equally weak \"Legacy of Blood\".
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA family of terrible people must remain in a house for a week or else they will lose their inheritance which will go to the servants who will only get their inheritance if they agree to stay on and keep the house in order. People die (and so will you if you try to sit through this) If you've ever had any desire to see bad actors- many with ill fitting dentures-act or attempt to act in a bad horror movie this is your chance. This is just awful. Its so bad I thought Al Adamson, one of the worst directors ever, directed it, but I was wrong.
Its so bad I don't want to say anything more about it, not because it isn't polite but because once I start I may not be able to stop.
avoid
\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\nYou know a movie will not go well when John Carradine narrates (a.k.a. reads the script & plot synopsis) over his character's funeral procession, a mere 5 minutes into the movie. The narration is his character's last will & testament. It stipulates that his estate be divided amongst his 4 children and servants. The children shall split $136 million equally, but if any should die then that share is split amongst the remainders. If all the children should die then it is divided amongst the servants. To be eligible, they must live in the family estate for a week. It sounds like the typical plot of a reality show.
There is little subtext as to the nature of the Deans. They are a powerful and severely dysfunctional family, but the real trouble starts with the drowning of that dog. From the opening voice-over by John Carradine you expect this movie will lead to a Machiavellian cat and mouse game with a twist ending.
That journey is painfully slow and pointless. We trudge through minutes of watching people sitting around, playing pool, throwing darts, the misuse of the \"through the fish bowl\" shot, dramatic conversations between silk cravat wearing men, constant bickering, misplaced circus music, bizarre flashbacks reminiscent of faux-German expressionism, the horror aesthetic of the 4th grade and heaps of dramatic overacting. This all inevitably leads to the expected & ungratifying ending. You will be happy to still be alive, but the pain might be too great to bear alone. Share children, share.
-Celluloid Rehab
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOK, how's this for original- this mean, rich old geezer leaves his estate to his adult children, all of them ungrateful losers, and two creepy servants, provided they spend the week in his spooky old house. What happens that night will surprise only those who haven't seen a movie or television show before. After a string of murders in which the victims look like they're bleeding restaurant ketchup, we have a painfully obvious twist ending. The cast is lead by some once respectable actors must have been desperate for their paychecks. There are also a few second-tier actors who were rising at the time but long forgotten now. As a result, the film generates all the drama and mystery of an episode of \"Matlock.\" I will give credit where it's due- the closing scene is clever and amusing, if you're still awake.
\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\nBack when I was a kid and I lived with my sister, she bought every horror movie she could find and this was one of them. VCR'S had just became a household item and we didn't have but about 150 movies and we watched the hell out of all of them.
I was at a yard sale the other day and I saw this VHS copy of BLOOD LEGACY and I buy any horror movie I don't have and I knew this movie looked familiar. I thought for a second and realized it was one that my sister had bought. She had sold it years ago in a yard sale I am guessing - who knows.
I didn't recall anything at all about it and I watched it the night I bought it and it refreshed my memory because of a few scenes. I am not sure how I felt about it as a kid but I am sure I enjoyed it because it was new to me and I'd watch and enjoy anything back then.
I am a horror freak, but there are certain requirements in order for me to consider it \"good\" and this one fell very short. It was one of those talk talk talk and bore me to death types. What death scenes you see are done using the shadow on the wall followed by blood splatter and thats if you're lucky you get that much.
The story is good and I have seen a few with similar plots, so I think this one should be buried and forgotten. Don't watch this people unless you're hard up.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one of the most boring horror films I have ever seen, as it's absolutely god awful, John Carradine has very limited screen time. All the characters are boring, and the story is terrible, plus I could see the two twists at the end coming miles away!. The great setting and the creepy house definitely would have helped if it wasn't so damn boring, and there isn't one character to root for either, plus I hope it makes it's way to the bottom 100, because it deserves to be there in my opinion. When John Carradine finally shows up at the end, it's a pretty good scene but it's already way too late, and the only other screen time he had was in flashbacks, plus the only really gory scene in the movie is when a character gets his face messed up by Bee's, as it was rather gory. I got this in a DVD Horror set called Back From The Grave and everyone really overacts in my opinion, plus it's lucky this was included in a set I bought otherwise I would have chucked this out the window!. This is one of the most boring Horror films I have ever seen, as It's absolutely god awful, John Carradine has very limited screen time, and I say avoid it like the plague!, you don't want to go through the torture. The Direction is absolutely terrible!. Carl Monson does an absolutely terrible! job here, making every thing look cheap, wasting his potential on making creepy atmosphere and just keeping the film at an incredibly dull pace. The Acting is just as bad. John Carradine is good in his scene, but other then that he's hardly in the film other then flashback scenes. (Carradine Ruled!!). Merry Anders overacts here terribly as Laura, as she didn't convince me at all. Ivy Bethune is OK, and somewhat creepy, but also overacted, she did have a creepy smile at the end though. Rest of the cast, I didn't pay enough attention too, as I had a lot of trouble getting through it, but they were all really bad. Overall please avoid this,It's not worth the agony!. BOMB out of 5
\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 husband-and-wife team of Bennie Fields and Blossom Seeley were huge stars in vaudeville, yet they made very few films. As is the case for some other performers of their era (George M. Cohan, Fanny Brice, Gertrude Lawrence) the most accessible piece of film footage for Fields and Seeley is the biopic ABOUT them, in which they're portrayed by other actors: 'Somebody Loves Me', starring Betty Hutton and that inimitable song-and-dance man Ralph Meeker.
