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\nAaron Spelling produced this made for television western that gets awfully plotty for a seventy three minute film. It plays like a probable failed series pilot.
Handsome Clint Walker is U.S. Marshal Dave Harmon, who wanders into Yuma, Arizona Territory in time to kill one of the brothers of the local bigwig rancher who is out on a trail drive.
Walker takes the other brother to jail. Walker also meets a \"cute\" homeless Mexican kid who sleeps at the jailhouse. One night, Andres is snoozing when a villain and another man dressed in Army blue take the remaining brother into the street and kill him, pinning the murder on Walker. Not good for your first twenty four hours on the job. Walker visits the local Army fort, and rankles the chains of the commander. The bigwig hears of his brothers' deaths, and rides back to town in time to get his chains rankled as well. The local native population, who get short changed by the Army on their beef, also get rankled in the chains area. With all these chains getting rankled, Walker still has time to woo the local hotel owner. The Army guy involved in the murder ends up dead, the local cattle buyer is implicated, the indians do a lot of hesitant speechifying, and the climax brings about an unlikely showdown as Walker must prove to the town that the villainous cattle buyer had a boss, someone we have suspected as being too helpful all along.
There is a semi-subplot involving the death of Walker's family at the hands of Army raiders, and I think this would have been the force behind the series, had it been picked up. Instead, the film ends abruptly, and I kept waiting for scenes from next week's exciting episode. Because of the fade outs for nonexistent commercial breaks, the pacing is all off on this and its story jumps in fits.
Walker is handsome, rugged, and has a voice deeper than a well. The rest of the cast is full of television actors you have probably seen in other television movies. Much of the action is pretty lame, and the violence is tepid. The first brother killed gets a shotgun blast midtorso, and falls without a scratch on him. I did not expect \"Reservoir Dogs,\" but this is the wrong film to use to teach children about the evil of guns! Speaking of children, the Mexican kid here goes from \"cute\" to \"aneurysm inducing annoyance\" very quickly.
If you dislike westerns, then you will dislike \"Yuma.\" If you like westerns, then you will still dislike \"Yuma.\" I cannot recommend it.
This is unrated, but contains physical violence and gun violence.

\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\nSunshine is a European import set in Hungary between 1880 and 1980, it's the epic story of Hungarian Jews, the Sonnenschein family. This name literally translates to Sunshine. The family has humble beginnings, then is prosperous, becomes upwardly mobile, changes it's name, and hopes to assimilate into Hungarian society so successive generations can advance professionally. The story is told through the eyes of the eldest son in each of three generations; Ralph Fiennes plays these three roles. For those who missed the WW-II and the Holocaust in Europe, the Sonnenschein' approach to life doesn't work out very well.
Sunshine is being acclaimed as an artistic success, but it is an opportunity missed. The story line, dominated by world history, is predictable and transparent; this is reinforced with voice cover narration and newsreel footage. The family 'plot' lurches from one predictable event [ie. the Hapsburgs, WW-I, WW-II, Fascism, Communism, etc.] to the next with little continuity, depth or detail. The Jewish assimilation theme is unfocused, and important sub-themes [the 'secret' diary and family philosophy] that could have given the family character and credibility are l ost until the very end. Alternatively, the filmmakers provide generation continuity using common themes of incest / infidelity.
Ralph Fiennes exhibits flashes of brilliance but his performance is far from award winning material. The \"3 for 1\" casting format is a viewer distraction and feels more like a cheap cinema gimmick than good theater. Sunshine is basically Hungarian \"History Channel\" material. It has the look and feel of Winds of War morphed with Forrest Gump morphed with Something About Sex.

\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 order to hold the public's attention for three hours, we were treated not so much to a family's romp through four generations and 120 years of Hungarian history, as to sexual liaisons with a sister, a sister-in-law and other adulteries. Oh yes, there was also a totally gratuitous rape. Having said all this, the first story of the relationship among the children of the patriarch was fresh and sensual - thanks to Jennifer Ehle.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat a long, drawn-out, pointless movie. I'm sure that historically this film is delightful but as entertainment goes it just doesn't make the grade. Ralph Fiennes has been in some fantastic movies, the English Patient, Schindler's List, but this one was such a let-down. It didn't seem to be going anywhere, his character at the beginning was so shallow and uptight it amazes me that his \"sister\" would ever have been interested at all. Don't bother paying to rent this movie, buy yourself a copy of the English Patient instead.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a film of immense appeal to a relatively well-defined group (of which I am not a part). I went to a preview of this movie not knowing what to expect - I ultimately found it disappointing. The history of a dreadfully dysfunctional (oftentimes downright \"twisted\") Hungarian Jewish family is not my cup of tea. An epic saga like this should really provide its viewers with something more in the end. Ultimately, pictures such as this are about the human condition - this picture cast almost no new light on any of its more meaningful facets.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNOTE TO ALL DIRECTORS: Long is not necessarily good. This movie is incredibly long. However not good. The scenes were drawn out way, way, way, way, way too long. The sex scenes were unnecessary, and often too long. The movie edited down to 2 hours and 10 minutes or so would have been exceptional, but alas it became so boringly long that I can only give it a 2 of 10. It is way below average.
