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\nReally. Does any week go by that Oprah doesn't remind us that she was abused as child?
She makes herself the focus of every interview.
Oprah cannot resist commenting on the answer to every question she asks. She often interrupts guests before an answer is finished to interject her own aside or anecdote. Directors are obviously instructed to focus on her closeup reaction rather than guest's faces because that's what counts - what Oprah feels, what Oprah says.
Oprah, Oprah, Oprah. It's always all about Oprah.
Oprah says - Feel sorry for me, I was so poor. Feel the pain of my battle with my weight. Feel my hurt when I'm turned away from a fancy store after they've already closed. Feel good for buying my magazines and books. Feel good for my success. Feel good when you give to my charity to make me look good. Feel good for making me rich beyond belief.
My interpretation of her point of view: YOU VIEWERS ARE ALL DEEPLY FLAWED AND YOU NEED MY DAILY ADVICE. I have all the answers for your life though I have nothing in common with you plebes. I have never been married nor do I want to be. I have never had to raise a family - but I know all about it. I have little respect for men or marriage. I clearly prefer people like me over others - witness \"Legends Ball 2006\". Gayle is my best friend but we are not gay.
As of 7/31/2006, the heading on her website actually reads : \"Oprah.com is your leading source for information about love, life, self, relationships, food, home, spirit and health.\" How presumptive and obnoxious is that ?
In June 2006, she crashed two private wedding receptions in Oklahoma to gather footage for her September 2006 shows. She keeps promising to quit TV but her yapfest drags on with no end in sight.
Contrary to what she thinks, Oprah is neither a queen nor a goddess nor on a personal mission from God. She's just one very lucky, overweight, black woman who copied Phil Donahue's style and called it her own. She happened to be in the right place at the right time and knew exactly how to suck up to the right demographic.
Oprah is the P.T. Barnum of this age and it amazes me that people cannot see through her facade.
So ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls and you too Oprah if you can fit that inflated ego through the door - This way now to the great egress ...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs the 2000's came to a close, king Kong's adopted daughter went ahead and made a tearful announcement her show as coming to an end.
While Miss Winfrey was tearing up, i was laughing and screaming like a wild Indian from the old west.
So what does Oprah do? she takes famous people, and puts them on her show. what kind of famous people? people who've suffered (just like her, except these people have lost more than their virginity) they've suffered melted faces (true story), missing limbs (True story, see end of paragraph), and spousal abuse (too many to count). and somehow they come on the show and tell their story, as if we haven't heard it before tons and tons of times (Bethany Hamilton, i've heard your tale about losing an arm to a shark since day one, which was October 31st, 2003. don't tell me you have no hard feelings.) But the biggest thing probably on Oprah was Michael Jackson's interview in 1993, after being accused of being a child molester. sadly, Mr. Jackson has since passed away. but that one particular show told about Michael's personal life, something not many people knew about at the time.
Oprah's Real influence comes from middle aged women and soccer moms. They seem to think she's like a personal Jesus sometimes. but all i see in Oprah is some big ghetto lady who made it big, and she's just showing off how rich she is.
I'm glad her shows going to end soon. we need better television programs.
\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\nGuy de Maupassant was a novelist who wrote a novel about a man, a poor man, without any moral qualities. He only wanted to success in a society where all the people, the politic men, the businessmen, the journalists, the women are corrupt. The only king is MONEY. The Maupassant hero, Charles Forestier is going higher and higher in the society scale thanks to his seduction poser. He is in love with all the women who could help him in his action to climb the society stapes. At the end of the novel, he married himself with the biggest daily paper owner's daughter, in the greatest church of Paris : \"La Madeleine\". \"Le Tout Paris\" is there. He has a fortune and more, he will become a member of Parliament and later a Minister. The \"useless\" women are out of his view, but he is always keeping in touch with the pretty and the usefull women. The picture \"THE PRIVATE AFFAIRS OF BEL AMI\" is a story of MORALITY. It is everything, but not a story in the Maupassant idea. Why had they put \"BEL AMI\" in its title ?
\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\nFrom the decrepit ranks of the already over-saturated 'Hillybilly Horror' sub-genre comes this woeful tale of a vacationing family terrorized by inbred rednecks. Sound familiar? Well it most definitely should to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the horror genre. There is absolutely new here. The film seems content to recycle all thee old worn out clichés (deformed hicks, a peaceful family turned gun-toting killers when push comes to show, the rebellious daughter, the one 'freak' who's good at heart, etcetera...), but does even that half-heartedly enough to make this an utter waste of time. This is forgettable dreck, but humorously enough lead J.D. Hart once starred in a movie called \"Films that Suck\" earlier in his career, quite an ironic omen indeed.
