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\nSo the other night I decided to watch Tales from the Hollywood Hills: Natica Jackson. Or Power, Passion, Murder as it is called in Holland. When I bought the film I noticed that Michelle Pfeiffer was starring in it and I thought that had to say something about the quality. Unfortunately, it didn't.
1) The plot of the film is really confusing. There are two story lines running simultaneously during the film. Only they have nothing in common. Throughout the entire movie I was waiting for the moment these two story lines would come together so the plot would be clear to me. But it still hasn't.
2) The title of the film says the film will be about Natica Jackson. Well it is, sometimes. Like said the film covers two different stories and the part about Natica Jackson is the shortest. So another title for this movie would not be a wrong choice.
To conclude my story, I really recommend that you leave this movie where it belongs, on the shelf in the store on a place nobody can see it. By doing this you won't waste 90 minutes of your life, as I did.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI wouldn't give this movie a rating, it's not worthy. I watched it only because I'm a Pfieffer fan. I love her and would watch anything she made. Even in this dud, she didn't disappoint. Every scene with her in it, kept the viewer watching...waiting...for something to happen but nothing ever did. It had some good story lines but they ended abruptly as soon as it started. Some of the other characters had potential but nothing became of it.
Pfieffer was 29 when she made this film and at her most lovely. The wardrobe and set was surprisingly good.
I can watch mostly anything and rarely come across a movie I can't find something to like about it, but this was a dud. I don't understand.
The worst thing about it all, it had a big cliff hanger at the end. It had an ending scene that woke you up and say wow, this film is finally going some place, then the credits roll. Good grief.
I agree with the review that said .99 would have bought 3 cans of cat food and watching my cat eat would have been more exciting. Well said. Actually, that comment was more entertaining than the film because it sums it up so well. I too wasted .99 cents on this dud.dud.dud.
\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\nYears after the fall of the last of the great corporations, the world has fallen into a new dark age where cyborgs are harvested for their parts. Cash, a female cyborg, travels to a wasteland doctor to receive news that she is pregnant. On the run from Recyclers (bounty hunters who hunt cyborgs), Cash tries to find her way to Cytown, the mythical refuge for cyborgs.
\"Cyborg 3: The Recycler\" is the third (& last so far) entry in the CYBORG trilogy. The first film was originally planned to be a sequel to MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE, but was quickly rewritten into a standard post-apocalyptic martial-arts fest that became something of a cult classic due to its cheesy action scenes. CYBORG 2: GLASS SHADOW was a sequel that actually improved upon its predecessor but was not widely seen (& was dismissed by those few who saw it as cheap fodder).
This film, for one thing, tries to be a meld of the first two films (the first was a cheesy action film while the second was a smart Cyberpunk story) but unfortunately falls short on both counts. The budget was obviously lower than CYBORG 2, with the film being set in the desert wastelands (like so many post-apocalyptic action films of the 90s were), shot around old industrial buildings to conserve costs.
The film's story centres on a plot device, that of a pregnant cyborg, that is as interesting as it is absurd (this film is not the first to try that idea; the anime OVA series ARMITAGE III uses it to a greater extent). But the film falls into the same trap that so many low-budget sci-fi action films fall victim to, in the fact that the snags (synthetic organisms) featured are nothing more than androids. The visual effects amount to nothing more than prosthetic arms & makeup effects.
The acting is pretty standard for this kind of film, with the lead actress (Khrystyne Haje) being the single worst performer on display. Instead of being joyed at the news she is pregnant, she acts all whiny & sullen. Her co-stars are much better, Malcolm McDowell being the usual gangster type who enlivens the scenes he appears in & Richard Lynch has a lot of fun as the chief villain. Of particular note is Andrew Byniarski, playing Lynch's right hand man, who would later appear in THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE remake & its prequel.
\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\nCash (Now played by Khrystyne Haje in for Angelina Jolie) has wandered to a post apocalypse wasteland (after her protector has died from old age, said protector was played by Elias Koteas, an actual decent actor) and now she finds that people wander through the rubble looking for cyborgs to trade for scrap metal and cash. She leads a group of burned out cyborgs (That includes William Katt, Evan Lurie and a human scientist played by Zach Galligan) against bounty hunter Richard Lynch. Malcolm McDowell has two minutes of screen time as Lynch's employer. Cyborg 3 does manage to be better than the other two entries but it still is a largely dull feature. The problem this time is that the ideas with potential are never used well, the action sequences are routine and the name cast such as McDowell, Katt and Galligan are given little to do. Haje is indeed a whiny heroine and Lynch is too over the top(as usual) and the film lacks the inspiration or ambition to be as fun-bad as it's hilarious predecessor. (The one with Van Damme, the second one is just dull.) Also disappointing is the science fiction angle which almost aggressively resists any good idea it has. As an action flick this is routine and by the numbers B-movie stuff and it is competently made, that's the only thing positive I can say about it.