Some other problems also exist in this marathon.
1) Ralph Fiennes plays a whole family tree. The guy who played the Great-grandfather looks nothing like him, but the Grandfather, Father and the son (who gives us constant unneeded voice over) are all Ralph Fiennes with different facial hair and the same basic bull-headed personality. No one seems to notice that each of these children look like a clone of the last, even though photos of them are being snapped at every turn. This one is minor, but if the movie hadn't been 3 weeks long it wouldn't have been so annoying.
2) The fact that no news from Germany was even whispered for the longest time about Jews being rounded up and sent off is ridiculous. Some word would have gotten to them and the thought of trying to run off would probably have been discussed. The uncle in France would surely have sent warning to try and get them to leave.
3) The love stories in this movie are totally wrong. You are spending forever telling us this thing and the development of relationships between main characters is extremely short. Suddenly... people are in love and almost instantly... married. Then having children. Then we draw things out for 6 centuries and forget about developing relationships. This again would not have stuck out so much in a 2 hour movie, but with time spent nothing was given to us.
4) The ending was just bad. I don't want to spoil it for anyone, but you won't like it either...unless you are sadistic.
The director/writer should be tortured with having to watch this bloated garbage on a weekly basis, I mean endless loop, oops they are the same thing.
I wonder if Robert Redford did anything for this movie, I mean I think Istvan Szabo must be modeling his directing career after him. Long drawn out movie which totally ruins any substance in the movie. A short description of 'The Horse Whisperer', and Sunshine.
Sunshine, perfect title. If you start watching while the sun is shining it will quite possibly be well after dark when you leave.
\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
Back in his youth, the old man had wanted to marry his first cousin, but his family forbid it. Many decades later, the old man has raised three children (two boys and one girl), and allows his son and daughter to marry and have children. Soon, the sister is bored with brother #1, and jumps in the bed of brother #2.
One might think that the three siblings are stuck somewhere on a remote island. But no -- they are upper class Europeans going to college and busy in the social world.
Never do we see a flirtatious moment between any non-related female and the two brothers. Never do we see any flirtatious moment between any non-related male and the one sister. All flirtatious moments are shared between only between the brothers and sister.
The weakest part of GLADIATOR was the incest thing. The young emperor Commodus would have hundreds of slave girls and a city full of marriage-minded girls all over him, but no -- he only wanted his sister? If movie incest is your cup of tea, then SUNSHINE will (slowly) thrill you to no end.
\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 sun should set on this movie, forever.
It goes on forever (which isn't usually a bad thing - The English Patient, Schindler's List) but is SO tedious. The aging of the actors is unbelievable and so is the drawn-out never-ending story line which really seems to go nowhere.
In short, a waste of talent and 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\nNational Lampoon was once a funny magazine. Whether you liked the stoner hippie days of the late sixties or the smug and sassy coke-head days of the seventies (when the comedy was fortified with plenty of naked babes) depends very much on your date of birth, but everyone agrees that by the early eighties, middle age had killed off whichever remaining sparks of anarchic humour that the drugs hadn't, and offerings like this film and the increasingly terrible spin-off records shot further holes in the hull. Outside of a nicely illustrated title sequence, there's absolutely nothing to recommend this singularly depressing stinkbug. If you make it through the baffling opening segment, 'Growing Myself', hoping things will get better, tough luck - they don't. Whoever thought the idea of a woman being brutally raped with a stick of butter was comedy gold deserved to have his head handed back to him on a platter of dog mess. If there's ever a global shortage of guitar picks, the negatives of this rambling, incoherent ragbag of crummy ideas and dire performances may well serve some purpose.
\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 chuckled a few times during this movie. I laughed out loud during the notarizing of the margarine company handover (pun intended).
There are three segments in this movie. The first one is supposed to be a spoof of \"woman 'grows up' and launches career\" movies. The Tampax® box was the funniest thing in this segment. Most of the cast members aren't listed here on IMDb. They are the lucky ones. Few other people will be able to connect this thing to the ruin of their acting careers.
