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\nIt is like what the title of this thread say. Only impression I got from that movie is that Marlee Matlin's character was always angry, so cynical, and so pathetic. Her character's first date with William Hurt's character where they were dancing were dumb. All in all, I've tried to finish watching the movie four times, and of all four times I fell asleep. I would keep watching that movie with one intention... to beat my problem with insomnia, because all it do is to put me to sleep. Sweet dream.
\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\nCAMILLE 2000
Aspect ratio: 2.35:1 (Panavision)
Sound format: Mono
Whilst visiting Rome, an amorous nobleman (Nino Castelnuovo) falls in love with a beautiful young libertine (Daniele Gaubert), but their unlikely romance is opposed by Castelnuovo's wealthy father (Massimo Serato), and Fate deals a tragic blow...
A sexed-up love story for the swinging Sixties, adapted from a literary source (Alexandre Dumas' 'La Dame aux Camelias') by screenwriter Michael DeForrest, and directed with freewheeling flair by Radley Metzger who, along with the likes of Russ Meyer and Joe Sarno, is credited with redefining the parameters of 'Adult' cinema throughout the 1960's and 70's. Using the scope format for the last time in his career, Metzger's exploration of 'la dolce vita' is rich in visual excess (note the emphasis on reflective surfaces, for example), though the film's sexual candor seems alarmingly coy by modern standards. Production values are handsome throughout, and the performances are engaging and humane (Castelnuovo and Gaubert are particularly memorable), despite weak post-sync dubbing. Though set in an unspecified future, Enrico Sabbatini's wacked-out set designs locate the movie firmly within its period, and Piero Piccioni's 'wah-wah' music score has become something of a cult item amongst exploitation devotees. Ultimately, CAMILLE 2000 is an acquired taste, but fans of this director's elegant softcore erotica won't be disappointed. Next up for Metzger was THE LICKERISH QUARTET (1970), which many consider his best 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\nThe Cowboys could leave you a little sore in the saddle. Definitely not one of Johns best movies. Don't get me wrong, with any John Wayne move there is always some good spots. And this one has it's fair share. But over all the picture moves slow and just doesn't live up to the aspirations it could have been. Bruce Dern again does an outstanding job as the villain. Roscoe Lee Brown is another bright spot in the movie. The kids in the movie were average but could have been cast better. This would be a good movie for the eight to fifteen year old movie goers.
This would be a good family move to watch with your children. Just be aware, there is a couple of scenes that you may want to take a look at before you let the young ones see it. But most kids that I know who have seen the movie like it. Maybe it's because they get to see kids their age do all the grown up work.
\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 time we live in when someone like this Joe Swan-whatever the hell is considered a good filmmaker...or even a filmmaker at all! Where are the new crop of filmmakers with brains AND talent??? We need them bad, and to hell with mumblecore!
This movie is about nothing, just as the characters in the film stand for nothing. It's this horrible, so-called Gen Y, that is full of bored idiots, some of which declare themselves filmmakers with out bothering to learn anything about the craft before shooting. Well, Orson Welles was a filmmaker. John Huston was a filmmaker. Fellini was a filmmaker. Dreyer was a filmmaker, etc. Current films like these show just how stupid young, so-called \"filmmakers\" can be when they believe going out with no script, no direction, no thought, no legit \"camerawork\" (everything shot horribly on DV), no craft of editing, no nothing, stands for \"rebellious\" or \"advanced\" film-making. Nope, it's called ignorance and laziness or just pure masturbation of cinema (and there actually is an in-your-face \"jack-off shot,\" so be ready).
Look at the early films of any accomplished \"indie\" filmmaker: Linklatter, Morris, Allen, Lynch, Hartley, Jarmusch, Jost, Lee, or Herzog...none made anything as tedious and aimless as this, yet Swan-whatever the hell, is still going to SXSW every year and hailed as some kind of gutsy, new talent. It's crap! I can't imagine anyone liking this, and everything else this so-called filmmaker has done (all seen by me) is just as bad (the newer stuff clearly made to appeal to a more mainstream audience, one of the sitcom calling). Steer clear, unless you're a friend or family member of those involved...on second thought, if you're a family member or friend you'd probably be embarrassed to see a family member or friend in such compromising situations...
Utter garbage. This isn't art. This is the ultimate opposite 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 film was absolutely awful, I even feel uncomfortable calling it a film. Its the typical \"mumblecore\" movie, with zero plot and a bunch of aimless whiny twenty somethings stumbling around trying to \"figure stuff out\". I have tried to give mumblecore a chance, but lets be honest its just horrible.
I am not out of sync with cinema, I appreciate Dogme95 films, Idioterne is one of my all time favorite films. So I do not mind if a film is cheaply made so long as there is some (ANY) substance.