*1/2 out of 4-(Poor)
\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 study in bad. Bad acting, bad music, bad screenplay, bad editing, bad direction and a bad idea. Pieces of schlock don't come any cheesier or unintentionally funnier than this... thing. By the end of the \"movie\", you are left wondering why did they bother in the first place. Poor Malcolm McDowell, was he short of cash or something? Still thinking of seeing this? *SPOILERS AHOY*: If you haven't died of laughter in the first thirty minutes, by the time you'll see the cyborg-populated town named \"Cytown\", you will. Avoid this, my movie-loving friends. Avoid.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI almost made a fool of myself when I was going to start this review by saying \" This movie reminded me of BILLY ELLIOT \" but then I looked up the resume of screenwriter Lee Hall only to find out that he was the guy who wrote BILLY ELLIOT so it's Mr Hall who's making a fool of himself not me
Am I being a bit cruel on him ? No because Lee has something most other aspiring screenwriters from Britain don't have - He has his foot in the door , he has previously written a successful British movie that won awards and made money at the box office and what does he do next ? He gives the audience more of the same
Young Jimmy Spud lives on some kitchen sink estate . He is bullied at school and no one loves him . The only thing keeping him going is that he has aspirations to be a ballet dancer . No actually he has aspirations to be an angel but considering his household he may as well be a ballet dancer . He has a macho waster of a father who thinks \" Ballet dancers are a bunch of poofs while his granddad says \" Ballet dancers are as tough as any man you could meet . I remember seeing the Bolshoi ballet ... \" Yup Ballet is a main talking point on a run down British council estate those days - NOT . Come to think of it neither is left wing politics which seems to be the sole preserve of middle class do gooders who live in nice big houses , so right away everything about this set up feels ridiculously false
Another major criticism is that this is a film that has no clue who it's trying to appeal to . I have often criticised Channel 4 for broadcasting movies at totally inappropriate times ( THE LAND THAT TIME FORGOT at 6 am for example ) but they showed this at 2 am and for once they've got it spot on . Considering the story involves politics , ballet dancing ( Gawd I hate it ) lung cancer and poverty there's no way this can be deemed suitable for a family audience but since the main protagonist is an 11 year old child and features angels and ballet dancers ( Don't blame me if I seem obsessed with the subject - there was no need to refer to them ) there's not much here for an intelligent adult audience either .
Of course if Lee Hall had been told at the script development stage by the producers that he should write a story featuring a schoolboy and an angel and had flatly refused saying that he wanted to write about other themes and stories then I will apologise but throughout the movie you do get the feeling that once the film was completed it was going to be marketed to the exact same audience who enjoyed BILLY ELLIOT
\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\nNot that I want to be mean but this movie really surprised me a lot. During the whole film, I was like...erm...what is this movie all about? I don't get the animations at all. Probably this movie will only be suitable for those who belongs to the 1980s. During the film, there is a group of people walked out. After the movie, many people said, \"That's it?\" Frankly speaking, I cannot believe that this movie was awarded the best children film award. If you are thinking of watching this film, I strongly recommend you not to. You will regret it. I'm not joking. You will find that you are just wasting both your time and money of you go and watch 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\nIf you're watching this without an inkling of an idea what the story is about, then you're in for quite the surprise. Even then the synopsis has painted a picture of a rather sane storyline, but the actual film is anything but.
As the synopsis went, it tells of an obsessed mountain climber, which you'll see as the prologue before the opening credits and text crawl, which tells you of the presence of Chronopolis, an imaginary city that exists in dreamy manuscripts of the mind (note to self  this spells trouble with flashing lights), where its inhabitants are immortals yearning for a change in their omnipresence. They can see our world, and notice of all persons this mountain climber, and the synopsis explained that they decided to contact him through alchemy, creating an intelligent sphere to meet the man.