The second segment is a spoof of \"sharkish woman sleeps her way to the top and seizes control of huge industry\" movies. Robert Culp has several funny moments, all physical humor, including the aforementioned handover. After his character dies the segment sinks lower and lower as Dominique Corsaire rises higher and higher. By the time she becomes First Lady I wanted to rip the cable out of the TV and watch \"snow.\" I switched to Pakistani music videos instead. I don't understand Urdu, or whatever language the videos were in. It was still better than listening to the dialogue in this painfully dull \"story.\"
Then came \"Municipalians\" with the *big* stars, half of them on screen for less than a minute: Elisha Cook, Jr., Christopher Lloyd, Rhea Perlman, Henny Youngman, Julie Kavner, Richard Widmark and ... *Robby Benson.* It's supposed to be a spoof of \"young cop teams with hardened, substance abusing older cop who needs retirement *badly*\" movies. The horizontal flash bar on the police car is very impressive. It was interesting seeing old RTD buses, and a Shell gas station sign, and an American Savings sign -- none of them are around anymore. Nagurski's \"Never stop anywhere you might have to get out the car\" made me smile momentarily. Then they discuss how boring the young cop is. A lot. Back and forth about how boring he is. That was as boring as this description of how boring it is. Nagurski's Law Number Four, \"Never go into a music store that's been cut into with an acetylene torch,\" made me think that the music store is a real business at the actual location the dispatcher gave. Thinking about that was more interesting than the set-up for the gag which followed. Young Falcone (Benson) gets shot. A lot. He becomes a hardened cop like Nagurski. The segment keeps going. On and on. And on. It won't stop. It rolls relentlessly onward no matter how many times you wish he'd just *die* already so this thing will end. It doesn't. It goes on and on and on.... Then a \"Buffy the Vampire Slayer\" episode which I've seen four times already comes on. Thank God! This abysmal movie ended while I went to get the mail.
\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'll keep the review of this program as short as possible. Skip it. Low budget, not funny, lousy script. Acting not quite as bad as the writing, but still bad. That's all you need to know, but I will continue for the sake of writing more than necessary.
This is a film with three segments, each one parodying some other type of movie. A MUCH funnier film with this same exact idea is \"Movie Movie,\" with George C. Scott. Very obscure, but worth searching out. MM parodied films of the 1930's, and did it with elegance, precision and dry wit.
This movie did not. It parodies three types of films, supposedly from the late 70's, early 80's era, only it is parodying films I've (almost) never heard of. The first is, I guess, a parody of \"Kramer Vs. Kramer,\" in a way. Peter Reigert does his best with a dirt poor script. The second is a parody, of, I don't know what...a Danielle Steele novel? I mean, you might see a story like this on Lifetime TV, but in a movie theater? I mean, I remember the 70's, I was there. This is a soap-opera type parody about a fetching young woman who sleeps her way to power. These type of things usually parody themselves, so I don't see how this was even necessary.
We are on somewhat easier ground with the third segment, \"The Municipalians,\" which parodies cop movies. I noted elements of \"The New Centurians\" and some \"Dirty Harry\", both of which were almost 10 years old when the film was created. Yeah, nice and current. Robby Benson plays the idealistic young rookie (over-the-top wimpy) while Richard Widmark plays the grizzled veteran cop who drinks whiskey while sitting in the police car (OH! Stop! My sides! He's actually drinking booze in the Police car! How irreverent!) Note that this was the first film after \"Animal House\" to have the \"National Lampoon\" name attached. Wow. To go in five years from that classic flick to this pile of dung is nothing short of shocking. I could go on for hours about the sad decline that caused one of the most cutting-edge and original voices in American humor (that would be National Lampoon, the original magazine for about its first 10 years or so) to sell out and begin a long, slow slide into a world of crap, where now the magazine is long gone and it only exists as a brand name to slap on low-budget \"comedy\" films for a fee. Yet another reason why capitalism (and cocaine) sucks so bad.
Anyway, this movie is a serious time suck. Don't waste your 90 minutes. I want mine back. On the positive side, Fred Willard's in 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\nI just saw this Movie on a local TV Station (TV8's \"Big Chuck and Little John\" in Cleveland, Ohio) I had never heard of this movie and decided to watch it.
I know of no thesaurus that can even come close to aiding me in describing how bad this movie really is. The script is awful. The acting, well other than one of two exceptions, is pointless since there is nothing in this material that merits any real effort.
It looks like a bunch of little ideas, leftover from various writing sessions, that where thrown into a blender. It's not just funny. The \"parody\" aspect is strained at best. Some references where almost out of date (even for the time of it's release). No wonder I had never heard of it, it's really bad, worse than anything Saturday Night Live, MAD TV or even In Living color put out in their worst days.