Everything in this film is horrid, the acting, the writing (or was it all improvised?), the direction, but MOST of all, above everything else, the camera work was just plain and simple nonsense. The camera was never anywhere logical, there was no consistency. I got to admit being a guy I had heard there was nudity in this film so I thought to myself well even if its horrible at least there's nudity (yea I know, I'm a jerk). Well thanks to the uber crappy camera-work you never really get to see anything, and the things you do see, TRUST ME - YOU DO NOT WANT TO SEE. This film made me want to vomit on numerous levels.
The dialogue made me want to vomit, the camera-work made me want to vomit, but mostly the idea that this film was praised by some legit critics, well now that more than anything makes me want to vomit.
\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 admire 'Kissing on the Mouth' for its frankness  pubic hair cutting and masturbation, especially from the lead/director Joe Swanberg. They weren't afraid to show trueness to everyday \"private\" occurrences. Unfortunately, the film falls under the 'The Brown Bunny' realm, though with a slightly more developed plot of jealousy. Yes, it mirrors 'Bunny' with a whole lot of nothing going on, or too many cinematography shots focused (or sincerely unfocused) on absolutely nothing  feet, hands or genitals. Again, unfortunately, I can see why this film was released, and why people are renting: true life sex scenes and full frontal (equally, both male and female) nudity. Other than that, it was a complete waste of time. We quickly learn of a post-college male/female roommate pair in which the male has obvious feelings for the female that sees him as just a friend while continuously having sex with her ex-boyfriend. Other than that, we are subjected to the every-day events of their boring lives: she works for her parents; he works on an extremely uninteresting sexual awareness project on his computer. For this all to work, the dialogue has to be interesting and the acting real. Neither work and it's as boring as watching someone drive for an hour, i.e. 'The Brown Bunny.' The only actor that stands out is Kate Winterich, and even she does some questionable acting. (The DVD extra with her in front of a mike is actually worth watching/listening to.) Again, I admire the filmmakers, especially Swanberg, for baring it all and not being afraid to expose themselves or shower-habits, but overall the film falls flat. It has narrations that doesn't fit the scenes, too many boring everyday events and unconvincing acting that you wonder, other than the soft-porn factor, why you rented this.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOK, I kinda like the idea of this movie. I'm in the age demographic, and I kinda identify with some of the stories. Even the sometimes tacky and meaningless dialogue seems semi-realistic, and in a different movie would have been forgivable.
I'm trying as hard as possible not to trash this movie like the others did, but it's not that easy when the filmmakers weren't trying at all.
The editing in this movie is terrible! Possibly the worst editing I've ever seen in a movie! There are things that you don't have to go to film school to learn, leaning good editing is not one of them, but identifying a bad one is.
Also, the shot... Oh my God the shots, just awful! I can't even go into the details, but we sometimes just see random things popping up, and that, in conjunction with the editing will give you the most painful film viewing experience.
This movie being made on low or no budget with 4 cast and crew is not an excuse also. I've seen short films on youtube with a lot more artistic integrity! Joe, Greta, I don't know what the heck you were thinking, but this movie is nothing but a masturbation of both your egos. You should be ashamed of yourselves! In conclusion, this movie is like what a really lazy amateur porn movie will be if it was filled with 3 or 4 lousy sex scenes separated by long boring conversations and one disgusting masturbation scene. If that's not your kind of thing, avoid this at all cost!
\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 very old and cheaply made film--a typical low-budget B-Western in so many ways. Gary Cooper was not yet a star and this film is highly reminiscent of the early films of John Wayne that were done for \"poverty row\" studios. With both actors, their familiar style and persona were still not completely formed. This incarnation of Gary Cooper doesn't seem exactly like the Cooper of just a few years later (he talks faster in this early film, among other things).
However, unlike the average B-movie of the era, there are at least a few interesting elements that make the film unique (if not good). If you ever want to see the woman that was married to Errol Flynn for seven years, this is your chance. Lili Damita stars as the female love interest and this is a very, very odd casting choice, as she has a heavy accent (she was French) and wasn't even close to being \"movie star pretty\". Incidentally, she was also married to director Michael Curtiz.
But for me, the most memorable and weird aspect of the film is the seemingly gay subplot--sort of like a BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN from the 1930s (and we thought this was a NEW idea). Gary Cooper's character was raised by two men who hate women and do everything they can through much of the film to keep Cooper clear of females. This misogyny alone doesn't necessarily mean much, but there are so many clues throughout the film that indicate the makers of the film really were trying to portray them as a gay couple. In particular, towards the end, when one of them is killed, the other is shot by an arrow and holds off dying long enough to crawl over to the body of his fallen friend and then falls--with his arms cradled around him! This was pretty edgy stuff for the time and I think this makes this dull film really fascinating today! As far as Cooper and the plot go, the film is a bit of a disappointment and very skip-able. Unless you are curious about Damita or the homosexual undertones, do yourself a favor and find a better Western.