My Grade: D-
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA family looking for some old roadside attractions to include in the father's coffee-table book come across an ancient, decrepit old freak show run by an eccentric one-eyed man. When their family van breaks down upon leaving the sideshow, they're forced to stay at a nearly abandoned fishing camp that was the site of a prison break decades prior.
There have been many films in the 'freak' subgenre of horror, ranging from Tod Browning's beloved 'Freaks' (1932) to Alex Winter's hilarious 'Freaked' (1993). Those are both classics (or soon-to-be with 'Freaked'). 'Side Sho,' however, never will be. And if it ever does reach classic status. . . well, it will be an obvious clue to the sad state of our genre. From the ridiculously bad opening song to the 17-year-old daughter that's obviously older than her natural mother, this film did not have much going for it. The writing was subpar, but not completely awful. . . just boring. The direction was poor, and the rare freak effects were pretty horrendous and unbelievable. The acting was abysmal and the casting was even worse. Anyone who would believe the ages of these two camp-age teenagers must not have met a teenager in a long, long time. There was far from enough gore & violence to make up for the lack of any other quality. . . and when there was a bit of violence, it was not well done at all. And, I can't forget to mention the ending fight scenes which were, with all honesty, some of the worst I've ever, ever seen in a film. Overall, this is an easily forgettable and poorly made horror film that deserves to be left alone at the bottom of the dollar bin.
Final verdict: 2.5/10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAfter 30 seconds, you already realize that there was no real budget for this cheap knock-off. The story is taken from great movies like \"Texas Chainsaw Massacre\" and \"Hills have Eyes\". I like those kind of movies, even if they're duplicated well (Wrong Turn, Timber Falls, Carver).
But \"Side Sho\" is hard to watch: the actors are really bad, the dialogue is cheesy and the music is stupid and totally misplaced. You do not care at all what happens to the characters. The so-called bad guys are also not interesting at all and rather stereotypical. So how about the blood and gore ? Well there is some, although it is rather cheap and the action is executed very poorly. 2 Points, just for the gore and blood but do understand that this is hardly worth a look, even for the gore-hounds..
\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\nYet ANOTHER movie about a group of less-than-intelligent individuals on a road trip who wander off their original travel route for either a short-cut or, in this case, to visit a run-down side show attraction. The results, as expected, are not at all good, as this particular side show is home to a bunch of lunatic, in-bred residents who were escaped prison inmates from years before. The father, who is apparently a professionally photographer, just HAS to stop and take pictures of the place, only to find that it still inhabited. The various members of the family wander off to view the various attractions, only to be scared away. Thinking they made it safely on their way, the van tire explodes (surprise!), leaving them to seek refuge and accommodations in the small town, which we find out is inhabited solely by the freaks (surprise!).
This film plays out as expected, with the family being stalked and killed by the freaks. There is some fighting back on the families part, but these are probably among the worst scenes in the film, as they are badly executed. There is nothing remotely original here, unless you count the totally inappropriate soundtrack that is played during particular scenes that completely ruins the atmosphere and mood of the film. The acting is about as bad as I have seen in quite some time by everyone involved (it is pretty bad when your cast is out-acted by the cast of \"Camp Blood). The special effects are lousy and the ending made me want to punch my television.
Still, though, despite all the negatives, I somewhat enjoyed this film. It definitely has a \"so bad it's good\" vibe to it. I made it through the entire movie and was even pleasantly entertained once I got past the ridiculously clichéd plot, terrible acting, and cheesy special effects. Though the ending left me feeling cheated and angry, particularly because the film is not that great to begin with and the ending makes the entire film pointless.
Bottom line, I can list countless films that if you have seen them, you have seen this. The difference is most of those film are better. Though not a complete waste, this film is pretty bad and not remotely scary.
My Grade: D
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"Fred Claus\" somehow avoids becoming this year's \"The Santa Clause\" by at least having a bit more amusing moments than that Tim Allen starrer, but it doesn't mean that it's got enough going for it that's worth a trip to the theater.
As holiday movies go, it's contrived and sentimental. But actually, that could be the least of one's concern as \"Fred Claus,\" boasting of having David Dobkin (\"Shanghai Knights,\" \"The Wedding Crashers\") at the helm, contains virtually nary a genuinely funny moment as it clumsily treads the line between a boorish Vince Vaughn vehicle and a fuzzy Christmas film. In the end, it amounts to not much of both. And with a cast that comprises of Paul Giamatti, Kevin Spacey, Rachel Weisz, and Kathy Bates, all the more it leaves one disappointed.