If you see it on TV, it is a great example of how NOT to make a movie. Whatever you do DON'T WASTE A CENT.
Adam
\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 barely watchable film was a bit of an ordeal to sit through. None of the segments are good, but at least the first one was mildly amusing, and the middle one was somewhat imaginative. The final one was just plain brutal, and after sitting through two weak comedic shorts, the third one was truly painful to watch. Even by the low standards of a National Lampoon movie, this one seemed especially boring and joyless.
\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\"National Lampoon Goes to the Movies\" is the worst movie ever made, surpassing even the witless \"Plan 9 from Outer Space.\" At least that movie was just inept; the Lampoon film, on the other hand, is both inept and mean. Once upon a time, movies used to respect their audiences' intelligence. This one, however, holds a fetid, rotting carcass up to our faces -- and then tries to rub our noses in it.
Another reviewer on this site wrote that the only good parts of the movie are the nude scenes; and I agree, Misses Ganzel and Dusenberry do flash a bit of flesh, and very nice flesh it is. But the directors seem not to realize that even T&A needs a good story to surround it. There's none of that here.
Perversely, the film makers save the worst for last. The third of the three segments is the ugliest of the trio. In this vignette, Robby Benson plays an eager-beaver young police officer reporting for duty on his first day on the job. He is paired with a weary, cynical oldtimer played by Richard Widmark. For just a moment, we are given hope that this film will end triumphantly. Surely, we think, the youngster's spunky attitude will rub off on the cynic and change him for the better.
Forlorn hope! Instead, the cynic wins the day -- and the youngster's spark is doused forever. \"National Lampoon Goes to the Movies\" and heads right for the toilet, asking us to follow it down the drain. Nominally, this is a comedy. But where's the humor?
\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\"National Lampoon Goes to the Movies\" (1981) is absolutely the worst movie ever made, surpassing even the witless \"Plan 9 from Outer Space.\" The Lampoon film unreels in three separate and unconnected vignettes, each featuring different performers. The only common thread is the total lack of any redeeming qualities.
Well, maybe there is one. Another reviewer on this site has said that the fleeting nude shots are nice, and he's right. Misses Ganzel and Dusenberry flash their assets prettily, in part one and part two, respectively. But their glamorous displays are, alas, wasted. The directors seem to have forgotten that even T&A needs a credible story to surround it, and there's none in sight.
The third segment, starring Robby Benson and Richard Widmark, is the most disgusting of the three, and an unfortunate choice as the windup of this film. Benson plays an eager-beaver young policeman, brightly reporting for his first day of duty, ready to rid the streets of evil. He is paired with an old, cynical cop played by Widmark, and when these oil-and-water partners set out on their first patrol together, we sense a possible redemption of the film's earlier failures. Maybe, just maybe, the cynical old-timer will be reformed by his new partner's stalwart sense of duty and loyalty. Maybe all will end happily after all. But alas, this movie heads straight for the toilet, with no redemption, no happy ending, no coherent story of any kind.
Before \"National Lampoon Goes to the Movies,\" I thought I had already seen the worst schlock that Hollywood could possibly turn out. Unfortunately, I hadn't seen the half of 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\n\"National Lampoon Goes to the Movies\" (1981) is, simply put, the worst movie ever made, far lamer than even the inept \"Plan 9 from Outer Space.\"
The Lampoon film is told in three segments, each one supposedly a spoof of a conventional movie genre, but each one landing at our feet with a sickening thud. There is no rhyme or reason for these execrable vignettes, and no discernible story lines.
Another reviewer on this site has written that the only good points about the film are the nude scenes. True, Misses Ganzel and Dusenberry do flash a bit of flesh, and very nice it is too. But the directors seem not to realize that even T&A needs a good story to surround it. There's none of that here.