What that translated to, is a repetitive piece of animation that a 5 year old kid could produce. Have shapes created, though credit goes to the stop motion style, and put it through a mind-numbing loop. And repeat until your eyes start to close, then move on to the next scene. If anything, the Chonopolisians (if this term exists) really love their sticks and balls, constantly playing at conjuring up that magical sphere, and having a field day playing with it before releasing it to the \"other\" world. It gets no better as well, when the man interacts with the sphere in yet another hypnotically boring and sleep inducing sequence.
Thank goodness of course that the run time is shorter than what's advertised, which is 57 minutes (or less) against the 70 stated. While firmly dated, its dull colours, non-existent story, scratchy soundtrack and repetitive pictures will win over no fans. Don't waste time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWell, you might not actually SEE any women in love in this movie, but you'll certainly hear women TALKING about love, and men talking about love, and women talking about men, and men talking about women, and men talking about men, and everyone talking about death, and talking, and talking, until you yourself will want to scream and do something that requires no talking at all, like paint your bedroom or water your plants.
Welcome to the world of D.H. Lawrence, where psycho-babble reigns supreme, and where no one can get down to living a productive life because everyone is too busy talking about how unproductive their lives are. Spending time with the characters in a D.H. Lawrence novel is like being locked in a closet with a group of your most self-absorbed acquaintances who you would run away from if you met them at a party. When I read \"Women in Love,\" I so desperately wanted to strangle every single character in it, but since I couldn't, I was hoping they would at least strangle each other. Alas, only one of them dies, not by strangulation, and I won't spoil it for you by telling which one, in case you actually give a damn about this story or any of these people.
To give director Ken Russell his due, he makes this filmed version about as entertaining as it's possible to make this essentially unfilmable novel. He throws out much of the psychological mumbo-jumbo that Lawrence adored, and focuses instead on all of the naughty parts, so we get lots of histrionic lovemaking in beds and fields, two buck naked men wrestling by firelight, and one embarrassing scene featuring Alan Bates (yup, buck naked again) roaming around in a meadow making love to bushes and grass (I'm not kidding). Glenda Jackson won an Oscar for her performance as Gudrun, the more dominant of the two sisters at the story's focus, and she certainly tries her hardest to do something with this material; anyone would deserve an Oscar simply for having to bear Russell's decision to give her a scene where she has to dance wildly in front of a herd of mystified-looking cattle. Oliver Reed has one expression, an intense glower. The whole thing is over-written and over-directed, and it's deliriously campy. Indeed, this vies with \"Mommie Dearest\" as perhaps the most unintentionally hysterical movie I've ever seen.
Grade: D
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe old axiom that bored people are boring people is well demonstrated in \"Women in Love.\" The script, taken from D. H. Lawrence's novel, contains an endless flow of concepts that are, at best, sophomoric.
What a pity so much effort went into so vacuous an exercise; what an empty array of characters given such attention. In spite of high production values, this film comes across as tedious as its personnel.
A revisit in 2001 merely confirms a 1969 impression of juvenille minds in adult bodies, dawdling nowhere, and fumbling every step of the way.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nPractically the only other actor who would be less likely to play Evel Knieval than Hamilton is Anthony Perkins, yet somehow Hamilton manages to turn in a reasonably effective portrayal (and as producer of the film, he wasn't likely to be fired or told he wasn't right for the part!) The early life of the daredevil motorcyclist is recounted here in multiple flashbacks. The film opens with a rather silly prologue with Hamilton in his white-leather, star-spangled gear spouting the world according to Knieval as if to say, \"Don't worry. This film is about my youth, but I'll be back in my familiar costume by the end of the picture.\" Hamilton is preparing for a huge jump, yet is still licking his wounds from the previous one as devoted wife Lyon both supports and derides him. He recalls various vignettes of his childhood and delinquent teenage years along with his early days as a stunt rider and blossoming celebrity. This flip-flop approach is pretty abrupt and sometimes disjointed, but it does prevent the movie from sticking to one of its inexpensive sets for too long a time or from getting into a rut with the fairly pedestrian characters. Hamilton, usually a suave and debonair persona, does a very fine job of enacting the tiny details of his subject's mannerisms and demeanor including his walk. His hair is a shade lighter and longer and he works hard to give the right inflections in his speaking. (He even pays minor tribute to Knieval's many injuries by appearing in a skimpy towel while his shoulders are covered in \"scars\" from the multitudinous accidents.) Facially, he looks nothing like the real cyclist, but he does suggest him in his physical performance. Lyon is excellent at playing the young girl he loves and then the more worldly wife, though her 3-pack a day voice does threaten to give her away at any given moment. She and Hamilton strike up an easy chemistry which goes a long way in putting the film over. Other nice supporting turns are given by Freed as his jaded doctor, Cameron as an early influence and Taylor as a flea-bitten sideshow barker. The film was made on a low budget, but the story is a rather low rent one anyway, so that doesn't affect it too badly. The makers wisely used actual Butte, Montana locations to give the film a proper small town ambiance. Several of Hamilton's antics are amusing, though the character is certainly reckless and inconsiderate of other people's property! Some of the real Knieval's completed and failed stunts are included in some blurry footage, one of which features a mind-boggling \"splatter\" in which the man is rolled up and snapped around like a rag doll. Hamilton's then-wife (Stewart) appears briefly as a nurse.