Vaughn plays Fred, Nick's (Giamatti) older and estranged brother, who once upon a time, left him and their parents (Bates and Trevor Peacock) after having had enough of enduring his parents' favoritism of his younger sibling. Nick grows up to be Santa Claus (and as the voice-over tells us, time freezes on you and your family when you become a saint), while Fred becomes a Yuletide-jaded repo man in Chicago who's having a hard time remembering his girlfriend Wanda's (Weisz) birthday.
He runs in trouble with the law and had to call his younger brother (who eerily looks at least a decade older than him) to bail him out of jail. Nick agrees but only if Fred agrees to help out on the toy-wrapping business up in the North Pole. Fred reluctantly agrees but his cynicism clashes with Santa and the elves' perpetually cheery nature, even as an efficiency expert (Spacey) is checking on the toy factory operations, only too happy to have the whole Arctic operations shut down if things fail.
The film, as said, does have its moments, but the padded running length stretches them thin across its duration. In between are piles of Christmas film clichés that were handled better in, say, \"Elf\" and the attempts at sentimentality are as endearing as last year's fruitcake.
Vaugn, as usual, brings on his coarse charm to the table, but the neutered script of Dan Fogelman keeps him from REALLY doing his thing. Giamatti, underneath the bad fat suit, brings a jolly old charm to his iconic character, but unfortunately, has to play second fiddle to Fred. Spacey brings his game face, but his turns usually end as unfunnily vapid.
Ultimately, \"Fred Claus\" becomes a forgettable film that falls below what those involved in it deserve. Sure, there are worse ways to start the season at the cinema, but there are certainly far better ways.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMy Take: A tired formula Christmas comedy. The laughs are tired and the talents behind it seem to be too.
I love the holidays as much as the next guy (even if I often have a bad case of the holiday blues), but it seems it's just being a dumping ground for a bunch of Holiday comedies that would be bad movies on any day of the year, but that doesn't make them any less painful during the season. As if we already had enough SANTA CLAUSE movies (three and *gulp* still counting), who wants to see a movie about his brother? In a plot that would be at home with Disney's SANTA CLAUSE franchise (save the occasionally crude humor and Santa's \"Little\" Helper wearing a short skirt), FRED CLAUS is a one-joke premise that goes on for 116 minutes. Sure, Jolly Ol' Saint Nick has a brother, but where does it go from there?
It's a shame really. FRED CLAUS is blessed with a cast that could have made it an enjoyable Christmastime comedy that will probably melt away along with the snow, but it would have been so much better than this. Vince Vaughn is your typical snob, but we are led to believe he's really the long lost brother of the never-aging Santa (Paul Giamatti), who invites his good ol' brother to visit. Mrs. Claus (Miranda Richardson) is reluctant, and worse, an efficiency expert (Kevin Spacey) has come to keep a watchful eye on Father Christmas, and his THIS close to being shut down. Hah! And guess who plays Santa's mother! Kathy Bates of course. Elizabeth Banks is Santa's Helper Charlene, John Michael Higgins is one of the elves, and Rachel Wiesz plays Fred's girlfriend! SI don't know if I'd praise the casting or to bash it. Here we have some familiar faces to add a touch of quality, but they're given way too little to work with.
As for humor, the best that FRED CLAUS could possibly come up with is Santa's brother being his exact opposite and some joke about a DJ elf. I have to admit I had a few giggles involving Fred attending a group counseling for celebrity brothers (where he is joined by Stephen Baldwin, Roger Clinton and Frank Stallone), but the giggles begin and end there. Worse still, the movie even succumbs into sentimentality that's supposed to make us \"feel good\" and teach us a lesson about \"what Christmas really means\". Apparently, what Christmas means to Hollywood is getting as much of our leftover Christmas shopping money as they can.
Rating: ** 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\nIt's always tough having a sibling doing better in their life than you, always a struggle to get out from under that shadow and not let bitterness keep you away from your family. So, imagine that your older brother is Santa and then imagine how tough that must be. That's the premise here.
Vince Vaughn plays the titular Fred, an embittered loser who spends a lot of his energy making sure that people don't go around expecting good things to happen to them or giving his brother, Santa (played by Paul Giamatti), too much praise for simply being the limelight-hogging, fame-hungry, slightly creepy guy that Fred would want to portray him as. Then, wouldn't you know it, Fred needs a financial favour and so has to make up for it by helping his brother on the run up to Christmas. And hilarity and life lessons ensue.