Probably the worst of the three segments is the last one, featuring Robby Benson and Richard Widmark. Here, we see Benson as a young, eager-beaver policeman being paired with a cynical oldtimer played by Widmark. And for just a moment, those of us who are still watching this odious cinematic exercise are heartened by the thought that we are about to see a redemptive tale about how the young, idealistic cop brings about a purifying change in the old-timer's approach to police work. But no such luck. As we've said, this film has no redeeming values. It is sickening all the way to the final fade-out -- which, perversely, is stretched out longer than it should last on the screen. Apparently the film makers knew they had a bad thing going, and wanted to make the least of it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis early role for Barbara Shelley(in fact,her first in Britain after working in Italy),was made when she was 24 years old,and it's certainly safe to say that she made a stunning debut in 1957's \"Cat Girl.\" While blondes and brunettes get most of the attention(I'll always cherish Yutte Stensgaard),the lovely auburn-haired actress with the deep voice always exuded intelligence as well as vulnerability(one such example being 1960's \"Village of the Damned,\" in which her screen time was much less than her character's husband,George Sanders).She is the sole reason for seeing this drab update of \"Cat People,\" and is seen to great advantage throughout(it's difficult to say if her beauty found an even better showcase).Her character apparently sleeps in the nude,and we are exposed to her luscious bare back when she is awakened(also exposed 8 years later in 1965's \"Rasputin-The Mad Monk\").The ravishing gown she wears during most of the film is a stunning strapless wonder(I don't see what held that dress up,but I'd sure like to).All in all,proof positive that Barbara Shelley,in a poorly written role that would defeat most actresses,rises above her material and makes the film consistently watchable,a real test of star power,which she would find soon enough at Hammer's studios in Bray,for the duration of the 1960's.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe film is a bit tedious. It's mostly a silent film, with the bulk o the story provided through a series of voice-overs. While making a silent film like this is not such a bad idea, this is one of those films where the lack of dialog and the repetitive early scenes make it simply tedious. You don't understand the reason for the tedium until well into the picture, and by then it's too late. The first 40 minutes of film is something of a slow piece of Mexican soft porn, and unimaginative soft porn at that. Later in the film the style of the first 40 minutes starts to makes sense, but it's too late, because by then the audience is lost. There is some nice location shooting at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. I've often wondered why more films aren't shot there. The campus is built on the edge of lava fields that lend the campus a very otherworldly feel. My biggest problem with the film is that the director/writer has made the film the way he wanted to see it without regard for how a viewer who doesn't know the story will view it. You can't ignore the audience when you tell a story.
\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 could have been the gay counterpart to Gone With The Wind given its epic lenght, but instead it satisfied itself by being a huge chain of empty episodes in which absolutely nothing occurs. The characters are uni-dimensional and have no other development in the story (there's actually no story either) than looking for each other and kissing. It's a shame that an interesting aesthetic proposition like having almost no dialog is completely wasted in a film than makes no effort in examining the psychology of its characters with some dignity, and achieving true emotional resonance. On top of that, it pretends to be an \"art\" film by using the worst naive clichés of the cinematic snobbery. But anyway, if someone can identify with its heavy banality, I guess that's fine.
\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 gave this loooooooooooong film a \"2\" because of the attractive actors and semi-sexy love scenes. Otherwise, if you can't read like a speed-reader you will NEVER get through the subtitles that try to keep up with the Spanish speed talking! And, what the hell is going on in the plot if you can't read the subtitles. Endless stares and goof-eyes and constant rejection. Just boring after an hour or so. Some good cinematography but also some so DARK you think your screen has burned out. How this won anything I will never understand. Difficult to talk about \"ACTING\" since the lead actors seem to just stare and look lovingly at each other when they are not pushing each other away. The character Geraldo is so attractive that it is difficult to believe that ANYONE would push him away. And what is with his mother? I just plain didn't GET IT most of the time except that there were three guys that all seem to have had a history with each other....but never figured out who was whose \"EX.\"
\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\nhow many minutes does it take to paint a poem? in this film much too long.
it tells the story about the impact of a first love between two schoolboys.
the boys can't withhold touching each other and making love. after a while one gets distracted by a brief encounter with a sensual guy in the disco and that raises doubt: exploration, fantasy, longing, lust and feelings of loosing grip on your love are themes that are all extensively painted with music, close-ups and silent scenes like telling a poem. but it really takes too long, annoying long, shame, the effort was promising
\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\nBoring, long, pretentious, repetitive, self-involved  this move felt like a bad date. Worse, the tedious art-school direction -- with a heavy-handed use of the whirling shot that gets so overdone it almost made me throw up - is constantly screaming to be noticed. Add the thinnest of plots and virtually no dialogue, and the film begins to feel like a four hour epic about 30 minutes in. It gets worse: instead of dialogue there are poorly written voice-overs AND quotes and songs that comment all too obviously on the characters. Really loud opera music too. Blame it all on the director.
The actors are all quite good. The lead actor Miguel Angel Hoppe is particularly suited for film stardom. He and the other actors have some tender erotic moments. Even these start to get boring after 5 minutes however, and one wonders if the director is auditioning for a Bel Ami porn job. The stunning college campus architecture as a location in Mexico City is inspiring. How come universities in the US are so bland (SFSU, UC, etc.)? But wait for the DVD on this film. You'll want to use the fast scan button  a lot.