\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 paid one dollar for this DVD and at first I was feeling ripped off, but then I started thinking about it and I should be grateful. I have found a holy grail, a real touchstone of bad cinema. If you think the opening dramatic shots of an empty stadium successfully fizzle with Evel's awkward camera address monologue, then wait until the opening credits roll on the chauffeur's butt. The script seems to be pasted together from press clippings, and ESL textbooks. But..... I just can't believe how bad George Hamilton is. He seems to have absolutely no connection to anything he says, the only internal monologue I can detect is \"gosh I bet they think I am cute. really cute!\". This is an epiphany! I now know how bad it can get.
\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 1990's begun to have day time talk shows sprout up left and right. Every network had one, and they all lacked one thing Originality. Ricky Lake was just another show to entertain the obese trailer park mother with a Marlboro cigarette hanging out of her mouth while breast feeding one of her dozens of toothless, illiterate children. The English language and other cornerstones of mankind where ruined by this shows existence. Titltes ranging from Girl you a Pigeon Head and so on. How could anyone want to watch this pure and utter garbage? Has our society really became nothing more than a bunch of hill billy's and dead beat fathers? The people who appear on this show were Trash. The people who watched this show were Trash. Anyone that wishes to see this show re aired or put onto DVD is TRASH. People wonder why Americans are becoming huge piles of lard and too fat to even get jobs, its having shows like this tell them Its OK to be 500lbs overweight, and have 12 year old girls act like prostitutes. Having such trash on TV has ruined morals.
\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 person who wrote the glowing review of this misguided project must be related to the writer/director/star--or is, in fact, the same person as it defies rational thinking that this movie would be appealing to anyone not connected to a very tightly woven inner circle. How about this? You want to make a movie--tell a story; entertain; draw me in with vivid characters. Sure, you can do it artfully without bowing to the commercial elements designed for mass appeal. However, do not address elements of artistic expression in a vacuum in which the audience is in a continual struggle to grasp at skimpy narrative threads. If I'm to be moved by a dreamy psychological thread then make the concrete fabric easier to buy.
\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\n60 minutes in the beautiful Christina Galbo tries to escape the isolated boarding school she's brought to at the beginning of the movie. Is she running from some kind of fate too horrible to contemplate, a monster, black-gloved killer, or supernatural evil? No, she's running from a bunch of bullies. For the OTHER 40 minutes that follow, various figures walk around the school in the dark holding candelabras and looking alarmed or distraught, which doesn't say much in itself perhaps because great movies have been made about just that but if you're going to have characters walking around corridors and staircases you better be Alain Resnais or you better know how to light that staircase in bright apple reds and purples like Mario Bava. We know a killer stalks the perimeters of the school but his body count is pitiful and sparse and in the absence of the visceral horrors one expects to find in the giallo, we get no sense of sinister mysteries/unspeakable secrets festering behind a facade of order and piety and rightness which is the kind of movie La Residencia wants to be but doesn't quite know how to do it. We know something is off because girls are reported missing but we never get the foreboding mysterious atmosphere that says \"something is seriously f-cking wrong here, man\". When Serrador tries to comment on the sexual repression of the female students, he does so with quick-cutting hysterics and detail closeups of eyes and parted lips while high pitched \"this-is-shocking\" music blares in the background. None of the aetherial beauty and longing of PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK to be found here. It's all a bit clumsy and aimless, with no real sense of urgency or direction. A number of people are presented as suspects but there's little reason to care for the identity of a killer that goes unnoticed by the characters inside the movie. I like the first kill, the image of a knife hitting target superimposed over the anguished face of the victim as a lullaby chimes in the background, but the rest is too inconsequential for my taste. I have to say Serrador did much better with the killing children and paranoia du soleil of WHO CAN KILL A CHILD?