Well, that's what should happen. The reality is that we get a Christmas movie featuring a few good moments of Vaughn's patented fast-talking, a ridiculously out-of-nowhere music video moment, Kevin Spacey playing an auditor out to close down Santa's operation (and he's one of the weakest baddies I have seen in some time), not enough of the gorgeous Elizabeth Banks in a lush Christmas outfit, too much of John Michael Higgins in his elf outfit (to be fair, he's a highlight though) and a movie that's too swimming in bitterness to feel like good seasonal fare yet too schmaltzy in it's latter half to feel like a fun poke at all the bad things about the commercialism of the time.
Rachel Weisz is along for the ride too, as is Kathy Bates, but it's really nothing more than a movie for Vaughn and if you like his style you will find something to enjoy here. Unfortunately, there's very little else to recommend this seasonal stinker. Outside of Vaughn's rantings the script barely throws up anything decent with the exception of one particularly good scene involving a hilarious support group dealing with a very specific problem.
David Dobkin's direction is as mediocre and staid as the 20p Christmas card that you send the auntie you haven't seen in 10 years and he seems to think that simply putting the ingredients together without a good mix or decent care taken will guarantee a delicious Christmas pudding. Nope, we get a burnt, bland lump with too much sugar on top. Forget this and stick the hilarious Elf on again if you want a great, modern Christmas comedy.
See this if you like: The Santa Clause 2, Santa Baby, The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause.
\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 most ridiculous thing about this ridiculous movie is its conceit that if one becomes a saint, he or she and his or her family and his or her significant other live forever. Let's forget that in order to become a saint, the saint must be dead, and saints don't have significant others. That, for a millennium, Nick has been the Jolly Elf to Fred's Scrooge is never even hinted at! Open on Nick learning how to make toys, then on Fred learning how to run numbers; Nick giving a sick child a dolly, Fred repossessing the dolly, along with the family farm! After a few more such episodes, morph to present-day Fred venting his spleen at Siblings Anonymous as his fellow losers nod in empathy. There, I just wrote a more cohesive storyline than this idiocy!
This Santa, who is one \"ho, ho, ho, ho, ho\" away from a massive coronary, is a neurotic wuss saddled with the Queen of the Harpies, an operation straight out of Mega-Mall Hell, and answers to a Board (huh?) which just gave the Easter Bunny his pink egg. Oh, and his right-hand man is a ditzy blonde in a skin-tight mini-dress and go-go boots. Ho... ho... ho... ho... ho!
But what really sent me over the edge was Slam being named #1 on the Naughty List. Shouldn't a Naughty List be reserved for the future Hitlers and Stalins? Children who are the true embodiments of evil? Nope, to Old Sausage-Fingers, a good boy who lashes out because he is unwanted and unloved is the Demon Seed!
The nimrods behind Fred Claus should be boiled in their own pudding! Bah!
\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 went into this movie expecting it to be really god-awful. And it was. I really felt sorry for the star-studded cast- Kathy Bates was a wonderful actress... before she made this movie- Vince Vaughn and Paul Giamatti were disappointing as usual but Miranda Richardson couldn't put in one of the fabulous performances I know and love her for. Fred's dad, played by Trevor Peacock (of Vicar of Dibley fame, amongst others), had about one line.
The plot was predictable and all over the place, and the humour was... lacking. (However, there was one part of the movie where Santa enters the house of a Jewish family... that made me laugh just because their expressions were classic) Don't see this movie unless your only other alternative is having a head-on collision with a train (actually- maybe the train would be 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\nDid anyone read the script. This has to be some of the worst writing and directing of the entire year. Three great actors, Paul Giamatti, Rachel Weisz and Miranda Richardson couldn't pull this one out. About two-thirds it looked like Giamatti eyes were saying, I can't believe I signed the contract. It's not the worst movie I ever saw, but it's on the really really bad Christmas movie list. Not enough lines, but what else can be said? Okay, the movie just doesn't move with Vaughn's con-man dialogue, his character is just a creepy guy that you just can't get past. It was just a lackluster walk through, that no one seemed to be able to get into.
\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\nOh my. I decided to go out to the cinemas with some friends, wanting to watch one of those mild, feel-good Christmas movies, and I walk out disgusted. The movie failed. Full-stop. Paul Giamatti who I consider as a good actor played his character and roll just horribly, along with Vince Vaughn who has always been a personal favourite of mine. They try and turn a Christmas movie, into some new-style. Sort of bad, mixed with good, but it all turned out very wrong. The first ten or so minutes weren't too bad, but once we saw Santa, it was over. It didn't get any better, the rate stayed the same, there was NO character development, and certainly is one of the worst Christmas movies ever invented. Don't watch it, whatever you do.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is almost like two films--one literate and engaging, the other stupid and clichéd. It's really a shame all the problems weren't worked out with the writing, but considering how quickly most B-movies were written and produced, this isn't too unusual. It's a real shame, though, as this could have been a very good film.