\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 motion picture was, in all likelihood, made in the year 1930 and released in 1931. I would surmise that talking motion pictures had great difficulty in making the transition from the silent era. Nevertheless, this particular Zane Grey plot appears to be very weak. Also, Gary Cooper was probably just learning to act. The result is something that would not be acceptable by today's standards. For 1931, maybe. For 2004, not acceptable. Some of the actors performed well. Sadly, the Indians always get the short end in these early westerns. They were living on the land long before the white man came, but according to twisted history, they had no right to defend themselves.
\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 actually a pretty bad film. The ideology is not as perverse as in those films Collins made later. However, my main misgivings about the film are that it is implausible and quite frankly boring for a long time. The whole concept of an ex-SAS man joining terrorists for no particular reason isn't very convincing and you can't help wondering why a group of highly organized terrorists (who later become pretty clueless) fall for it. The film starts with a pretty powerful scene but then meanders for quite a long time building up towards the great finale. Overall, I think Who dares wins could have been an interesting 45 minutes episode of The Professionals but the story doesn't carry a feature film. Although reasonably successful at the time this film initiated the demise of Collins' career who in the eighties mainly made cheap and dubious soldier-of-fortune or army films. Pity, because he actually is quite a versatile actor but at the end of the day Martin Shaw chose his roles more carefully and has a career that's still successful.
\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... just look at the poor Robert Webber character (great performance, once again!) who tries to wrestle a sub machine gun from one of the terrorists. Everything in this movie seems to be a little wrong. The biggest mistake in my opinion is the effort to give the action a firm footing in the actuality of the early 1980ies (the fundamental difference between this flick and the far more fantastic, ironic and therefore timeless Die Hard). The story comes through as a failed attempt to glorify the SAS commandos. Ideas like when a commando shouts heads down\" all good guys do it and all bad guys don't so that they can blast away ad lib (with a good conscience), that the main character does not get mown down by the gas masked commandos although he wears the same clothes and carries a weapon from their arsenal just seem to be unlikely and make it hard to take the movie seriously. And it just happens that it tries to be more than just fun. Don't talk about the toilet-mirror-signal episode ...
I don't mind the criticism of the Pacifist movement as a shield for evildoers and the arguments between the peace fanatics and the settled, even headed representatives of power in this movie. But the political comment is rather lame and uninspired. This is insofar regrettable as the movie features an early performance of Judy Davies. She plays the main fanatic and seems to have done extensive studies on the subject\". Anyway, her performance is a notch above that of the others and somehow I feel the movie let her down.
\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 1982, Two years after the Iranian Embassy Siege which involved the dramatic SAS Rescue from the Balconys, and with a War with Argentina over the Falkland Islands currently taking place, what better film to make than a Gung-Ho \"SAS\" Film that re-creates the Iranian Hostage siege, whilst using Britains Number one action hero of the day, Lewis Collins. throw in Edward Woodward and a few other Well known actors and you've got a winner on your hands?...Well maybe not! The film itself doesn't make the situation serious enough, whilst the acting is quite second rate. it's like a Movie long episode of \"The Professionals\", but without the formula. This film goes nowhere fast and is quite predictable. Maybe Cubby Brocoli watched this film and decided to ditch Lewis Collins as a Touted James Bond Replacement for Roger Moore. Watch it if your a fan of Lewis Collins or SAS stuff in General, if not, save your 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\nIn Europe, it's known as Who Dares Wins; in America, it's known as The Final Option, but under any title this ludicrous SAS action flick asks the audience to put their disbelief to one side for around two hours. I find it incredibly hard to comprehend how Lewis Collins (the hero here) was almost chosen as Roger Moore's successor in the Bond films.... this guy is so expressionless he'd struggle to get a job in a waxwork museum (as a waxwork!!!) Luckily, Judy Davis is on hand to partially redeem the affair with a meaty performance as a hard-line lady terrorist, and there's a climactic ten minute action sequence that is quite competently orchestrated by director Ian Sharp. Let it be added that it's a very, very, very long wait for these closing excitements to come around, and I can't honestly say that a near two hour wait for a bit of decent action was worth the effort.