\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 can't believe that so many are comparing this movie to Argento's. His work is far more imaginative and vicious--and a lot more fun.
The director simply lacks the ability to build real tension. The murder scenes--and let's face it, that's what this genre is all about--aren't interesting. It was not hard to guess who the murderer was, and I really didn't care when it was revealed. The cinematography isn't memorable, and the much-praised 19th century Gothic atmosphere just didn't draw me in. Several of the actors are quite good (especially the headmistress and the sadistic girl who lords it over the younger students), but they're given very little to do.
Yes, there are undertones of incest, sadomasochism, and lesbianism, but amazingly, they add very little spice or suspense.
If you're looking for a good horror movie, look elsewhere.
\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 could be rated a 0, it would be. From the atrocious wooden acting to the dull, plodding pace, the puerile exploitation angle and the sophomoric pseudolesbian titillation added purely for the sake of the sad viewers, this is a disaster of a film.
The plot is predictable, as from the beginning one is absolutely certain of what will happen to all of the characters and how the plot will commence. From a boring, unexceptional beginning to a pathetic and bleak ending, every single presence in this film is wasted, and every meagre scrap of talent dug up for this turkey is squandered.
If you want to watch something as relentlessly bleak with plenty of the same childish titillation, watch one of the Ilsa films. At least they're unapologetic and up-front about what they're trying to do. How something this horrendously bad ever managed to be rated above a 5 is a miracle of how people with no taste or discerning standards can sometimes come together for the most dubious of purposes.
It's not scary, it's not interesting, and above all it's not arousing in any sense of the word. It is, in my opinion, a crime; it is a crime that such a horribly offensive and incompetent piece of trash was ever conceived of and given the resources to come into existence, and even more a tragedy that it is still defended by some woefully misguided viewers.
Not even Elvira's cheerful personality and joking ways could soften the blow that this horrifying travesty of film is. Avoid it at all costs.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nReading my review of THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED, many may assume that I'm some 14 year old who thinks SCREAM is considered \"classic\" horror. This is not the case, as I'm 30 years old and have been watching horror films for most of my life. But admittedly, I'm a child of the 80's that grew up on slasher/zombie/ghost/cannibal, etc...types of horror films - so I do typically prefer horror films that are more graphic and faster-paced. Just like someone who can appreciate different music, painting, or in this case, film - but not necessarily like them - I can appreciate why some people may enjoy this sort of film...I just don't...
THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED is an exceedingly dull and tedious film about a school for wayward girls. The heavy-handed mistress of the school rules with an iron hand (or whip in some cases...) to keep the girls in line. She has a young son who creeps around and peeps on the girls while they shower (in their nightgowns no less (?!?)...), and meanwhile, girls are disappearing from the school as they are the victim of a murderer who's lurking about the campus...
I can see why THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED is often compared to SUSPIRIA (which is a masterpiece of a film in my opinion...), in terms of the atmosphere of the school itself and the interaction between the girls and their guardians - but this film is so dull and uneventful that I could barely stay awake. I'm all for \"tension\" and \"suspense\" in horror films - but this film held neither for me. Luckily, I wasn't expecting a whole lot going into this one, so I can't say I was really disappointed - THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED just reinforced the fact that I personally don't typically enjoy most horror films much older than from the 70's. This isn't a hard and fast rule, but those that I HAVE enjoyed definitely seem to be more of the exception. Probably a \"must-see\" for horror fans who enjoy more understated and suggestive horror films - but as I don't really know too many fans of that sort of material, I can't really recommend this one...4/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst be warned that I saw this movie on TV and with dubbed English - which may have entirely spoiled the atmosphere. However, I'll rate what I saw and hope that will steer people away from that version. I found this movie excruciatingly dull. All the movie's atmosphere is lost with dubbing leaving the slow frustration of a stalker movie. I'm sorry, but the worst movie sin in my book is to be slow except when the movie about philosophy. I didn't see any deep philosophical meaning in this movie. Maybe I missed something, but I have to tell it like I see it. I rated it a \"1\". What can I say, U.S. oriented tastes, maybe.
\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 DVD appears to be targetted at someone who will just put it on and play it in an endless loop in the background. It's organized as a series of music videos of the Grand Canyon set to various pieces of Tangerine Dream music.
Unfortunately, the TD music is dull, and the transfer to DVD looks rather blurry and dim. Too expensive a DVD for what it is.