First the good. The movie is original and involves WWII code-breakers. This is pretty fascinating and I liked watching the leading man (Lee Bowman) go through his paces as a master code-breaker. In fact, the first two-thirds of the film was very good. But now for the bad, the film just went on way too long and lost steam at about 50 minutes. Additionally, Jean Rogers' role as the \"kooky girlfriend\" must rank as one of the worst-written and distracting roles in film history!! For every smart move made by Bowman, the idiot Rogers then stepped in to screw things up as some sort of misguided \"comedy relief\". If her role had been intelligently written, the overall film would have improved immensely! Instead, watching her, it's hard to understand how we actually won WWII!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a rather tame fluff piece concerning WW II codes being broken, stolen, etc. The acting is about what I expected from this cast of MGM \"B\" actors.
One big caution. Jean Rogers, who did such a great job playing the very sexy Dale Arden in the first two Flash Gordon serials is just awful in this movie. Her character is extremely annoying. She absolutely never lets-up with her overacting. We are supposed to believe that during the height of a World War in what would obviously be a Top Secret code facility, she would be allowed to just pop in and out of any office of her choosing although she has no official function. From that standpoint I'm sorry that I ever watched this film. It has forever changed my perception of Ms. Rogers. Talentwise, she is an extreme lightweight.
Lee Bowman is his usual self, meaning that he is merely adequate.

\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\nLudicrous violations of the most basic security regs are only the beginning. It's hard to see how they achieved such abysmal trash on such a low budget. I turned it off once, then got curious to see if it could get any worse. It did.
\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 went to see this movie (actually I went to see Family Portraits, which contains Cutting Moments + 2 other short films by Douglas Buck) at the Mar del Plata festival (Argentina)... I just couldn't watch it! I had to cover my eyes after the 1st half of Cutting Moments and take a peek every once in a while. By the time it was over, my stomach was upside down and I felt light headed. I just HAD to leave the cinema a few minutes after the 2nd short begun (BTW, of course I was not the only one who left the room). It was WAAAAY too violent and disgusting for me! I am impressed by the many brave people who actually loved it. I just don't get how you can love that kind of movies! The shocking and bloody and horrible images I saw got really stuck in my head for like two days!! I also try to analyze the story (my boyfriend did see the whole thing and told me about it) and I just don't think it makes any sense. I mean, that amount of violence and stuff, makes no other sense than to try to shock people. And that's not a good enough reason, I think. There's absolutely nothing in this movie that I can say \"Well, at least 'x' thing about it was good\". But well, I guess I will never understand that kind of films.
\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 reason the DVD releases of this film are in black and white is because nobody can get their hands on a color print of this public domain film, a modest sea story at best.
Distributed for television thru Allied Artists, DVD's (or VHS) on the market at this time for this title are all coming from the same 16MM television print. Films distributed for television prior to 1963 were often distributed in b/w prints, because the bulk of viewers did not have color sets anyway. Striking b/w prints for television was also cheaper, as it often involved quite a few prints to cover all stations running a film on a syndicated basis.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"A trio of treasure hunters is searching the West Indies for a hidden fortune. The lure of gold makes for a rise in tension as the men come closer to the treasure's location. The deep-sea divers hope to track down the gold, but find that greed and hatred leads to murder,\" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. \"Manfish\" is the name of their boat, not a monster. The skeleton who gives muscular Captain John Bromfield (as Brannigan) his half of the treasure map is very good. Old salt Victor Jory (as Professor) provides the other half of the map. First mate Lon Chaney Jr. (as Swede) plays dumb, and sexy Tessa Prendergast (as Alita) guards the rum (not very well, obviously). Serious editing and continuity problems mar the picture, which otherwise might have amounted to something.
*** Manfish (2/56) W. Lee Wilder ~ John Bromfield, Victor Jory, Lon Chaney Jr.
\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\nHave you ever sat watching a movie when 20 or 30 minutes have gone by and suddenly you realize that you have actually seen the movie before? That happened to me with \"The Young Graduates\". The cover of the video box, if you can find the video, is extremely deceiving. I'd swear that the two women on the cover aren't even in the film.
Anyway, I was either born a decade too late to appreciate the finer points of this film or...it is simply pointless junk. I'm heavily leaning toward the latter but I guess some out there have developed a connection to this movie.