SAS hard man Peter Skellen (Lewis Collins) goes undercover among a group of peace protesters who would like to see the end of nuclear weapons stock-piling. He meets their leader Frankie (Judy Davis), a strong-talking and opinionated woman who might just be capable of taking extraordinary measures to achieve her goals. Frankie's dedicated bunch violently lay siege to the American Embassy in London, demanding that a nuclear missile be fired at a naval base in Scotland (she believes that when the world witnesses a nuclear blast for real, everyone will be so appalled that they will join her campaign for disarmament). Unfortunately for Frankie, she makes the mistake of taking Skellen on her little embassy raid, and he plans to thwart their plan from inside with a little well-timed outside help from his SAS comrades.
The film is inspired - quite obviously - by the awesome SAS assault on the Iranian Embassy in 1981. Someone who saw that event on the news apparently thought it would be good to devise a film along similar lines. Unfortunately, the film is rather banal, with too much stupid dialogue and a heck of a lot of embarrassingly bad scenes (the arch-bishop's debate which descends into a riot, anyone?) Frankie's idea to bring about peace by instigating a nuclear blast is ridiculous anyway, so she becomes a laughable figure just when the audience is on the verge of viewing her as an interesting villain. Who Dares Wins tries to be a celebration of the military legend that is the SAS, but at the same time it dips into clumsy action clichés and ill-thought-out plotting. The result is a well-intentioned but wholly ineffective slice of Boy's Own absurdity.
\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\nOkay, what the hell kind of TRASH have I been watching now? \"The Witches' Mountain\" has got to be one of the most incoherent and insane Spanish exploitation flicks ever and yet, at the same time, it's also strangely compelling. There's absolutely nothing that makes sense here and I even doubt there ever was a script to work with, but somehow I couldn't turn it off. The scratching your head with confusion starts right away, with an opening sequence about an angry little girl that killed her mother's cat. So you think this film revolves on children possessed by evil forces? Heck no, because after this intro, the girl and her wickedness simply aren't mentioned anymore. Then cut to a guy, with the most impressively trimmed mustache you'll ever see, who breaks up with his girlfriend in a rather unsubtle way. When she asks him to spend his vacation with her, he promptly phones his employer requesting him any type of assignment! Great move. The movie finally starts now, as he travels to an isolated mountain area to photograph some peaks. Though not before he picks up a new girl (Patty Shepard) and photographs her topless! Throughout their journey, all kind of strange events occur that  you guessed it  are never explained. The girl wakes up in the middle of the forest, loud petrifying music plays everywhere and someone even steals the jeep! Really, car jacking witches? Apparently a coven of silent witches owns the mountains and they practice voodoo on trespassers. That's as close as I get describing the plot, but there's a good chance I'm way off More important here is the atmosphere! \"The Witches' Mountain\" is occasionally very creepy, with its spooky music and interesting cinematography. The supportive characters all look uncanny and the ravishing Patty Shepard plays a good heroine. This is the type of European horror film that could have been legendary, if only someone had bothered to write a structured screenplay.
\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 was a fairly creepy movie; I found the music to be effective for this. The photographs Mario took of the village were also unnerving. However, I had three problems with this film. One is that the lighting was very dark so some of the time it was hard to tell what was going on, but this may have just been my copy. The second is that the very beginning is not explained very well and I'm still not sure what was going on there. The third problem is that I didn't understand the ending, but apparently some people do. Of course there are also the usual problems of people doing stupid things, and the male lead is very 70s. All in all, watchable but not even close to being a favorite.
