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\nWe all knew even before it aired, the Ron Moore mini-series is no Battlestar Galactica. That's fine. It just means it must stand on its own. It can't lean on Battlestar Galactica. If it's any good, it's good on it's own merits, and Ron Moore has something to be proud of. If reports are true, this is what Moore wanted. However, if his mini-series rots, he has shamed all the excellent actors that performed on-screen, not to mention the myriad off-screen personnel. And this is what he's done.
Yes, this mini-series is no remake. I wouldn't even call it a re-imagining. It's a new production, inspired by Battlestar Galactica. It does not take place in the Galactica universe, with the same places and jargon and technology. It doesn't tell of the Galactica's search for the thirteenth tribe. Nor does it rely on the legends and mysteries that underpinned Galactica. Ron Moore's mini-series is a space-opera, action flick with a ceremonial nod to Battlestar Galactica.
Maybe I should say, \"just another\" space-opera, action flick. Because as plots go, his has little that's original, or even interesting. I could relay the whole thing to you without a spoiler warning. But I won't inflict that on you. I'll just hit the most important point. Ready now? Here it is: Just watch the trailer. It will tell you everything there is in the story.
Yes, creations of man turn on man and seek to destroy man. (I guess they forgot Azimov's rules, again.) They look like humans, so there's the whole aliens-among-us thing. At least there's no time-travel. Oh, and lots of fighting scenes and random acts of sex and violence. The end result was that when Moore did draw from Galactica, that ceremonial nod, it came off more corny than respectful. I mean, couldn't he even think up anything of his own?
From the first few minutes, I wanted to watch something else. I didn't care about any of Moore's characters, since I couldn't identify with any of them. This fact hit me in the face when the Cylons began their attack. Armageddon on a planetary scale, and I didn't give a damn. How depressing.
Moore's heroes when faced with an insurmountable obstacle, instead of overcoming it, rather tucked tail and saved their own butts. After all, it was the only way to save humanity, yadda yadda yadda. They took the safe way out, rather than risking their own lives to defend others. At least disgust is not apathy.
But in the end, the Ron Moore mini-series was just activity without purpose, a movie on a treadmill, forever running yet going nowhere. And I just wanted it to be over. And by the time it was over, my life-force had been sucked from me. Against my own will, I was turning into a mindless, soulless zombie, probably of the type to which this mini-series would appeal. I needed to replenish myself. I needed to-and I swear this is true-I needed to watch an episode of Babylon 5. Two episodes, in fact, and I felt much better. And happier.
\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 a lively if predictable opening bank-heist scene, 'Set It Off' plummets straight into the gutter and continues to sink. This is a movie that deals in nasty, threadbare stereotypes instead of characters, preposterous manipulation instead of coherent plotting, and a hideous cocktail of cloying sentimentality and gratuitous violence instead of thought, wit or feeling. In short, it's no different from 90% of Hollywood product. But it's the racial angle that makes 'Set It Off' a particularly saddening example of contemporary film-making. Posing as a celebration of 'sistahood', the film is actually a celebration of the most virulent forms of denigrating Afican-American 'gangsta' stereotype. The gimmick this time is that the gangstas are wearing drag. Not only does the film suggest that gangsterism is a default identity for all African Americans strapped for cash or feeling a bit hassled by the Man, it presents its sistas as shallow materialists who prize money and bling above all else. Worse, 'Set It Off' exploits the theme of racial discrimination and disadvantage simply as a device to prop up its feeble plot structure. Serious race-related social issues are wheeled on in contrived and opportunistic fashion in order to justify armed robbery, then they're ditched as soon as the film has to produce the inevitably conventional ending in which crime is punished, the LAPD turns out to be a bunch of caring, guilt-ridden liberals (tell that to Rodney King), and aspirational 'good' sista, Jada Pinkett Smith, follows the path of upward mobility out of the 'hood and into a world of middle-class self-indulgence opened up for her by her buppie bank-manager boyfriend. 'Set It Off' illustrates the abysmal state of the contemporary blaxploitation film, pandering to mindless gangsta stereotypes and pretending to celebrate life in the 'hood while all the time despising it. While the likes of 'Shaft' and 'Superfly' in the 1970s might have peddled stereotypes and rehashed well-worn plots, they had a freshness, an energy and an innocence that struck a chord with audiences of all races and still makes them fun to watch. 'Set It Off' wouldn't be worth getting angry over if wasn't a symptom of the tragic decline and ghettoisation of African-American film-making since the promising breakthrough days of the early 1990s.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAn interesting idea (four African American women crushed under society's boot heel take their revenge by robbing banks) is ruined by F. Gary Gray's horribly slow direction and an excruciating script (by Takashi Bufford and Kate Lanier) full of unintentionally funny moments. Instead of delivering a pointed commentary about the role of urban women struggling to stay afloat in a world where men cruelly abuse and humiliate them, Gray, Bufford and Lanier prefers to pummel their unsuspecting audience with highbrow notions of operatic tragedy. It's melodrama at its worst. Gray has his actors linger over every tired line and John Carter's lazy editing refuses to pick up the slack, choosing instead to keep his camera trained on the performers' bemused faces. And bemused they are: although actors such as Jada Pinkett, Kimberly Elise and Vivica A. Fox have some raw talent (Queen Latifah is the fourth and as an actress she's an excellent rapper), they need a surer hand than Gray's to guide them and as a result they come off as shrill and uncomfortable in front of the camera. Steer clear.