Hmm...plot. A plot. Let's see...there must be a plot around here somewhere. Nope, I can't find it. It's pretty much about some high school seniors acting dopey and doing drugs and speaking in a language that became outdated decades ago. One of the female students has a crush on her teacher. The teacher has a frigid wife (whom he indeed refers to as an iceberg) so he is receptive to the girl's advances.
There's a lot of driving around and inane dialogue and plenty of spastic dancing. Our cat, BooBoo, was transfixed by the dancing high school kids. She watched with amazing intensity as the dancers gyrated and shook out on the dance floor. It's nice to see that at least one species has found something interesting in this relic. 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\n90 minutes of Mindy...Mindy is a tease to boyfriend Bill...Mindy prances at the high school dance...Mindy hitchhikes to Big Sur, shoplifts a loaf of \"shepherd's bread,\" Mindy nearly gets gang-raped... Ah, the pleasures of Crown International drive-in features. You must remember that these films were never designed to be watched start to finish on DVD players. They were made as 90 minutes of ambiance so the teens of the 70s would have a soundtrack as they got it on in their Pintos and Citations. The lack of pacing and structure didn't matter to the original audience -- they probably only tuned in when the T & A on screen matched what they were up to, out in the parking lot. The film is really irritating when watched as a story. It's a lot more fun to talk about it than watch it. My favorite inanities: 1) Bill and his friend accompany the teacher to find Mindy. With no luggage or change of underwear, they spend 2 nights sharing a motel room with the teacher, just like in real life. 2)After being abducted and nearly raped by depraved bikers, and after their innocent friend \"Pan\" is savagely beaten, Mindy and her girlfriend find an unattended motorcycle on the road. Mindy immediately brightens up and chirps, \"I'm going' to Big Sur!!\" But again, it's a lot more fun to talk/read about than sit through.
\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 watched this film last night with anticipation, but really wasn't very impressed.
With the exception of 'Combo', I thought the acting was poor and the narrative was limited. It came across like a 'made for TV' drama.
I felt that the film was very contrived. The whole set up of hammering in the context at the start (yes, we get that this is 80s Britain - you can stop now) was tiresome, and gave a very one-sided view of what life was like in 80s Britain - poverty, war juxtaposed with royalty, Margaret Thatcher, yet nothing in between? There were actually middle-classes who existed back then - just ordinary working people, with a decent wage and a mortgage. The Falklands clips also seemed to be added randomly towards the end, for 'dramatic effect', I presume.
The sequence of events felt a tad disjointed, as the characters moved one one action to the next without us seeing how their mindset could've changed so quickly.
The relationship between 'Shaun' and 'Smell' was toe-curling. I couldn't even look during the snogging scene. I find it very hard to believe that she would've been attracted to a boy who was not only so much younger, but also looked so much younger. I know there were only four years between them, but four years is nothing once you reach your twenties, yet it's a huge difference in your teens! In my experience, that kind of teen age difference only occurs when the girl is the younger one, since girls mature so much quicker, and are more on the wavelength of boys a few years older. Sorry, but I didn't buy it - an unnecessary plot point created for shock value.
The ending was somewhat abrupt and, again, contrived. If the flag throwing incident was supposed to be iconic, then it fell somewhat short in my eyes.
It bugs me that British films only concern themselves with either the upper classes or the poverty-stricken. Don't get me wrong, I love Trainspotting, and Four Weddings has its charms, but can't we Brits come up with anything different? Why are our films always so hung up on the class system? I was born in 1973, so wasn't much different in age to 'Shaun' would've been in 1983. I grew up in a single parent family on a fairly down-trodden council estate in a city in England. However, my childhood experiences were vastly different to those portrayed in the film - I don't even remember racism being an issue (although i'm not saying it didn't exist). 'This is England'? Not in my experience.
The bottom line is that I felt this film lacked substance, and I was completely bored and unimpressed throughout.
\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 mood of this movie is pretty good and it captures the feel of the 80's well with some good performances.
However.....
The script is run of the mill with the exception of a couple of comedic moments and comes off as being weird where I expect it was intended to be edgy. The characters are totally over dramatized and unbelievable and full of right wing clichés that the script writer probably saw watching a panorama documentary on the national front. The biggest problem is this movie has no real story. It ticks all the right \"arty\" boxes but nothing actually happens and at the end you are left wondering what the point was.