\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\nHighly implausible, unbelievable, and incoherent Spanish production about...well, let me see just how close I can get to it. The film opens with a woman having one of her cat's killed by a young girl. She then begs her lover to take her somewhere on his vacation. He calls work and demands that he loses his vacation time and she says he will pay for this. What relevance this plays out to is anybody's guess at the film's end, because the guy, a swarthy photographer, spies a beautiful Patty Shepard, queen of Spanish horror films it seems, taking her bikini top off momentarily so he can snap a picture, ask her out to lunch, and then to his assignment to Witches Mountain - for reasons again we are never privy to. Before they go, Patty must stop by the house and loud, \"eerie\" chanting echoes in our hero's ears. Again, this is never explained. The film goes on with these two stopping at an inn, going on to the mountain, and finally realizing why the mountain is called Witches Mountain. You know, there are several aspects to this film which make it better than a bad film. It has some atmosphere, some of the character actors are really quite good(especially the deaf innkeeper and the old woman), the leads are at least adequate, and the climax - though it makes absolutely no sense at all - is well-choreographed(literally) with the witches in white brassieres and long black hair. It just doesn't make any sense though, and that is a huge detractor to me. I could watch the film another ten times and still not know more now than I did after the first viewing. That is a major problem. The Witches Mountain is a curious film from the long line of cheap, atmospheric European horror films that blanketed that decade. If you can get more out of it than me, better power to 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\nI couldn't make sense of this film much of the time, and neither could anyone else, based on other reviews. The opening scene of this film has virtually nothing to do with the rest of the story. In it, a photojournalist with a big mustache cancels his vacation to get away from his girlfriend. He is assigned to photograph a mountain range. It's rumored to be haunted, but I couldn't tell whether he heard that from his boss or later in the film. On his way, he meets a beautiful writer (Patty Shepard) and convinces her to join him on his working trip. Throughout the film, there is this terrible music score, mostly consisting of noisy singing that makes you want to scream \"SHUT UP ALREADY!!!\" What really will gall a person is that the film always seems like it's about to become good, though it never does. There is beautiful mountain scenery and some genuinely creepy atmosphere. The inn and the silent, abandoned old buildings scattered on the mountain are rather ominous. The foggy nights look real, not like someone put an artificial fog machine on the set. And the idea, while not original, had potential. But it never does improve, at least not enough to be worthwhile. Here's how it goes, more or less. They stop at this inn run by a weird innkeeper (you expect him to be named Igor) with a hearing problem. There is a scene where the writer thinks a peeping tom is in her window, but the scene is so dark, I had no idea what was going on. Whether this was poor lighting or a poor film transfer is unknown to me. In any event, we never find out know what happened. There is a scene where she wanders off during the night. Whether she is sleepwalking or mesmerized by the witches of the title is never explained. Another scene which is never explained is when their car is stolen, then found again, with nothing stolen. They wind up in this apparently abandoned mountain village whose sole inhabitant is this seemingly kindly old woman. There are other things, including a chained wild man in a cave who is never explained, an attempt to sacrifice the writer in some way (will they kill her or brainwash her into joining them?), the witches themselves, a bunch of brunette women in white robes who don't show up until the last 15 minutes of the film and whose practices and beliefs are never explained. Even the closing scene doesn't make any sense. When all is said and done, most people will be saying, \"Huh?\"
\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 never quite sure where this thing was going. These people seem interested in what is going on on some mountain. They investigate, have narrow escapes, leave, come back, leave, put each other in danger, sleepwalk, get attacked by witches who have consistent wardrobes, etc., etc. The guy seems to like the girl, but leaves her unprotected numerous times. She gets taken off, he gets her back, leaves her again. You get the point. The whole thing seems to get around to some sort of sacrifice, I think, but I'm not sure, or turning people into witches, but I'm not sure. It's just dull and endless and not worth the time. There are some atmospheric scenes, but the print is so bad that there times when twenty seconds of blackness is not unusual. Is this caused by age or the overuse of night filters.
\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 admit, I had to fast forward through this poorly transferred DVD after about 30 minutes -- NOTHING was happening, and everyone has already described the \"plot.\" But has anyone mentioned the opening scene -- a butcher knife is stabbed through a wig and it's impaled on the grass in the front yard! I'm guessing the bratty kid did it, put it's never explained. Really trippy opening.
I wish this had been a better written or thought out film, because what we're left with if pretty daft and a movie that makes no sense isn't a \"clever\" movie, it's just a poorly executed film.
I would like to see a cleaned up version and if there was any missing footage, I would like to see if it would help. Otherwise, this is an odd little film that is best if fast-forwarded through!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am working my way through the Chilling Classics 50 Movie Pack Collection and THE WITCHES' MOUNTAIN (El Monte de las brujas)is something like the 17th movie in the set.
The movie had nothing to it to hold my attention at all. The plot was incoherent. The dialog seemed improvised. The acting was poor. The characters were unsympathetic.
The best scene is the beginning, with an exasperated woman that is driven to burning her seemingly bratty daughter. However, the only connection this scene has to the rest of the movie, is the lead character, Mario, who has the most stupendous mustache ever. But, that's it.
The film was not effective on any level. The music was too intrusive. The lighting was very dark, so that some scenes are almost completely black. It really is barely watchable -- what more can I say?
\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\nWelcome to movie 17 on the chilling classics 50 pack. Where we'll see, That's right. Another movie that makes absolutely no sense. Seriously, this movie had me so confused at the end, i thought i was rewatching \"At Dawn they Sleep.\" The plot seems simple enough....well that is until 3 seconds into the movie where a girl supposedly killed a cat and then...um.. explodes? i have no idea what happened. and that was BEFORE THE TITLE SCREEN. That's really sad when i can't even tell what happened in the first 3 minutes.
