empathielabs/imbd_dataset_v0 huggingface dataset:
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
As an avid Gone With the Wind fan, I was disappointed to watch the original movie and see that they had left out many important characters. Luckily, the film on its own was a wonderful piece. When the book Scarlett came out, I read it in hopes of following two of my favorite literary characters farther on their journey together. While the book lacks any true quality, it remains a good story, and, as long as I was able to separate it from the original, was and still is enjoyable. However, I consider the six hours I spent watching the "Scarlett" miniseries to be some of the worst-spent hours of my life. Discrediting any of the original character traits so well-formed in Margaret Mitchell's book, this series also turned the story of the sequel into one of rape, mistrust, murder, and misformed relationships that even the book Scarlett stayed away from. The casting for many of the characters refused to examine the traits that had been so well-formed in both the original novel and film, and even carried through in the second book, and again leaves out at least one incredibly crucial character. In the novel, Scarlett O'Hara Butler follows her estranged husband Rhett Butler to Charleston under the guise of visiting extended family. After coming to an "arrangement" with Rhett, she agrees to leave, and proceeds to reconnect with her O'Hara relatives in Savannah. Eventually, she accompanies her cousin Colum, a passionate leader of the Fenian Brotherhood, to Ireland, to further explore her family's "roots that go deep," and is eventually named "The O'Hara," the head of the family. While her duties as The O'Hara keep her engaged in her town of Ballyhara, Scarlett ventures out into the world of the English landowners, and instantly becomes a sought-after guest at many of their parties. She, having been scorned by Rhett time and time again, eventually agrees to marry Luke, the earl of Fenton, until Rhett comes along in a clichéd "night-on-white-horse" - type of a rescue. The "Scarlett" miniseries fails even to do this justice. Raped by her fiancé and scorned by her family, the series shows Scarlett thrown in jail after she is blamed for a murder her cousin committed.
I heartily advise anyone considering spending their day watching this to rethink this decision.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
...But not this one! I always wanted to know "what happened" next. We will never know for sure what happened because GWTW was Margaret's baby. I am a lifelong fan of Gone With the Wind and I could not have been more repulsed by the movie. I did compare "Scarlett" to the original GWTW because any film worth following GWTW needed to be on the same quality level as the first. Rhett was cast beautifully, although NO ONE will ever compare to Mr. Gable. I am also a strict Vivien Leigh fan!! She WAS Scarlett. She fit the bill. Not another actress in this lifetime or another will ever fit the same shoes but with "Scarlett" the job could have been done better. Not enough thought went into finding the proper Scarlett, that was evident.
Overall, something to look to but if you want to know the what happened to Scarlett and Rhett, I suggest writing it yourself or finding fan fiction. This movie is not worth the time.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I am insulted and angry over the idea that a sequel to 'Gone with the Wind' should EVER have been undertaken. Having expressed that, I have no problem with the quality of the acting or the actors in this film. The performers are talented people whose talents were wasted on this piece of garbage. The hype surrounding this book and film just happens to be an exercise in futility. I think it will go down as one of the misguided films of Hollywood. I don't believe that the beloved characters created by Margaret Mitchell should have been soiled by the ideas and interpretations of another writer. The film and the book should be on the list of worst ideas conceived in the world of publishing and film-making. The sad thing is that people actually made money off of this tripe.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Alexandra Ripley wrote a horrible sequel to Margaret Mitchell's masterpiece book published in the 1930's. Margaret Mitchell's heirs sold out their rights and for big bucks allowed Alexandra Ripley to write a piece of junk book even worse than Barbara Cortland romance novels. I was a huge fan of Margaret Mitchells book and the fake sequel by Alexandra Ripley was written just to cash in for money.
Although I always admired the acting talent of Joanne Kilmer and Timothy Dalton, this is a really terrible film. The script is horrible and full of clichés. Ann Margarets cameo as Belle Watling is so awful I wanted to slap her.
The only worthwhile thing in the movie is Sean Bean who gives a masterful bravura performance as the sexy, feral villain - Lord Fenton. Sean Bean's performance is along the lines of "The Man You Love to Hate" and portrays an unsafe sex symbol.
But Sean Bean is only in the first half of the movie so you then have to be tormented with watching an incredibly long 6 hour movie with an insufferably boring script.