Very disappointing
\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 title of this obscure and (almost righteously) forgotten 80's slasher inevitably reminds me of The Cure's mega-smash-monster hit song with the same title, hence a piece of the lyrics in the title-section of this user comment. Also, I didn't have anything else to say that was useful, anyway. But hey, \"The Forest\" isn't totally hopeless and not even *that* bad, actually. If nothing else, at least it obeys the, admittedly unwritten, first rule of 80's slasher: kill someone within the first 10 minutes of playtime. Sure you've heard about the basic premise of this film a dozen times before, but don't let that discourage you from watching it, as \"The Forest\" has a couple of things more to offer than just an appealingly sinister cover image. It's actually a bit of an atypical 80's slasher! The main characters aren't ordinary brainless teenagers and the script has solid ambitions towards supernaturalism. The concept isn't always successful, let alone plausible, but it's more than interesting enough to hold your attention and there are even are a couple of surprisingly strong moments of tension and plot twists to enjoy. Two married couples decide to go camping in the most isolated woods of California, but due to a stupid bet the wives travel separately from their husbands. Barely set up for the night, they receive uncanny visits from a mother looking for her two children, the children themselves and finally the father who's out hunting for human flesh. The demented family may be real or imaginary, but the women are definitely in danger and by the time their husbands arrive, they have already vanished. The men too encounter the family, and they find out more about the slightly dysfunction background. \"The Forest\" is a weird and unusual film, to say the least. It's not exactly a masterpiece of plotting, but the thoroughly strange atmosphere will certainly appeal to open-minded fans of 80's horror. The murders are fairly gruesome and will-filmed, including a slit throat and a painful saw-massacre, and the filming locations are stunningly beautiful. The more you contemplate about the story and its abrupt twists, the less it makes any sense, so my advice would just be to enjoy this odd viewing experience for as long as it lasts and not a minute longer. The acting performances are just above average, the music is okay and at least director Donald Jones (also responsible for the 70's exploitation-sickie \"Schoolgirls in Chains\") tried to be a little more creative that the majority of 80's horror films. Too bad it ultimately fails.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOne of the most boring slashers ever.. If you can even call it that. I wouldn't watch this if it even ended up being some kind of porno movie, which it completely resembles. The fact that you're watching a small group of middle-aged people in the woods is really unbearable. They made these kinds of movies for teens, so who were they really aiming for when they made this sleep-fest? My favorite part of this movie is the cover art and it's the only reason I chose to seek out this movie, which happened to be part of a Suspense Classics 50 Movie Pack.. and after seeing the other movies in this 50 pack, you'll realize that it belongs nowhere else. So if you're in the mood for a decent slasher in the woods, I recommend Just Before Dawn and The Final Terror.
\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 cannibalistic backwoods killer is on the prowl and two bickering couples might be his next source of protein in this bargain basement Friday the 13th-clone cheapie. There s literally nothing of interest to see in this one, the killings are surprisingly sparse and when they do happen, completely amateurish. It also adds ghosts into the mix for no reason what so ever. I felt drained after watching it as if my brain was liquefying and draining out my nose. And it remains without a doubt Donald Jones' worst movie. If you're thinking of renting it because of Code Red's snazzy new DVD re-release Don't bother
My 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\nA friend and I went through a phase some (alot of) years ago of selecting the crappest horror films in the video shop for an evening's entertainment. For some reason, I ended up buying this one (probably v. v. cheap).
The cheap synth soundtrack is a classic of its time and genre. There's also a few very amusing scenes. Among them is a scene where a man's being attacked and defends himself with a number of unlikely objects, it made me laugh at the time (doesn't seem quite so funny in retrospect but there you go).
Apart from that it's total crap, mind you. But probably worth a watch if you like films like \"Chopping Mall\". Yes, I've seen that too.
\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 Forest isn't just your everyday standard slasher/backwoods cannibal fare, it also has an interesting mix of supernatural elements as well. The story is about two couples that hike into the forest on a camping trip. A cave dwelling, cannibalistic woodsmen and the ghosts of his dead wife and two children soon terrorize them. There is something you don't see every slasher. Director Don Jones gets an \"A\" for effort although the film itself falls flat on just about every level, the acting is just simply average except for Jeanette Kelly who plays the dead wife of the woodsman (Michael Brody aka Gary Kent).
The film opens with some beautiful shots of a couple hiking through a valley and into a forest. They realize too late that someone is stalking them. They are both dispatched in typical slasher fare. Our killer uses a trusty hunting knife throughout the entire film, except during a flashback when he implements a handsaw, pitchfork and rusty saw blade to dispatch his cheating wife's lover.