Anyway it stars a photographer with a big mustache who finds this girl after dumping his other girlfriend on the way to take pictures of something somewhere. so we get there but not before somebody steals their jeep to drive it 200 feet out of the way towards a town. suspicious? nah. so they decide to stay at this deserted village with one old lady. and then blah blah stuff happens and blah blah talking. The guy with the mustache goes out in the fog for some reason even though the old lady tells him not to. He gets lost and then finds his way back.
Oh, i forgot to mention this is all after an incredibly pointless 20 minutes of them staying in the house of a guy who looks like that buggy eyed guy from casablanca. Then they leave. There's really no point to this scene. It's really just padding. if you cut it out no one would have noticed or cared.
But sadly, that was actually the best part of the movie. wait. let me rephrase that. REALLY sadly that was the best part of the movie. because the rest is so confusing that i had to look on IMDb to find out what happened. But of course no one else knows so i'm SOL.
Seriously, the last 30 minutes of the movie were some of the most mindscrewing moments i've ever seen on film. They dressed her up in a dress, he gets kidnapped, then released, he runs back to the house, then at the end the witches are in the house and it ends? seriously. i have hardly ever been so confused in a movie. i mean, as bad as movies such as \"War of the Robots\" are, at least they MAKE SENSE. this movie doesn't even make the ATTEMPT to be coherent. the ending was as confusing as the end of \"At dawn they sleep\" and the plot was much more boring. This movie gets a 1 just for its sheer \"i have no idea what happened in this movie\"ness. \"Witches mountain\" gets 1 confused movie watcher out of 10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs someone else mentioned, it begins with a bizarre prologue about a little blond girl killing a cat. Then the main story: a photographer (Gaffari) and a writer (Shepard) meet by chance and take a trip into the mountains. First they spend the night at an inn where the slightly deaf landlord gets hollered at, with increasing irritation to the audience, by Gaffari. Once in the mountains they seek shelter again and are invited in by a kindly old lady who seems overly hospitable to strangers (Hansel and Gretel, anyone?) What happens next I will leave for the bold viewer to sort out because I most assuredly couldn't. Now, I like Eurohorror, and this woulda been better if only Artigot (writer AND director) had made some attempt at logical story telling. The backdrop (Pyrenees?) makes an excellent and intriguing location for mysterious and occult occurrences. The verdant peaks could easily obscure supernatural forces and those who command them. The photography is nice. Just wish the whole thing made sense. You can view this film at archive.org.
\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 engaging (which it shouldn't be) low-grade Spanish exploitation (quite tame I might add) looks good, but huh? Let me phrase that again 'huh?'. Actually the word 'huh?' would be going through your mind quite a lot. Nothing makes sense, nor does it try too. I just don't know if its complicatedly cryptic or just a convoluted muddle, but there's no denying how laconically uneventful, strange and wordy it feels.
Unrelated sequences tied (like that nasty opening involving a little girl, dead cat and fire) in to a sparse story involving photographer Mario (played by a chest-puffing John Caffari, who's mustache is a dead ringer for Nintendo's iconic Mario. What's the odds?) that ditches his girlfriend at home and encounters a young lady (a gorgeously fixating Patty Shepard) who he asks to come with him on an photography assignment, where at this remote mountain retreat they come across some hooded witches.
Look past the unhinged plot structure and wallow in what is simply a moody piece of atmospheric mechanisms and growing unease. Raul Artigot directs few jarringly unusual visuals and creepy passages, but for most part seems sporadically non-existent and unfocused just like his writing. Ramon Sempere's striking cinematography lenses the gracefully rich scenery as we take in the scenic views and let the time leisurely grind away. However there are certain areas where it was too dark to see what was going on. Fernando Garcia Morcillo's hauntingly bombastic and overwrought score blends terrifically with compulsively dense atmosphere created. The leads are capable, but there's also a sturdy bunch (the pick being Víctor Israel) of secondary performances.
Slow with little in the way of interest, but this dreamy set-up (that seems to go on and on) manages to keep you watching until its closing.
\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 got off to an interesting start. Down the road however, the story gets convoluted with a poor illustration of ancient black magic rituals. The male lead was very good , even though he gets the worst end of the stick in the climax. In comparison, this is \"Boomerang\" meets \"Extremities\".

\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 got off to an interesting start. Down the road however, the story gets convoluted with a poor illustration of ancient black magic rituals. The male lead was very good , even though he gets the worst end of the stick in the climax. In comparison, this is \"Boomerang\" meets \"Extremities\".
\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 typical Steele novel production in that two people who have undergone some sort of tragedy manage to get together despite the odds. I wouldn't call this a spoiler because anyone who has read a Steele novel knows how they ALL end. If you don't want to know much about the plot, don't keep reading.