\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\nWithout a doubt one of the worst movies I've seen in recent years. The story focuses on four women driven to robbing banks who we are somehow supposed to sympathize with. It's tough to sympathize with characters who keep making such stupid decisions. Oh no, the cops are on to us, they know who we are, what do we do?...Let's rob one more bank then we're outta here! What!?! Every character is a stereotype and it's easy to tell who's gonna end up dead.
\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 a long time ago (aprox 10 years or so) and liked it then. I remembered it the other day and decided to watch it again. The second time around was not pleasant. The acting is 'so,so', the plot is illogical, unreasonable and predictable.
The acting...I'm sure it wasn't a stretch for those actresses to play those characters. The plot...there's no way in hell those women would have gotten away with the first robbery much less the 2nd. (side note: Why did TT not realise that even if she came up with a load of money for her court date they would ask where she got it and she would have no logical answer! Ding, Ding...we have a crook!). It horribly stereotyped black women in saying basically that the only way black women can 'beat the system' or obtain a large amount of money was to steal it and not use their intelligence or other resources. It plays too much on sympathy b/c all of them die in the end (bar Jada) but it's not sad (you're thinking 'They were so stupid; they deserve to die). You just don't really care about the characters unless you're a shallow person.
I can't believe this film rates over a 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\nThomas Archer (Ron Eldard) has his child killed and his wife viciously attacked in a home invasion. Dr. Heller (Christopher Plummer) tries to help him through the post traumatic stress. Then Archer finds himself confronted with a man (Til Schweiger) bound and gagged to a chair. He is told this is the man who killed his child and attacked his wife and he can do whatever he likes to him. And there's a large assortment of instruments there to help him...
Film is interesting at first (and shows real restraint in terms of blood and gore) but gets stupider by the minute and has some highly unlikely plot twists and turns. It all ends in a final twist that was so old and stupid that I was shocked anyone would actually think of using it anymore. How such talented actors like Eldard, Schweiger and Plummer got involved in crap like this is beyond me. This gets three stars for the acting but the stupid plot and truly unbelievable twists make this a chore to 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\nThe premise of the film is that Thomas Archer's son was murdered and his wife was brutalized -- and he is given a chance at revenge when (after Post Traumatic Stress Disorder therapy), he is put in a room with a man strapped to a chair and told this was the culprit. He is given a large table of implements with which to offer retribution: drills, bats, nails, sledgehammers, torches, whatever you can think of that someone could possibly want to use to physically hurt another human being.
We go way too many scenes of torture before we figure out that The Man Archer is torturing is not the man who committed the crime. The two then create an uncomfortable alliance; who put them in this situation and why.
Well, when all is said and done, we don't really care...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is deeply idiotic. A man wants revenge for a crime- but when he enacts his revenge- there is a video camera pointed right at him the entire time. What man with a brain cell in his head would sit there and do this for so long in front of a video camera?
Just the fact that this script could never even happen except with someone unable to dress themselves destroyed it for me- but it got dumber!!!
I am thinking the script writers have some serious habits that are cooking their brain cells and making them miss plot holes you can drive an battalion of armored tanks through.
PLOT: a man seeks revenge for the death of loved ones, but in the middle of the plot something goes totally wrong, and then the unexpected unfolds.