\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 spaceship returns from Mars; about a couple of months earlier, a 4-person expedition had been sent to the red planet. Most of the picture is a flashback to what transpired over there. The picture is saddled by inane, melodramatic dialog, typical of many sci-fi efforts of the fifties & sixties. Note, for example, how the ship's commander (Mohr) tells another crew member to 'stay there' for no reason; as if moving to another spot inside the ship will cause a problem. Later, the commander orders two of the crew to remain in the ship while he and another go outside. The two he ordered to stay say 'no way' and follow out; I didn't have high hopes for the expedition's success by this point. There's much talk of 'ears twitching' and hugging a freeze-ray gun named 'Cleo' (short for Cleopatra, of course). It would at least be pretty funny, unintentionally, if the story didn't drag.
There's a very slow pace to the whole thing; the astronauts spend as much time looking out the ship's window portals (which change color from red to blue), commenting on what they see, as they do outside actually exploring. The martian landscape, advertised as filmed in 'Cinemagic,' usually resembles animation cut-outs, or drawings, shot through an orange-red filter to give the illusion of interacting with the actors, who do take on an odd surrealistic appearance due to the process. But I don't think it fools anyone over 10 years old. The one clever mention I did notice was that the memories of the surviving astronaut would be tinged with unreality, so that would explain the unreal nature of the martian vista. Oh, okay...
I was amused by some of the astronauts' actions as they begin to explore; right off the bat, they test their freeze gun on a plant, killing it, just for the hell of it. Then the female member hacks with a machete at what she thinks is a tree but turns out to be the leg of the spider-rat monster. Nice going, lady. Look up next time. No wonder the 'intelligence' on Mars gets upset and doesn't mind that one of the lower lifeforms, a giant amoeba, attacks the explorers. The acting isn't too impressive. Mohr especially, had a very annoying technique, saying a line and then abruptly erupting into a huge grin which always creeped me out - reminded me of It! the Terror From Beyond Space. The ending is fairly anti-climactic; don't expect any huge revelations beyond the 'no more expeditions' with freeze guns named Cleo.
\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 sci-fi adventure is not the best and by no means the worst. I agree with the statement that bad sci-fi is comical. Bizarre pink tinting and unusual special effects make this a favorite for the late, late, late show viewers. Space explorers on the planet Mars fight off strange giant amoeba-like monsters and other strange creatures. Pretty cool.
The cast includes Les Tremayne, Naura Hayden, Gerald Mohr and Jack Kruschen. Get comfy and enjoy. Don't feel bad if you nod off for a moment. I agree with adding this to the list of cult classics to not miss.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt's telling that as of the entry of this comment, NO females have submitted a vote of any kind for this movie. Not surprisingly, cheesy science fiction doesn't appeal to them quite as much... If you like a good \"B\" movie, and especially if you like to satirize them as you watch, you will like this. If you don't have fun watching bad movies, this one's not for you.
\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 begins with people on Earth discovering that their rocket to Mars had not been lost but was just drifting out in Space near out planet. When it's retrieved, one of the crew members is ill, one is alive and the other two are missing. What happened to them is told through a flashback by the surviving member.
While on Mars, the crew was apparently attacked by a whole host of very silly bug-eyed monsters. Oddly, while the sets were pretty good, the monsters were among the silliest I have seen on film. Plus, in an odd attempt at realism, the production used a process called \"Cinemagic\". Unfortunately, this wonderful innovation just made the film look pretty cheap when they were on the surface of Mars AND the intensity of the redness practically made my eyes bleed--it was THAT bad!! Despite all the cheese, the film did have a somewhat interesting plot as well as a good message about space travel. For lovers of the genre, it's well worth seeing. For others, you may just find the whole thing rather silly--see for yourself and decide.
While by today's standards this isn't an especially good sci-fi film, compared with the films being made at the time, it stacks up pretty well.
PS--When you watch the film, pay careful attention to Dr. Tremayne. He looks like the spitting image of Dr. Quest from the \"Jonny Quest\" cartoon! Plus, he sounds and acts a lot like him, too.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst off, I'd like to say that the user comments alone left me with tears in my eyes from laughing. One comment that bad SF movies become good comedies is right on the mark. MST3000 made it's living off that.