Gilbert's character, Ophelia, is a woman of French decent who has lost her husband and son in an accident. Gilbert needs to stop doing films where she is required to have an accent because she, otherwise a good actress, cannot realistically pull off any kind of accent. Brad Johnson, also an excellent actor, is Matt, who is recovering from a rather nasty divorce. He is gentle, convincing and compelling in this role.
The two meet on the beach through her daughter, Pip, and initially, Ophelia accuses Matt of being a child molester just because he talked art with the kid. All of them become friends after this episode and then the couple falls in love.
The chemistry between the two leads is not great, even though the talent of these two people is not, in my opinion, a question. They did the best they could with a predictable plot and a script that borders on stereotypical. Two people meet, tragedy, bigger tragedy, a secret is revealed, another tragedy, and then they get together. I wish there was more to it than that, but there it is in a nutshell.
I wanted mindless entertainment, and I got it with this. In regard to the genre of romantic films, this one fails to be memorable. \"A Secret Affair\" with Janine Turner is far superior (not a Steele book), as are some of Steele's earlier books turned into 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\nAs I said, the book was pretty good and this might have been a good movie if Melissa Gilbert hadn't been so horrible and unbelievable in the lead roll. What kind of accent was that suppose to be anyway? It sounded the same as her horrible Russian accent in another movie that I have seen her in. Every time she opened her mouth I cringed. It took 3 tries before I was able to watch the entire movie. Brad Johnson was good as the other lead.
I really liked the beach location scenes. They added some much needed brightness to take your mind off of Melissa Gilberts depressing portrayal. I think they could have used San Francisco views more to their advantage though. It looked like the night scenes were actually SF, but I could be wrong. I don't recall the character in the book being this depressing.
Please keep Melissa Gilbert out of any future movies that require an accent!
\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\nLike all the Taviani Brothers films, this one looks great, but it is rotten to the core with false romanticism, and coincidences heap upon each other in some facsimile of a \"story\". In actuality, this is really just a sentimentally cheap tear jerker posing as an intellectually distinguished art 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\nEven by 1942 standards of movie-making the setup which HER CARDBOARD LOVER presents was dated to the extreme. The machinations of one half of a pair (of husband/wife, ex-husband/ex-wife) to get the other back at the threat of marriage to another, divorce, or an eventual separation by means of jealousy, humiliation, or other schemes had been done much better in classics such as HIS GIRL Friday and THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. Both of these movies features women with a strong, indomitable screen presence and who played independent, proto-feminist characters. In both movies, both women were estranged/divorced from their (witty) first husbands and set to marry colorless men who were their exact opposite, and both would be bamboozled into rejecting their soon-to-be husbands and re-igniting their passion for each other.
The plot in HER CARDBOARD LOVER switches the gender: here, it's Norma Shearer in the Cary Grant role out, this time, to ward off an ex-boyfriend (George Sanders) by means of hiring Robert Taylor to pose as her gigolo. The problem is, Shearer is much too old to be playing a role more suited to an actress in her mid-to-late twenties; Sanders is about as involved as a piece of furniture for the most -- any man who would be in love with his fiancée, on seeing a strange man come out of her bathroom as happens here, would knock the lights out of him and cause a huge scene. Not here. And Robert Taylor plays his part as if he were trying to channel Cary Grant half the time, not in speech inflections but in overall essence.
But the worst part of it is Shearer herself. For an actress used to parts which gave her a sense of intellectual sexiness and dramatic presence, playing Consuelo Craydon seems to put her into throes of complete over-acting, over-emoting, and over-gesturing which, while still a part of her style of acting and more appropriate ten years earlier, makes her look like an extremely mannered performer wrenching the joke out of a situation like water from a fairly dry sponge. It only fuels the fires that tell the theory which gives Irving Thalberg the maker of her career and chooser of (most of her) roles; why she passed on roles such as Charlotte Vale and Mrs. Miniver on mega-hits NOW VOYAGER and MRS. MINIVER is a mystery, but then again, most accounts also state that by this time she had just burnt out from acting, that she'd had lost interest in the whole thing altogether and it's no secret that anyone who has experienced this sort of thing has essentially lost focus and can't wait until retirement or the end of a contract is near to leave as soon as possible. Such could be the case here. She seems lost, she seems tired, she seems ill at ease, going through autopilot instead of living the part. After this film she would make no more, but would be responsible of discovering Janet Leigh who would come into her own as a screen star during the late 40s and into the 60s.