If only these people writing this story hadn't been so dumb as to write totally unrealistic plot turns that could never happen this way. To the writers I say- seek help for your serious mental problem.
\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 thing is really awfull. There´s no charachter with weight, they´re all floating around in the BG´s. The Motion Capture is a fine toy, but this movie demostrates that you really need people who knows animation to do an animated film. THE MACHINE CAN´T DO ANYTHING WELL BY ITSELF. If you see it as a bizarre film, you´ll have fun finding mistakes of continuity... IN A 3D MOVIE!!! It´s funny to watch the princess dress move around like a thing with diferent phisics. You need animators and 3D animators, not data-entries whom know 3D programs. Note the junctions, like the elbows, how they lost volume and get deformed. The person who made the charachter design (a very good one) sufered for sure when he/she watched them move, ´cos you can´t say they come to life.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is not only boring, it is also really badly done. The graphics are so bad, they are not even second rate - they are dreadful. The characters do not show any facial expresssions, the voice acting is empty and without any soul, and the plot absolutely lacks .... well... anything and everything. My 5 year old likes it - but thinks it's a bit boring. I agree with 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\nWhen you have two tower house of performers pitched against each other, the least you can expect is the superb camaraderie and that is the case in this film where we have a 64 yrs old Amitabh Bachchan romances a 34-yr old Tabu. Wait! In fact that is all there in the name of plot therefore instead of \"cheeni\" it is the content that is \"Kum\" in this Adman turned Writer-Director R. Balki's maiden effort..
Trust the two senior actors to bring the house down with their wise-cracks and bitter-sweet moments when love happened in this unconventional pair, and that is all you find in slow but refreshing first half. The locales of London as captured in rainy season are captivating. By the end of first half, romance completed and mission accomplished. There is not much left to be said. Therefore in the second half a strange opposition comes in the form of girl's father to the extent that he goes for a Satyagrah is really a test of patience. There is an equally strange climax about how he gives in. The result, second half is dry, flat with no energy. There is a subplot with a girl child dying of cancer, not making much impact. Nonetheless, the film is recommended for its fresh approach and the performances.
\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\nR Balki tries to tell you a story that had been earlier told by Ram Gopal Verma in Nishabd in a sensuous way. This time it is mixed with mature humors.
Amitabh Bachchan is a Chef and owns an Indian Cuisine in London. He is very dominating and arrogant and respects his job just like any other job. According to him, Cooking is an art. Still cannot make Hyderabadi Biryani properly.
Enter Tabu who sends her the proper Hyderabadi Biryani made by her and they soon starts meeting up and finally falls in love with each other Amitabh is 65 and Tabu is 35. No probs! But one Hitch! Tabu's father Paresh Rawal!! The couples decide to meet the father for the approval of their marriage. But Amitabh realizes that Tabu's father is much younger to him. And the complications begin Performance wise all three actors are brilliant. The script of the film is very tight and interesting. The dialogues of the film are catchy. But somewhere you feel that your stomach is not properly filled. The comedy is sometimes not properly understood. The film also tries to go lengthy at some parts.
Musically nothing much to sing about except the Title Track. The camera-work is good. Director R Balki could have given much better from this script. But in the second half he himself looks confused. The \"Satyagrah\" scene of the father looked irritating. But the lines spoken by Amitabh Bachchan during that scene are clap worthy.
On the whole, Cheeni Kum needed to have more sugar!
\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\nIn this movie, the old Amitabh Bachchan falls in love with a much younger woman, again. He meets her in his restaurant. The younger woman, Tabu, flirts with him. He does not know what to do and asks her out. Her reaction on his invitation is rather weird. Is was supposed to be funny.
And that annoys me about this whole movie. It wasn't that funny. The jokes and script was terrible! The only jokes I liked was about the teeth of a waiter, but after a several times, even that began to bore.
Amitabh has a little girlfriend called sexy. This was a weird relationship! A little girl with the mind of an old woman! It was frightening! I know someone can be attached to a kid, but this man has adult conversations with this child. It did not make any sense.
Tabu's father is Paresh Rawal. He has to give Amitabh a hard time, but we all know Paresh, he can't do that. So even the conversation at the end, when they sit all around the table, even that was supposed to be funny.
I only like movies who really are funny. I suppose I will never watch this movie again.
\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 subject this latest adman-turned-movieman tries to tackle in his debut (ad)venture is quite an age-old topic of discussion by almost any cultural standard -- timeless romance (pun intended).