\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 simply far too long, far too repetitive, with the male nudity and sexuality being (as this is said as a gay with my own collection of adult titles) far too gratuitous and unnecessary. Much of the first third of the movie could have been cut down to ten minutes and been equally as effective without trying the patience (and stamina) of an audience.
I saw this movie on an early Saturday afternoon, with a film festival audience; the type of crowd that tends to be more adventuresome, interested in more experimental or atypical films, such as one without much dialog, shorts, foreign films. The near sell out crowd in an approximate 275 seat theater started to dribble out within the first half of the movie and while the great majority did stay for the \"pay off\" (which never actually arrived), I have never, in about 14 years of attending any number of film festivals, experimental, gay and otherwise, seen such a large number of people walk away from a film.
This movie could easily have been cut down by more than half and been as effective as it was. It also could have gone in different directions, still with a shorter running time, and been far more effective.
As it currently exists, this is not something that one can readily recommend or one I would have any desire to watch 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\n... and yet, we were told, there was another hour and 20 minutes left to go.
Why, oh, why wasn't there an editor to tell the writer/director to snip, snip, snip? Apparently that writer/director has previously done shorts; as a short, this would have been okay. But the lack of dialogue starts to grate after twenty minutes. The lack of much music glares. The background noises (talking, traffic, and especially a ubiquitous helicopter) get old really fast. But the worst failure is in story. There is precious little beyond a short.
After an hour we saw variations of the same scene over and over again. I nearly screamed at the screen, \"We get it, we get it!!!!!\" It's amazing that after that left the theatre, we could drive home, watch the Daily Show and parts of the Colbert Report, get ready for bed,and know that the audience was STILL trapped in the theatre.
It's not enough to indulge your vision. You have to give the audience enough to share your vision.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nJust saw this at the Chicago Film Festival - avoid it at all costs unless you have sleep problems. It is a film filled with pretensions - it opens with a minor quote from \"Hiroshima mon amour\" and it's all downhill from there. Camera work - imagine a child trying to imitate Wong Kar Wai. Story line - Smokey Robinson and the Miracles' \"The Love I saw in You Was Just a Mirage\" expanded from 3 minutes to over 2 hours but filled with repetition. For butt numbing pain this film ranks with the benches at the Methodist church my parent dragged me to when I was a kid. I want 2+ hours of my life refunded. Julian Hernandez's promoter prefaced the viewing with comment that the film was \"controversial\" - that is true only for the film's narcotic effect.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nJust another film that exploits gratuitous frontal male nudity; awful acting, plus, the lovemaking scenes are the most un-sexy I've ever seen (and this is not about me not linking the idea of two young men making love, since I'm gay).
Again, as in Mil nubes de paz, Julian Hernandez directed an incredibly pretentious film with a story that makes enough argument for a short film of about five minutes but manages to make a 2 hour film with it... And this time, there isn't even the issue of racism and commodification in the Mexican gay community to talk about! God gracious have mercy on us!
\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 star-studded British/Spanish co-production looks great, what you can see of it. I have three versions, two VHS, one DVD, and all are terribly cropped, so badly that it looks as if buildings are having conversations with each other. Few films suffer as badly from pan and scan as this one, as director Robert Parrish seems to have been so enamored with the widescreen process that he tended to use both sides of the screen at once, neglecting the middle. Another user comments that we see the entire inhabitants of a church massacred at the beginning; not in any of the copies I have. There are some abrupt cuts of peasants firing their rifles, one Mexican officer is shot, Shaw and Landau celebrating, and that's it. We never find out why Shaw has become a priest (if he really is), we never find out what happens to Don Carlos (Savalas) although I suspect he was called home to star in Kojak, as his departure seems arbitrary. And there is a strange flashback sequence where Michael Craig (Mysterious Island) is dancing around in a bowler hat and bad suit in the great old English music hall tradition to the 1960 hit BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS, not sung by Johnny Horton here but with some lyrics I've never heard before. On the plus side, the location is great, a huge old ruined fortress with Escher-style stairs leading nowhere, some nice scenery-chewing by Robert Shaw, and good performances by Stevens, Landau, Lettieri, and Telly Savalas as Telly Savalas. I didn't really like this film, but I haven't exactly seen it. I will seek the widescreen version and make my decision then.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere are some really terrific ideas in this violent movie that, if executed clearly, could have elevated it from Spaghetti-western blandness into something special. Unfortunately, A TOWN CALLED HELL is one of the worst edited movies imaginable! Scenes start and end abruptly, characters leave for long stretches, the performances (and accents) of the actors are pretty inconsistent, etc.