The Forest has a good story line but the movie just doesn't work along with it I found it pretty boring with simply crappy acting. 4/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI sought out a copy of The Forest because I was watching a VH1 special, I think \"Where Are They Now\", and saw the video box flash across the screen during a segment on the actor Corky Pigeon. He played the male child ghost in this B horror horrible, but I remember him from his character Freddy on the Silver Spoons television show. This flick's a major letdown. There's nothing here. It actually took me four months to watch it from start to finish. I kept stopping it in boredom, setting it aside and forgetting about it, then stumbling on it and trying once again to get through it. Obviously, the angle of this film that was intended to set it apart from its counterparts was the supernatural element, the apparitions. And obviously, here, that doesn't work. I can't stand the male leads. I kept expecting them to look down at their palms during the longer dialogue scenes in order to read cheat lines. The situation at the beginning where the couples decide to go camping separately is awkward and plain dumb. I guess the only positive thing to say about this one is the scene where the guy falls and breaks his leg, you can see the bone sticking out of his flesh. It's fairly good gore makeup there. Man, I'm really reaching for a positive now, huh. The only other no-budget horror film on a level as bad as this one would be Home Sweet Home.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt's a ghost story. It's a cannibalism story. It's a revenge story. It's a very poorly done film with a lot of violence. I suppose it follows cheaply along the lines of every slasher movie you've ever seen. It has the usual isolated place, the cocky campers, heading off to the wilderness. Granted, there are some pretty intense scenes. It's just so dull. Bad editing and the whole works. There are ghost children who sound like they are talking into a wastebasket. I'm not really sure what rules the ghosts and the psycho with the seed cap are playing by. It also has the gross out scene where a man eats a piece of meat which is actually what's left of his wife. A friend of mine once asked me why it is necessary to show this kind of gratuitous, sick violence. I fear that it's just another step in our desensitized evolution. Three is no cleverness here, no tongue in cheek, only a sad waste of time. Lots of blood; little plot.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this movie at an actual movie theater (probably the $2.00 one) with my cousin and uncle. We were around 11 and 12, I guess, and really into scary movies. I remember being so excited to see it because my cool uncle let us pick the movie (and we probably never got to do that again!) and sooo disappointed afterwards!! Just boring and not scary. The only redeeming thing I can remember was Corky Pigeon from Silver Spoons, and that wasn't all that great, just someone I recognized. I've seen bad movies before and this one has always stuck out in my mind as the worst. This was from what I can recall, one of the most boring, non-scary, waste of our collective $6, and a waste of film. I have read some of the reviews that say it is worth a watch and I say, \"Too each his own\", but I wouldn't even bother. Not even so bad it's good.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI agree with everything people said on this one but I must add that the soundtrack is probably the WORST one I have ever heard my entire life! There are actual vocals during times when you are supposed to be listening to the actors talk! And the vocals are like a broadway version of Danzig singing, \"The darkness of the forest! Oh the darkness of the dark, dark forest!\" or something else so unthreatening. The singer has a terrible vibrato and has been recorded with a treble-y microphone over some synthed-up string section and fake drum beats. It's horrible!!
Yes, the male leads are awful. So are the female ones. This is one bad case of gender stereotyping - it's so bad! Everything they say revolves around being a male or a female, just playing up the stereotypes to the max. Makes me sick. Soooo boring!!!
The children were so echoey in their lines, you couldn't understand them. And why do female ghost children always wear cute little bows in their hair, pretty blue dresses and long hair? And ghost boys always wear clean cut slacks with cute little shiny blond hair? Not scary - STUPID.
Daddy's face was way too blemish free and clean to be that of a man living in a cave. Nice beard and bangs, pa. Did you perfectly cut those with a knife yourself or did you stroll into town and go to the salon?
Stupid 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\nYour attitude going into Prom Night II will determine how much joy you take away from the film. If you're expecting a horror masterpiece, look elsewhere. If you like campy movies that are rather fun to watch unfold, you'll like this. Lisa Schrage has the time of her life playing an over the top Mary Lou and Wendy Loyd channels Schrage's rage perfectly during her time \"possessed\".
Not classic cinema but a fun way to kill a couple of hours with a wicked ending.

\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\nMary Lou is a slut whose spirit seeks revenge on those who let her come to her fiery doom back in 1957.
Well, the movie mainly takes place in 1986. The movie falls into the 80's trap of weird/stupid special effects, including some weird demented looking rocking horse.
Anyway, Mary Lou's spirit does bad things to people and tries to take over one person's body. Whether or not she succeeds, you'll have to watch to find out.
Anyway, the movie is largely boring and based around a bunch of worthless characters. This also isn't really a sequel, the only thing in common with the first is the name of the high school. It has the avg. horror flick fall backs, gore, pointless nudity, knocks against the catholic church. Basic stuff, boring movie.
The acting is decent enough to give it a 3 out of 10. You can waste your time doing something else.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"