However, the exploration (and exploitation for Desi auds) falls woefully short as the usual inclinations to 'pepper, spice and sugar' up the usual masala mix of b/g score, dialog, dance, drama, etc creates a nice-looking package with not much inside.
In the first 40 minutes of the movie, the kitchen scene has been repeated at least 8-9 times. Further repeats follow thru-out the movie (after all the lead character's a cook). But therein lies les problemos -- no story! Hah, no wonder. Someone forgot to write a script.
Amitabh puts in a Cheeni Jyada (more) amount of over-acting. Really when is this guy ever gonna stop?? How many 60-somethings prance around like that even when teased by a nubile 30-something??? Timeless mind yes, but surely what about the not-so-ageless bod? And sole? Sorry, soul?! Reasonably good acting by Paresh Rawal who has the only sensible role in the film. The director lacks any sense of realism getting all caught up in his new-fangled discovery of a hot new idea. Nowhere are we presented with any real-life problems or issues such a pair might face, other than actually getting married which is only the initial obstacle. The sub-plot of a little kid with cancer (the bachelor boy's first love) goes nowhere and whatever little bit of poignancy this otherwise insipid presentation would have evoked is quickly killed off along with the girl's character.
Anyway, nice try but not quite there yet.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nwell i don't know what people saw in this movie i don't know.
i saw this movie yesterday and i got a severe headache. other than few good dialog there is nothing in this movie.
the big b rt now is preaching to fall in love with girls of half of you age.
i didn't like the movie at all. i wanted to give 1 rating but giving 3 as
i like the role of the small girl who is called \"sexy\" by AB. my word \"DONT WATCH\"
save your self donot watch this movie.
save time and money.
\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, so obviously ppl thought this was a good movie in 1955.
I pity the fools who still think so... Its absolute rubbish.
The story is just ... ridiculous. The characters are absurd caricatures - but this film is not meant to satirise, im sure its meant to be a serious drama isn't it?
Dean and others, are too old for their parts. People say Dean is great in this film, and well, maybe he did play his part as well as he possibly could've. His character is meant to be 16 or 17 or so. But Dean was a 24 year old man when he made this film. Seeing him agonise and throw little tantrums like a 4 year old boy... its pathetic.
Natalie Wood is gorgeous, but the early scenes at the police station where she is crying and whining are very unconvincing. It sets a bad precedent for the film... and for the rest of it, you feel like cringing every time one of these badly acted emotional scenes comes along.
It may've been good for its time, but, really, its drivel.
It must've just been hype about Dean's death that has over-inflated the reputation of this film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nRelative to other Columbo movies, this can only be rated a 1 (awful). I seriously do not understand what the other reviewers have seen in this appalling train-crash of a film. It was only through morbid fascination that I continued to watch it - to see what bizarre or inept decision the director would make next.
Another reviewer suggested that it was Falk's only directorial outing because it interfered with his acting role. In fact, I think the real reason lies with the studio bosses, who must have been horrified when they saw what he had done with their money. It's a wonder they didn't murder 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\nI've waited a long time to see DR TARR'S TORTURE DUNGEON and after I watched it, I was really disappointed by it. It's not the Baroque film I expected it to be. The trailer (which I saw on a Something Weird DVD) is much better than the entire film, which is remarkably forgettable. There are almost no stand out scenes in it and the look and feel is interesting but it doesn't even come close to other Baroque styled movies out there, from Fellini or Jodorowsky. The characters are dull and there's almost nothing dramatic going on, even though we see rape, crucifixion, insanity, etc.
The main problem with DR TARR'S TORTURE DUNGEON was the fact that it was a talk-a-thon more than anything else. It was almost like watching a book. I just wanted the film to have moments of silence or mood or something, instead we see/listen to the main characters chit-chat endlessly about dull stuff.
A missed opportunity.
\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 stupid rich guy circa about 1800 wants to visit a nearby mental asylum to see how a famous doctor cares for his patients. Despite an initially hostile response, he is soon cordially invited in and given a tour by the good doctor. And, as the doctor shows him about, he talks and talks and talks!!! And as he talks, loonies run amok here and there doing nothing especially productive. While there is SOME action here and there (and some of it quite disturbing), it's amazing how dull and cerebral the whole thing is--lacking life and energy, which is odd for a horror flick. Even a guy who thinks he's a chicken and dresses like one becomes rather tiresome. The further this tour takes the guest, the more disturbing it becomes until ultimately you realize that the inmates have taken over the hospital and are torturing their keepers. Yet again, despite this twist, the film is amazingly lifeless in many places--particularly when it moves very slowly as a bizarre ceremony is taking place or people are just wandering about the set. Only when the workers from the asylum found in a prison cell, starving, does the film have any real impact. Considering this plot, it sure is hard to imagine making it boring, but the people who made this cheap exploitational film have! Now with the same plot and competent writing, acting and direction, this COULD have been an interesting and worthwhile film.