In their heyday, Fields and Seeley were so hugely popular that another husband-and-wife vaudeville act -- Jesse Block and Eve Sully -- achieved nearly as much stardom performing an almost identical act, effectively becoming the \"second-team\" Fields and Seeley. Offstage, though, there was a major difference in the couples' living arrangements. Fields and Seeley lived in hotel suites, paying room-service rates for every meal they ate, and eventually running out of money. Block and Sully lived modestly and invested their earnings wisely, ending in comfortable retirement.
The first 30 seconds of this Vitaphone short are occupied by two spats-wearing pianists. Apparently these two men had some slight name value of their own in 1930, although I've never heard of them. Finally, Fields and Seely rush in and start performing. They both have plenty of pep, and she's fairly attractive.
I was annoyed that both performers keep making movements as if they're about to break into a dance, but they never quite do so until the third of the three songs they perform in this short. When they finally start hoofing, the results are not impressive.
I was delighted to have this opportunity to see these two major performers doing their vaude act. Now that I've seen it, I understand why they never became stars in movie musicals. My rating for this one: just 4 out of 10, and I'll stick with Block and Sully.
\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 great director/actor combinations are talked about the team of J. Lee Thompson and Charles Bronson is not usually mentioned. Probably because the output of nine joint ventures between the two of them runs the gamut from the really good action entertainment to the mediocre. Unfortunately Kinjite: Forbidden Subjects falls in the latter.
That's sad because Kinjite could have been a whole lot better. But for the life of me I don't understand why it was necessary to make the father of the missing Japanese girl, a guy used to getting some cheap jollies because the romance in his marriage has run out. That might have been good for another film altogether, but it served no purpose here.
A straightforward cop drama with Charles Bronson as a vice cop who's seen a bit too much in his line of work and has a strong prejudice against orientals. That part could also have used a little explaining as well. But he's going to have to overcome it if he and patient partner Perry Lopez are going to locate a captured Japanese school girl.
Bronson's time in the vice squad have told him exactly where to look for the kidnapper. A stylish, murderous pimp played by Jaime Fernandez is the guy and he and Bronson have some history. In fact in the film's best scene, Bronson made him eat an expensive rolex watch and set his car on fire.
At one point Fernandez happens to spot Bronson and Lopez in an all night delicatessen and this being after his rolex snack, he sprays the place with an Uzi killing everyone, but Bronson and Lopez. I really think that little incident would have had more than a couple vice cops from the LAPD after Fernandez. But that's another terribly big hole in the plot.
Still there is a very rough justice in the end for Fernandez. I wish the whole film had been better though. This was the last film of the Bronson-Thompson team and J. Lee Thompson's last as a director. He should have gone out with something 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\nCharles Bronson stars as Lt Crowe a police detective who declares war on a pimp named Duke (Juan Fernandez) who kidnaps the daughter of a Japanese businessman who is the man who sexually harassed Crowe's daughter (Amy Hathaway) in this sleazy yet stylishly helmed revenge thriller. Kinjite may not be for everyone with it's somewhat disturbing plot threads but it is well made and indeed entertaining.
\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 '80's were not very kind to one-time major star Charles Bronson. Starting with 1982's \"Death Wish II\" and ending with this truly gruesome film from '89, Bronson's screenwriters seemed to be trying to top each other in progressive grossness. \"D.W. II\" left little to the imagination in its depiction of the rape and suicide of Bronson's character's daughter, (a rape and murder of his housekeeper was also shown in disgusting detail). \"10 to Midnight\" was the sort of loathsome film that made you want to take a bath afterwards. Nothing redeeming about it. Other films like \"The Evil that Men Do\" and the remaining \"Death Wish\" films from this period straddled the line between high camp and high barf with their earnest depictions of brutality and revenge. I'm not sure if the producers (usually Pancho Kohner) got a kick out of showing a weary looking, senior citizen-aged Bronson destroying punks young enough to be his grandchildren or what, but the shoddy craftsmanship (and terrible scripts) of these films usually destroyed what little energy they may have generated.
\"Kinjite\" -- the last of these films -- is fairly well-made but truly takes the cake in cinematic wretchedness. In this film Bronson: sodomizes a perverse john; forces a pimp to eat his Rolex watch; allows a male prisoner to get raped by another prisoner; makes incredibly xenophobic remarks among other things I've thankfully forgotten. Also depicted is the gang-rape of a young Japanese girl (fortunately, this was off-screen, though well-implied).
What were people thinking when they made this film? What was Bronson thinking when he decided to ruin his career with these horrible films? For anyone interested in his best movies, check out most of the films he made in the '60's and '70's like \"The Mechanic\", \"Death Wish\", \"From Noon til 3\", \"Once Upon a Time in the West\", \"Red Sun\", \"The Great Escape\", \"The Magnificent Seven\", \"Rider on the Rain\", etc., etc....
\n
assistant\n0
\n"