If you look at THE ANGRY RED PLANET as the fever dream of a 10 year old comic book reader from 1959, you'll have the handle on this sucker. All the elements are there: the pseudoscience, occasionally logical, more often hilariously infantile. The adolescent boy attitude toward sex, with the \"gigolo\" captain (good call on that one, guys!) making eyes at the buxom \"scientist\" with hair so red it's a wonder it doesn't set off the fire alarms. The ridiculous conception of Mars as a planet so alien that everything glows red, yet one alien monster has a mouse face, and the blob alien has an eye that rotates like a kid's toy. The comic relief, an overweight astronaut (!) who sounds like he never finished the 8th grade in Brooklyn and has a psychotic fixation on his ray gun. And of course, the mere fact that alien = dangerously evil. If these people had met E.T., they would have roasted him in two seconds flat! \"OW\" indeed!
Don't get me wrong. I rated this movie low. Still, it's never boring (except when the scientist tries to explain everything - only to make it all sound more and more ridiculous), and you have to admit, in your little kid core, it makes you jump a few times.
Okay, then don't admit it. I guess you were never 10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n**Possible Spoilers Ahead**
Gerald Mohr, a busy B-movie actor during the Forties and Fifties, leads an expedition to Mars. Before we get to the Red Planet we're entertained by romantic patter between Mohr and scientist Nora Hayden; resident doofus Jack Kruschen; and the sight of Les Tremayne as another scientist sporting a billy-goat beard. The Martian exteriors feature fake backdrops and tints ranging from red to pink-the \"Cinemagic\" process touted in the ads. Real cool monsters include a giant amoeba, a three-eyed insect creature, an oversized Venus Fly-Trap, and the unforgettable rat/bat/spider. The whole bizarre adventure is recalled by survivor Hayden under the influence of hypnotic drugs. THE ANGRY RED PLANET reportedly has quite a cult following, and it probably picked up most of its adherents during the psychedelic Sixties.
\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 funny and painful at the same time. The \"Cinemagic\" almost gave me a seizure. Despite what they imply, \"Cinemagic\" is not some innovative technical procedure. It was \"developed\" as the result of an accident, and they used it because it disguised the fact that their \"monsters\" were so stupid-looking. I also don't think it's a coincidence that the writer is Sid \"Pink\".
This movie is good for a laugh, if you are really looking for a movie made in 9 days on 200,000 dollars. It is entertaining; at least I can say that about it. The bat/rat/spider is the highlight.
\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\nVery bad but watchable science fiction film that suffers from abominable special effects, poor acting, and a ridiculous story. The film opens with a spaceship returning from exploration on Mars with a woman and a man with green slime on his arm. She, through some hokey plot contrivances, begins to tell what happened on this fateful trip as almost all the tapes seemed to be magnetically wiped off. Four astronauts take on this journey: a military type played by Gerald Mohr, a poor man's Humphrey Bogart who enjoys saying the word \"Irish\" and has the acting savvy of a codfish, then there is Naura Hayden, a beautiful redhead and only female crew member on flight with three men wearing the most formfitting suits possible to accentuate all her curves, next, Les Tremaine, a wonderful character actor from cheap sci-fi films like this as the egghead, and last, Jack Kruschen as Sammy - the guy from Brooklyn with jokes and doesn't seem too bright although chosen for his expertise in electronics. None of these performers are really any good, and all of them say their dialog with little conviction. Watch Tremaine as he utters that scientific nonsense! Really, the best out of the four is Kruschen - and that really says a lot about this film. But bad acting aside, the movie just falls apart when they land on Mars via flashback. The Angry Red Planet had a real cheap budget because Mars is really the American Southwest with a heavy red tint over it. When the story calls for something that might look Martian, there are drawings placed with a heavy red tint over them. You can tell they are drawings The monsters are perhaps even worse as we get a Bat-rat-spider with a size upwards of 40 feet that looks like some kids got together piecing dead animals together. The other significant creature is a giant amoeba with an oscillating eye. Whew! These are bad. There is a nice drawing of a Martian city, but there just was not enough of this in the film. Despite all these big problems, The Angry Red Planet is a fun bad film. It is really fascinating to see how far we have come as a civilization. Most of the stuff they used in the movie is so outdated. One guy is using an electric razor with a cord and I thought they can get to Mars but they are still using cords. Director Ib Melchior gives an interesting look to much of the film even with the budgetary constraints, but the story by him and Sid Pink doesn't fly. And how bout that ending with the music and the psychedelic colors? Groovy man!
\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 seems to be a surprisingly high number of 8-10 star reviews here from people who have never written an IMDb review before or since. Given the very low average rating given to the film by other people, I think you may draw your own conclusions.