You know, now that I think about it, this was the plot of one of the episodes of the original \"Star Trek\" TV show! You know, the one with \"Lord Garth--Master of the Universe\" and Kirk and Spock are held prisoner by this madman and his crazed followers.
A final note: The film has quite a bit of nudity here and there and includes a rape scene, so be forewarned--it's not for kids. In fact, considering how worthless the film is, it isn't for anyone! However, with the version included in the \"50 Movie Pack--Chilling Classics\", the print is so incredibly bad that it's hard to see all this flesh due to the print being so very dark.
\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\nDr Tarr's Torture Dungeon is about a journalist who travels to an insane asylum to write about a new technique they use with their patients. However, the journalist soon finds out that things are not what they seem to be, and the asylum is being run by the patients, and the doctors are in cages. First of all, some parts of the film are just plain boring and just makes you want to fall asleep, and the interesting parts are interesting for all the wrong reasons(A guy who thinks he's a chicken, for instance). I have to admit that the story is actually pretty good, but the film itself bombs. The music of the film is really odd and like something you would hear in some insane comedy, and yes, there is a scene involving dancing chicken men, which pretty much made me want to shut off the screen. Watch this film at your own risk!
Rated: R for Violence and Nudity.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI read reviews on this movie and decided to give it a shot. I'm an open minded guy after all and I’ve given good reviews to some pretty bad flicks. As the end credits rolled on this one I searched for meaning and something nice to say. Here goes: \"This film was mercifully short.\" That's all I got.
Okay, Okay. The sets and visuals were well done and the music helped lend to the mood of asylum life but the film was painful to watch and the endless dialogue took away from the good bits. I did find myself laughing at this film but the way you laugh at your best friend who just embarrassed himself in front of a large crowd.
By the time of the \"chicken dance\" at the finale I had just decided to tuck and roll with the film and let the bodies fall where they fall. I don't know what could have salvaged this film. The acting was not bad and it looked like it had a budget but there just wasn't any way to make it watchable; not even the presence of beautiful bare breasts. Maybe I should have sparked a doobie or drank a LOT of beer to get the full experience of the film. Either way, I'm not watching this film again unless I'm really depressed. Then I can tell myself “At least I wasn’t in ‘Dr. Tarr's Torture Dungeon.’ I’m better than those guys.\"
\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\nAll the other comments already said what I was going to say, here goes anyway. I thought this was Italian at first, sorry about that, Italy. I wasn't bored because I kept waiting for something to happen. Who did that song about Dr. Tarr and Professor Feather way back when? Was it Alan Parsons? Saw this on a Brentwood 10 pack and the quality was as expected, terrible. Full of streaks and stuff. The movie was an incoherent mess. Goofy music and clueless characters. The main guy should have known in the first minute that the doctor was nuttier than the patients. I thought the \"doctor\" directing the \"battle\" scene was never going to end. Had some good looking babes though. It seems these dumb ass movies always throw in a naked chick or two and that gets you hooked. I gave it a 2 for the nekkid women. That bird people dance made me want to pull out my own eyeballs. Poe probably did about 3,000 rpms in his grave when this thing came out because it was loosely based on a story of his.
\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\nAlthough I rated this movie a 2 for showing a complete lack of effort in trying to create a quality horror film it was a 10 on the unintentional funny scale. I couldn't figure out what was going on in the movie or who the people were but I didn't care because I knew every scene was going to have something to make me cry with laughter. Dialogue is a minimum throughout the movie but I believe this is because they started filming without a script. The fact that there is no plot line makes the movie extremely versatile. It doesn't matter if you sit down and watch the movie from beginning to end or if you watch it in rewind you will be confused with enjoyment. I particularly like the scene in which the inmates are taking turns running around outside beating each other with sticks. I believe the doctor refers to this as treatment. Genius!