\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\nSongwriter Robert Taylor (as Terry) is \"dizzy, slap-happy\" and can't see straight over otherworldly Norma Shearer (as Consuelo). \"She makes the sun shine, even when it's raining,\" Mr. Taylor explains. But, Mr. Taylor gets a lump in his throat whenever he gets near Ms. Shearer. Finally, at the Palm Beach casino Shearer frequents, Taylor proclaims \"I love you!\" Shearer brushes him off, as she is engaged to George Sanders (as Tony). However, to settle a gambling debt, Shearer hires Taylor to pose as \"Her Cardboard Lover\", to make Mr. Sanders jealous.
This film's title invites the obvious and appropriate three-word review: \"Her Cardboard Movie\". It is most notable as the last film appearance for Shearer, one of the biggest stars in the world from \"He Who Gets Slapped\" (1924, playing another Consuelo) to \"The Women\" (1939). To be fair, this was likely the kind of Shearer film MGM believed audiences wanted to see. However, the part is unflattering.
Plucked and powered, Taylor and Shearer were better off in \"The Escape\" (1940). If Shearer had continued, she might have become a better actress than \"leading lady\"; apparently, she was no longer interested, and certainly didn't need the money. Taylor has a great scene, reciting Christina Rossetti's \"When I am Dead, My Dearest\" while threatening to jump from Shearer's balcony, as directed by George Cukor.
**** Her Cardboard Lover (6/42) George Cukor ~ Norma Shearer, Robert Taylor, George Sanders
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn this forgettable trifle, the 40-ish Norma Shearer plays a fluttery, girlish socialite in Monte Carlo, caught in a tussle between George Sanders and Robert Taylor. It would be tempting to blame this movie's failure on the dull, talky script, or director George Cukor, who never seems interested in livening up the film's generally comatose state. Mostly, though, it's the fault of Shearer herself, who desperately wanted to keep playing \"young\" parts as long as she could get away with it. Inadvertently, this makes \"Her Cardboard Lover\" a bizarre monument to an aging woman's vanity.
\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\"Her Cardboard Lover\" is Norma Shearer's last movie. She quit the movies and, I think, joined the Board of Directors at MGM. That was a good move on her part. \"Her Cardboard Lover\" was talky and boring in parts. It was obvious there were only a handful of actors with speaking parts so they had a lot of dialogue to speak to keep this turkey afloat.
The story was a good idea about a wealthy woman (Norma Shearer) hiring a man (Robert Taylor) to make her playboy fiancee (George Sanders)jealous. I am surprised that the director, George Cukor, did not cut many of the talky scenes between Ms. Shearer and Mr. Taylor. Mr. Cukor served Ms. Shearer well in \"The Women\" but not in this movie.
The best performance in the movie was given by Robert Taylor. During Mr. Taylor's career, he was given his best comedy roles in this movie and \"When Ladies Meet\" in 1941. In 1942, he gave his best comedy performance in \"Her Cardboard Lover\" and, up to then, his best dramatic performance in \"Johnny Eager.\" He had a busy year. I think of all the actors at MGM, Mr. Taylor worked with all the major and minor actresses on the lot. Also, MGM gave Mr. Taylor all types of movies to make - most of them were successful. That is why MGM kept him for 25 years.
Mr. George Sanders was very good as a socialite heel. He played a similar role eight years later in \"All About Eve\" for which he won an Oscar for a supporting role. As for Ms. Shearer, this was one of her worst performances, she was not funny and too dramatic for this comedy. It is strange that she made a great comedy in 1939, \"The Women\", and gave her best performance. It was obvious that she was too old looking for her younger leading men in \"Her Cardboard Lover.\" Also, it didn't help that some of her clothes were awful.
Too bad she and Mr. Taylor did not make another dramatic movie like their last movie together, the superb \"Escape\". The same comments about this movie can be said of another movie, \"Personal Property\" that Mr. Taylor made in 1937 with Jean Harlow. It was too talky, boring, and the actress looked old. Ms. Harlow looked ill throughout the movie and nobody in Hollywood noticed to tell her to see a doctor, so in 1937, she died at age 26. What a waste! She was becoming a good actress and getting better roles.
\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 boob at MGM thought it would be a good idea to place the studly Clark Gable in the role of a Salvation Army worker?? Ironically enough, another handsome future star, Cary Grant, also played a Salvation Army guy just two years later in the highly overrated SHE DONE HIM WRONG. I guess in hindsight it's pretty easy to see the folly of these roles, but I still wonder WHO thought that Salvation Army guys are \"HOT\" and who could look at these dashing men and see them as realistic representations of the parts they played. A long time ago, I used to work for a sister organization of the Salvation Army (the Volunteers of America) and I NEVER saw any studly guys working there (and that includes me, unfortunately). Maybe I should have gotten a job with the Salvation Army instead!
So, for the extremely curious, this is a good film to look out for, but for everyone else, it's poor writing, sloppy dialog and annoying moralizing make for a very slow film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"