Robert Shaw is a Mexican(!) revolutionary who, after taking part in wiping out a village, stays on to become a priest(!)...ten years later the village is being run by \"mayor\" Telly Salavas. Stella Stevens arrives looking for revenge on the man who killed her husband. Colonel Martin Landau arrives looking for Shaw. They all yell at each other A LOT and they all shoot each other A LOT. Fernando Rey is in it too (as a blind man). The performances aren't bad, but they are mightily uneven. Savalas has an accent sometimes as does Landau (who is really grating here). Shaw and Rey prove that they are incapable of really embarrassing themselves and Stevens looks pretty foxy (if a bit out of place amongst the sweaty filth).
\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 British-Spanish co-production is one of the countless films shot in Spain in the wake of the unexpected phenomenal success enjoyed by the Italian \"Spaghetti\" Westerns and, as is typical of such genre efforts, features an eclectic assortment of established and emerging international stars: Robert Shaw, Telly Savalas, Stella Stevens, Martin Landau, Fernando Rey, Michael Craig, Al Lettieri, Dudley Sutton, Antonio Mayans, etc. Ironically, however, this incoherent mess of a movie serves as a shining example as to why that most American of film genres became a dying breed in the 1970s and is nowadays practically (or is that officially?) extinct.
I really wanted to like this film, not only because the Western is one of my favorite types of movies but also because it had all the qualities, including an intriguing premise, to be a good one - not to mention the fact that my father had purchased a paperback edition of A TOWN CALLED BASTARD's novelization following its original release! As it is, the film's sole virtue (if, indeed, it can even be called that) is its sheer eccentricity: for instance, Stevens, playing a widow out for revenge on the man who betrayed her revolutionary husband, sleeps inside a coffin(!) driven around in a carriage by her dumb manservant(?) Sutton; Savalas, as a blood-thirsty renegade, who at first appears to be the film's main villain, is unceremoniously dispatched by his own henchman Lettieri very early on in the picture; the villain of the piece, then, turns out to be Landau who, in the film's very first scene, is seen pillaging side-by-side our legendary hero-turned-priest Shaw!; Fernando Rey, playing a blind peasant, is the only one who can identify rebel Shaw who, in the end turns out to have been merely a front for...well, nevermind! As you can see, the plot is very confusing and it gets stranger from there! The production team responsible for this film were also behind other Western fare around the same period of time, like CUSTER OF THE WEST (1967), BAD MAN'S RIVER (1971), CAPTAIN APACHE (1971) and PANCHO VILLA (1972).
\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 Town Called Hell\" (aka \"A Town Called Bastard\"), a British/Spanish co-production, was made on the heels of Clint Eastwood's success in the Italian made \"Man With No Name\" trilogy. The template used in most of these films was to hire recognizable American actors, whose careers were largely in decline and dub their voices. This film is no exception except for the fact that they used some British actors as well.
It's difficult to summarize the plot, but here goes. The story opens with rebels or whatever, led by Robert Shaw and Marin Landau raiding a church and killing everyone inside, including the priest. Fast forward to the subject town a few years later where the Shaw character is masquerading as a priest. The mayor of the town (Telly Savalas) is a brutal leader who thinks nothing of meting out justice with his gun.
Throw into the mix a grieving widow Alvira (Stella Stevens) who is searching for her husband's killer. Add to this the fact that she rides around in a hearse lying dead like in a coffin for God knows why. After the mayor is murdered by his henchman La Bomba (Al Lettieri) the town is invaded by a federale Colonel (Landau) in search of a rebel leader (I'm sorry but the name escapes me). The Colonel takes over the town and begins summarily executing the townsfolk to force them to reveal the identity of the leader.
Even though they opened the film side by side, its difficult to tell from the dialog that the Landau and Shaw characters know each other. A blind man (Fernando Rey) claims he can identify the rebel leader by touching his face. He does so and..............................................
I'm sure the principals regretted making this film. It's just plain awful and well deserving of my dreaded \"1\" rating. Shaw spends most of the film fixating his trademark stare at whomever is handy. Even Landau can't salvage this film. The beautiful Ms. Stevens is totally wasted here too. Having just made Peckinpah's \"The Ballad of Cable Hogue\" the previous year, I found it odd that she would appear in this mess of a movie. Savalas made several of these pictures, (\"Pancho Villa\" and \"Horror Express\" come to mind) during he pre-Kojak period.Michael Craig is also in it somewhere as a character called \"Paco\".