\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 got this in the DVD 10 pack CURSE OF THE DEAD. You gotta love those bargain packs. For even if they don't feature true remastering, restoration and all that hoo-ha, and the films are generally in full-frame pan and scan format, there's no denying that there are always a few gems included. And by \"gems\", I mean there's always some good crap to be seen, especially if the films are from the '70s as The Mansion of Madness is.
My copy is called Mansion of Madness, but when the title screens roll it's Poe's Dr. Tarr's Torture Dungeon. Doesn't matter, really, as crap is crap is crap, no? Yes! But saying this film is completely worthless is not true at all. There are some funky elements here and there, and obviously the flick did have a decent budget.
The opening title sequence is cool with its colored negative run through a cheap TV look. The dialogue is always hilarious. Near the beginning of the film, the horse and buggy driver gets out to move a dead tree stump in the middle of the road. \"WHAT STRENGTH!\" says Our Hero. Funny, then, that this dude should later not be able to fight off the wacky woodsmen when they come to make freaky fun. You'll completely forget that this guy was even in the movie until he crops up again later near the end. That's how memorable these characters are.
The best part about Mansion of Madness, however, has to be the wacky music and screwball hijinks that the good guys have to endure. It's like bad cartoon music that a three year old would find enjoyable. And why all the weirdo slapstick, anyway? I'd say my fave moment had to be when the horse and buggy is ambushed by the forest freaks when they pull a stupid looking homemade ghost up by a stick in the middle of the road and make the buggy stop. What the hell? Oh yeah, there's plenty of boobies to be seen, too, for those of you that dig such things. Boobies, bad dialogue, and wacky music. That best sums of Mansion of Madness for me. It's well worth at least one viewing, and may be a lot better if you've had a few to drink or whatnot. I can't say I was ever bored watching it, but I can't deny that it's also a barrel of poop. Kinda like Magical Mystery Tour but with a plot, but not. Hmm.
And Mr. Chicken PWNZ.
\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 feel much less generous with this film than others of its ilk. The portrayal of madmen in this century is always done with them being so totally bizarre as to be a different species. Their antics are so outrageous as to be totally fictionalized. Everyone is Napoleon or some other historical figure; or they have a fascination with chickens. They are on the make or beating each other up. It's as if the scriptwriter said, what can I make up for them to do, without an sense of what insanity or even mental illness is. Watch the wonderful human portrayal in \"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest\" where the illnesses are believable and real. I once worked in a State Mental hospital. I didn't see any of these guys. These are too smart and calculating to make them come to life.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf this movie were any worse, it would have been directed by Uwe Boll. This nonsensical mess makes Ed Wood look like Hitchcock. It has been a while since I have seen this steaming pile , but I do remember that I wanted to do grievous bodily harm to all those involved. How anyone can give this movie any more than 1 star amazes me to the graciousness of all those that viewed this tripe. I give it one star because there is not a rating lower. All copies of this movie should be burned the ground sowed with salt and reserved as a landfill for the most toxic of waste. No, one copy should be kept under ultra hi security and shown only to film makers as an example of how not to do it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAbsolutely dreadful Mexican film supposedly based on a short story by Edgar Allan Poe about a newsman wanting to go into the confines of an asylum hidden in the woods to write a story about how it works, etc... When our hero, Gaston, is given the grand show by Dr. Maillard, head of the asylum, we see all kinds of things which are suppose to be horrific, such as men hanging around long in a dungeon, and comedic, such as our hero being joked upon by soldiers as he climbs down a ladder hanging over the side of a building. Then there is one sight which might have been meant to be both: a human man dressed as a chicken, yes, that's right a chicken, that pecks around the ground for chicken feed. The scene was to be a comedic highlight of the film, but, at least for me, it was the film's low point and really most revolting when you considered that grown men and women thought this might even be remotely entertaining. Ah! That is indeed the real horror that is Dr. Tarr and his Legion of Name Changes. And that brings me to this salient fact about the film which is most films that undergo multiple title changes usually have some kind of serious problem. Yes, this is obvious, but some have distribution problems and others, of which this is one, have numerous title changes so that someone might unsuspectingly buy the same garbage more than once. This is definitely garbage. It has very little going for it. The only performer worth having a look at is Claudio Brook as the head of the asylum. He is one huge slab of ham as he laughs maniacally, bellows orders, sashays with sword in hand, and praises the chicken. I got so tired of hearing him talk about the \"soothing system\" as his means to cure the mentally sick. What a bunch of ludicrosity(Hey, a film like this with a script like this deserves this kind of word). It won't take you long to figure out what is going on in the asylum nor will it be any more interesting. Cinematic chicken scratch!