This is a very bad film. I'll admit it, I thought the concept was kind of cute, and I was pleased to see the actresses who played Eve and Harmony on Angel getting work, but it didn't take long for the sheer awfulness of this film to make itself known.
Acting: The leads seemed competent enough, but everyone else? Terrible.
Plot: Chock full of holes big enough to drive a truck through.
Direction: Non-existent.
Humour: Did they really think people were going to laugh? Oh boy.
Eye Candy: OK. there were some really beautiful women in this film. Not just the three main female characters, but right across the board. It was as if the producers hoped the scenery would keep male viewers so distracted they wouldn't notice how terrible everything else was. If so, they failed miserably.
In the right hands this could have been cute but darkly funny camp classic. It wasn't even close.
\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\nNot one of Keaton's best efforts, this was perhaps a veiled attempt to revenge himself on the family he married into - the Talmadges. A Polish/English language barrier and a series of coincidences leads Buster into a marriage with a large Irish woman, who (along with her father and brothers) treat him shabbily until they think he may be an heir to a fortune. Mistaken identities abound here - gags are set up and but for the main fail to pay off.
This Metro short does have at least two real laughs - Buster's cleverly turning around his lack of dinner by using the calendar on the wall and the basic ignorance of his adopted family to literally bring the meat to his plate. The other is a family photo, with the entire group slowly collapsing to the floor as the tripod of the camera loses its stability.
The yeast beer overflow could have been the catalyst for a massive series of gags built upon gags, but stops short (for all the buildup) of development.
Kino's print is crisp and clear and the score is one for player piano, drums and sound effects. Not one of Buster's best efforts, but worth a few laughs.
\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 good cast (with one major exception) pushes its way through Epstein's smart light satire. Mansfield was never better, or funnier, than she is here paired with Walston, who's a veteran who's determined to become a congressman to get out of the war. He and his buddies -- including suave con-artist Grant -- head to San Francisco on leave and start the city's swinginest party while conniving to escape the service altogether through industrial speaking tours. The only thing about this movie that's not delightful is Suzy Parker's one-note performance as Grant's love interest, which takes up too much of the film's time and slows down the pace in the second half. Walston and Mansfield have good chemistry; the gimmick is that she's set on making love to every serviceman (to do her duty for the war effort, of course) but he's a married man who, nonetheless, loves his wife. They steal the movie with little trouble from Grant (who's amusing here in the first part of the film, when not paired with his non-actor co-star.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film was a critical and box-office fiasco back in 1957. It was based on a novel which was later turned into a play--which flopped on Broadway. The story is about some navy officers on leave in San Francisco during WWII. They have 4 day's leave which they spend at the Mark Hopkins hotel. The film meanders a lot and none of the characters seem very real. Cary Grant is generally brilliant in comedy and drama--but here he plays a sort of wheeler dealer and he doesn't really pull it off. Tony Curtis or James Garner would have been better choices. Audrey Hepburn was initially set to play opposite Grant, but had other commitments--so Suzy parker stepped in. She had never acted before, but was America's top photographic model at the time. I think that she did a good job, considering all the pressure that she was under. Grant's pairing with Jayne Mansfield in a few brief scenes--did not really work. The Studio was trying to give her some class by acting with Grant--but the character had no substance at all.
\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 is a level of high expectation when you sit down to watch a comedy with a cast headed by Cary Grant, Jayne Mansfield, Ray Walston and Werner Klemperer. Those expectations are buoyed further when the film is directed by Stanley Donen, whose comic touch was so evident in, among others, DAMN YANKEES!, BEDAZZLED and CHARADE. For the first five minutes, or so, it seems that those expectations might be met and then. Nothing. What is supposed to be a light comedy, plunges into leaden, heavy handed melodrama, with nary a chuckle to be had.
Relative newcomer Suzy Parker has often been criticized for her performance, or lack of one, in this film, but in a movie in which even the great Cary Grant frequently appears flat and wooden, attacking Parker seems unfair. Not even as bright a light as an Audrey Hepburn or Doris Day could have changed the fortunes of this meandering, dreary and wholly pointless script, which drags itself lamely along and drags the viewer's interest and patience down with it.
The rest of the cast, especially Ray Walston, keep trying to breath some life into the proceedings, but the horrible script is beyond resuscitation. The desperate, inane effort to drag a half hearted laugh from the numbed audience in the film's final moments only serves to add insult to injury.
This film is nothing but a major disappointment on all levels.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"