Fernando Rey appeared in many of these \"westerns\" although he would emerge to play the villain in the two \"French Connection\" films. Al Lettieri would also emerge with a role in \"The Godfather\" (1972) and go on to other memorable roles before his untimely death in 1975.
In all fairness, the version I watched ran only 88 minutes rather than the longer running times of 95 or 97 minutes listed on IMDb, however I can't see where an extra 7 or 8 minutes would make much difference.
Avoid this one.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is definitely one of the weirder 70's movies out there, and it's most notable for kicking off a decade of Bigfoot hysteria. It is also notable for the little touches of insanity throughout the movie, especially when the dark, moody first half is replaced by a MUSICAL INTERLUDE of all things (as another user pointed out, one of the songs is dedicated to a character, Travis Crabtree, who paddles around in a canoe for a while, then... leaves, never to be seen again). Although it's painfully dated now, i's still a fun scary movie to show to kids, and anyone who enjoys either Bigfoot lore or 70's hillbilly culture is bound to get a kick out of this. My favorite part: a guy gets so scared that he jumps headfirst through a door (!?) and the narrator explains he went unconscious from \"shock.\" Uh, I'd say breaking a door with his head is more likely why he went unconscious, but whatever.
4/10 stars, or 7/10 if you like bad Americana.
\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 grainy film has a cult following and one of those word-of-mouth features you just had to see. Maybe hard to believe, but there is a rural community in southwest Arkansas, Fouke, that knows the legend is true. This tale is told in documentary-style narrated by Vern Stierman and filmed in actual locations talking to actual folks involved. The legend changes with the telling, but during the late 60s and most of the 70s the surrounding area of Fouke was visited by a Bigfoot-like creature that traveled along Boggy Creek. Long limbed with three toes and standing over 7 foot tall, this hirsute creature periodically caused damage and frightened the 'bejeebers' out of most of the community. I personally crossed over the small Boggy Creek bridge in 1974, and yes the hair on the back of my neck did rise. Of course it was about 1 a.m. in the rain. By the time I arrived in Shreveport, I was laughing.
\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 was expecting a B-Movie French musical. After all, Dhéry, Blanche, DeFunès were superstars of low budget French films of that time. And it is in color! But I have hallucination in this unbelievable one hour 30 of pure mediocrity. Musical numbers are awful, and comedy is absolutely boring and stupid. And the songs? What songs? This is just a succession of bad numbers, one after another. The only one very rare thing about that thing is the nudity of women. It was not familiar at that time. In fact, some numbers are just there to show us topless women. It adds to the mediocrity! And try to find young Michel Serrault, the future great actor of French cinema, in a bit part as a musician, in his very first movie. Good luck!
\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 purchased this movie on blu-ray because it promised great visuals and music. I was also a great fan of a similar movie... Baraka. The movie is very much styled after Baraka, wide angles, very similar shots with cameras set to capture long time passage in each shot. Even some of the scenes were identical (the street with traffic). Whereas Baraka told a great story, juxtaposing nature, man-made environments, spirituality, and horrors of the world in an engrossing fashion and great music, this movie just jumped from shot to shot with no encompassing story, mediocre musical score, and then.... POOF, it's finished! I thought there must be some sort of mistake! History of the world? Half the movie is Egypt and landscape (looks like Arizona, but I didn't bother to check). Seriously folks, this is horrible, rent it if you must, but do not buy it. The filmmakers should be ashamed of themselves for putting this out.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI wasn't particularly impressed by this movie that has lackluster music and only lasts 40 minutes. Thank God, because I was falling asleep. I makes excellent use of time lapse photography to display the passage of time in the movement of light and shadow, people, water, clouds, etc. Unfortunately, that's all it is.
My preference is for its predecessor, the excellent Koyaanisqatsi made in 1983 at 87 minutes and to prove that a sequel can be better than the original, Powaqqatsi made in 1988 running 90 minutes.
Try them both.
\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\nWho ever wrote the two or three glowing reviews were either involved in the making of this film, term used loosely, or bank rolling it, and should the latter be the case, I would want my seven dollars back! The actors, again term used loosely, are awful, in fact almost none of them did anything ever again which is a relief. The scenery and everything about this screams, we had 7 dollars to work with and a day to do it in. Was this filmed in someones back yard? Everything about this project says, low budget. The actors at best were D list. Do not waste your time, unless of course you want to take it back and try to get the rental back. The lead bad guy looks like that punk from the 70s show that ended up marrying his grandmother dummee moore. My local blockbuster video store lists this as the movie most returned with sad commentary attached. Even as a 99 cent rental this flick gathers dust. Someone really must have owed some favors. This is a super stinker and I give it 10 turds.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"