\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 one sheets and newspaper campaign suggested (as often they did) a far more lurid and violent piece than showed up on the drive-in screens. Claude Brook is actually an Americanization of Claudio Brook, who worked in films for years. This one's quite hard to find anymore; I'd love to see it again to compare it to other international horrors of the day, but don't remember particularly impressed way back when. Chances are it was a chopped up version that made it to U.S. theatres and video. But oh, that one sheet...still a gem of my later horror collection.
\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 a prescreening of this film and was shocked how cheesy it was. It was a combination of every horror/thriller cliché, trying to comment on many things including pedophilia, Satan worship, undercover cops, affairs, religion... and it was a mess. the acting was pretty washboard; the kid and the Jesus dude were alright, but apart from them.... Anyways. I admire the effort (though slightly failed) on the attempt at showing the Christian people in a different way...even though they did that, the way it presented the gospel was a bit stock and kiddish. But then again, it may have to be since he was talking to a little kid... no. actually, I've decided it's just all around bad. music... oh my gosh... horrible... toooo over-dramatic. Okay. I felt bad for the people who made this movie at the premier; It seemed like a poor student project. I'm going to stop ranting about this now and say bottom line, go see this movie if you want to waste an hour and fifty minutes of your life on crap. there you go.
\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\nBody Slam (1987) is a flat out terrible movie. The low budget reeks, the direction is pedestrian (at best) and the writing and acting is lame. But if you're into old school wrestling (circa 1970's through the mid-80') then you'll be more entertained than the average viewer. I have to warn you, this movie stinks on ice. I gave it a two because I felt like being generous. This turkey was \"directed\" by stunt master Hal Needham. The stars are Roddy Piper, The Tonga Kid and a bunch of scrub wrestlers and c-list actors (Dirk Benedict).
The synopsis of this \"movie\" is about a promoter who wants to combine \"hair rock\" and wrestling. But their are others that don't want him to succeed. There's more but I don't want to SPOIL it for you. If you can stomach the bad acting and inane storyline, there's a few surprises near the end for die-hard wrestling fans.
I wouldn't recommend this to my worse enemy (and I mean it).
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMy roommates & I nearly shorted out our TV from the numerous spit-takes we did while watching this hilarious piece of 1970s self important pseudo-zen dreck. I'd read about this campfest for ages and scanned my local late night TV listings for YEARS in search of this elusive turd. Several years ago our local ABC affiliate was known for showing cool flicks for its late night weekend flick (ie \"Frogs\", \"Night of the Lepus\", etc). Then one day it happened: at 1:40am on a Saturday night (over 5 years ago) there it was! We had over 15 folks over and the flick did NOT disappoint!
See! Andy Griffith as the silliest & most unthreatening bad guy since Jaye Davidson in \"Stargate\"!
See! William Shatner sport a variety of things atop his head that only faintly resemble human hair (or anything organic for that matter).
Hear! jaw droppingly inane 1970s psychobabble that makes \"Chicken Soup For The Soul\" sound like BF Skinner
Feel! Content that any decade was better than the 70s.
For those still reading...the plot surrounds a bunch of middle class mid level a--holes who decide to suck up to their s---head boss (Griffith) by joining him on a cross dessert race that spans California & Mexico. They all wear leather jackets, looking more Christopher Street than anything else. Along the way they stop at a Cantina, get drunk, smoke joints (the sight Robert \"Mike Brady\" Reed smoke a joint is an image you won't soon forget), start a fight, attempt rape, and just act like a bunch of suburban middle class jack offs. Although I have an excellent copy that I taped off TV I WISH this one would be released on video so the whole world could enjoy its half baked goofiness.
\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 for this movie believing it had good ratings. Firstly, it is ridiculous that they're releasing a movie originally made in 2001, seven years later in 2008 here in India. Everything in the movie looks dated. Even for 2001 the movie looks like its been made on a shoe string budget. There is a scene where a taxi hits a man to elaborate how low budget you can get. Anthony Hopkins doesn't seem to know what he is doing in the film. He ends up giving a long monologue towards the end. If the film had bright sparks during that scene, I missed it as I was sleeping on my seat. Nothing about Jennifer Love Hewitt resembles a Devil. She wears ill-fitting trite clothes and scowls at random kids. As for Alec Baldwin a scene where he goes to meet Webster for the first time is not to be missed. What a waste of money! As Anthony Hopkins rightly put it, \"Go back home and write 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\nOnce again the same familiar story about a man (writer here) who sell his soul to the devil in order to have his most desired ambition in life: success. Unfunny script (we should \"go home and write better\"), ridiculous lines in order to understand the \"strong\" \"Christmanish\" message (our only aspiration in life is to find love, respect and a good friendship) and a very long trial scene at the end where the agent Hopkins beat the devil (Jennifer Love Hewitt is no sexy or evil at all) for all the bad things she made to this unlikable character. Not bad efforts from the actors (Baldwin also as a director, Cattrall in a \"Sex and the City\" role again, Aykroyd with some funny lines in his limited role). P.S. Try also a not so popular film from Greece called \"Alloimono stous neous\", a brilliant adaptation of this myth (an old man give his soul to the devil to get back his youth)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI had high hopes for it when I heard that it was being made back in 2001 because I read \"The Devil and Daniel Webster\" when I was a kid and I found it very interesting. They made some changes to the story that don't make much sense to me. Daniel Webster in the story was a famous lawyer from New Hampshire in the story. In the movie he is an editor. A lawyer makes more sense since he ends up representing Jabez Stone against the devil him/herself (he was a man in the story, but was a woman in the movie) in a trial where both of their souls are on the line. As an editor, it doesn't seem likely that Daniel Webster would have the skill to do this.
The acting was decent by all except for Alec Baldwin and Dan Aykroyd. These are two actors that I like, they just did an awful job in this movie. It was as though they thought they were acting in a comedy, but the movie was more a serious one than a comedy. This might be partly due to the fact that the movie was filmed with a particular vision in mind, and was then re-edited by somebody else. Given this fact, it's surprising that it was at all coherent. I was surprised to see a fair amount of SNL cast members in the movie, which further leads me to believe it may have originally been filmed with the intention of it being more of a comedy.
All in all I would have to say it wasn't completely awful, but it wasn't much good. If I could get the hour and a half back and do something else with it, I would. The ending was especially disappointing. As in the original story, Daniel Webster defeats the devil in the trial. Jabez then starts out again at the beginning of the movie...literally, we are just brought back to the first scene with Jabez, and then the movie abruptly ends. It actually looked as though they just replayed Jabez' first scene over and called it the end. There is no indication that Jabez has the benefit of any of the knowledge or experience he gained, so who is to say he didn't just repeat his mistakes over again, and perhaps over and over in an endless loop? It was an extremely disappointing end and did not make a lot of sense. The decent cast, and the acting of everyone except for Baldwin and Aykroyd are the only things that keep this from being a complete and total crap sandwich.
\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 those films that I remember being in the can for years before anything happening w/it. I don't think it's terrible, but it's not really good either. Alec Baldwin was pretty good, but the plot is it kind of flimsy at best. The cast is pretty good in what they're given, but again you are only as good as the script. Baldwin directing this although I could have sworn he didn't direct all of it, I thought I read somewhere or lots of re-shoots wasn't bad but he definitely has some potential in there. Although his work on \"30 Rock\" is nothing short of genius & should keep him busy for a little while longer. I just hope the show bows out gracefully a la Seinfeld, but maybe not even that long. 9 years it went. So if you want to see a film that you won't get much from, but won't really hate either well this is for you. I can't remember the last time a film had been wrapped so long before finally being released & only on DVD at that. It was nice to see Alec Baldwin & Anthony Hopkins again together since their excellent yet not much people have seen \"The Edge.\" Now pick up that excellent film for some real entertainment.
\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 film awhile back (while working on a trailer for the film's production company) and it was TERRIBLE. Hewitt is mediocre at best, Hopkins phones his performance in (but still blows away Hewitt in their scenes together) and Alec looks bored. Trust me on this: you should avoid this film like the plague if it ever gets released. It seems to go on forever as the tired plot unfolds at a snail's pace. It is relentlessly unfunny, the cinematography is crappy and the direction is pedestrian. Alec Baldwin should go to film school if he plans to direct again. In terms of his acting, his character is totally unlikable, which makes it impossible to root for him. Dan Ackroyd is pretty funny and the surprising makeup of the jury near the film's end is cute, but this film is just plain awful.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"