Don't waste your money on this film, unless you are a hard core Sean Bean fan and just watch it for his wonderful performance.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Margaret Mitchell spins in her grave every time somebody watches this mess! Fine costuming and sets can't even begin to overwhelm lackluster performances by Joanne Whalley (as the title character) and the ever-bland Timothy Dalton (as Rhett). Even worse than the acting--and perhaps partially explaining it--is the script, which is astoundingly cliched and predictable. Add to that hellishly bad script a score that'll have you cringing, and you've got a disaster I wouldn't wish on any viewer. SCARLETT is just amazingly lousy, and I can't imagine how it ever got made, much less made it to video.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This movie was NOTHING like the book. I think the writer of the screenplay must have wanted the job of writing the sequel to Gone with the Wind and been turned down. This was his or her way of getting their ideas in anyway. The only similarity between this movie and the story it was portraying was the names of the principle characters and the location of the main action. None of the events that are shown in the movie happened that way in the book. For a Gone with the Wind fan (of both the book and the movie) this was deeply disappointing. If you loved the book Scarlett, don't watch this movie hoping to see it played out on the screen. They only share the title in common.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Summary: Not worth the film
As an avid Gone With the Wind fan, I was disappointed to watch the original movie and see that they had left out many important characters. Luckily, the film on its own was a wonderful piece. When the book Scarlett came out, I read it in hopes of following two of my favorite literary characters farther on their journey together. While the book lacks any true quality, it remains a good story, and, as long as I was able to separate it from the original, was and still is enjoyable. However, I consider the six hours I spent watching the "Scarlett" miniseries to be some of the worst-spent hours of my life. Discrediting any of the original character traits so well-formed in Margaret Mitchell's book, this series also turned the story of the sequel into one of rape, mistrust, murder, and misformed relationships that even the book Scarlett stayed away from. The casting for many of the characters refused to examine the traits that had been so well-formed in both the original novel and film, and even carried through in the second book, and again leaves out at least one incredibly crucial character. In the novel, Scarlett O'Hara Butler follows her estranged husband Rhett Butler to Charleston under the guise of visiting extended family. After coming to an "arrangement" with Rhett, she agrees to leave, and proceeds to reconnect with her O'Hara relatives in Savannah. Eventually, she accompanies her cousin Colum, a passionate leader of the Fenian Brotherhood, to Ireland, to further explore her family's "roots that go deep," and is eventually named "The O'Hara," the head of the family. While her duties as The O'Hara keep her engaged in her town of Ballyhara, Scarlett ventures out into the world of the English landowners, and instantly becomes a sought-after guest at many of their parties. She, having been scorned by Rhett time and time again, eventually agrees to marry Luke, the earl of Fenton, until Rhett comes along in a clichéd "night-on-white-horse" - type of a rescue. The "Scarlett" miniseries fails even to do this justice. Raped by her fiancé and scorned by her family, the series shows Scarlett thrown in jail after she is blamed for a murder her cousin committed.
I heartily advise anyone considering spending their day watching this to rethink this decision.



assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
A VERY un-Tom and Jerry short. Jerry narrates this tale that revolves around Tom the cat falling in love and losing her to his rival, Butch. Tom is best friends with Jerry here which irked me a bit. The cartoon is also presented in Cinemascope. Overall I found this Tom and Jerry cartoon sad and depressing. The should have just put "Puss gets the boot" on the DVD instead and I would've been happy. This experimental animated short can be found on disc 2 of Warner Brother's 2-DVD Spotlight Collection set. It's the last one on the set and I'm hoping that Warner Brothers chooses to release a second Volume soon.
My Grade: C-


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I will just start with some quotes from other reviewers that describes it the best.
"This is easily one of the most overrated films of the year and probably the worst film Tarantino has ever done." "The ONLY good thing in this movie was the performance of Mr. Waltz".
"So I was really disappointed, and seeing this movie on place #40 of the greatest movies of all time is the only thing about this, that leaves me with my mouth opened" Now for more details go and read "Hated it" reviews.
One thing I hate about a movie is when it treats audience as bunch of dumb people. (Spoiler ahead). Now I know Tarantino's style is based on fantasy and fictitious plots, but come on, Adolf Hitler and 200 top Nazis Officers will be in attendance of a movie premier in occupied France and you have only two guards in the whole theater and the surroundings? Where also an American-African walks around freely with steel pipes locking doors and setting fire. These 2 guards are then executed in seconds opening the door for our 2 "heroes" to slay Hitler at point blank with around 100 rounds... very dumb. At least, challenge our intelligence and create a smarter plot to kill one of the most feared tyrants of all time (Go watch Valkyrie). Besides, Mike Myers impersonation of a British general is more realistic and authentic than the guy doing Hitler, just picture that.
What ruined it further, is that the only smart and powerful character, which nailed everyone in the movie, with his psychological and mind bending interrogations, ends up to be effortlessly tricked by the most mindless character in the movie.
After watching the movie, I was sympathizing with Nazis, who were portrayed to have more bravery and humanity than our Basterds!!! Imagine that.
My recommendations, if you have insomnia, 2hrs 33 min to waste or you want to give your mind a break, go watch this movie.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Seriously disappointing performance by Brad Pitt and Q T, the plot is very superficial and lame, and, unless indirectly intended, this film actually glorify the Nazis and portrays them as men of honor, and show that the Jewish people are deceiving, cant keep promises and bloody vicious. ((THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS SPOILER)) Hitler together with the most notorious Nazis are attending a stupid plot less movie about the killing of 300 Italian soldiers in a small cinema theater in Paris is unbelievably ridiculous. the Nazis laughing and hooraying each killing in the movie as if watching a basketball game STUPID, the deal at the end is lame. whats really appalling is that the movie earned great reviews and is ranked here in the 40s amongst the greatest 250 films. will not be surprised if it harvested many awards, including Oscars, as well. the movie is simply a kissing ass to the Jewish people, but hey reconsider, its not even doing a great job doing that. it truly dwarfed the whole Nazi - Jews conflict and a pure insult to all who fought and suffered from the tyranny of the Nazis.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Previous Tarantino movies were from a guy in love with other movies. This one is from a guy in love with his own writing. It isn't Inglorious, its disgusting.
I absolutely hated Inglorious Basterds. The entire point of a film is to entertain - if u call bashing people's heads and removing their scalps entertaining!!!! - and if there is one unforgivable sin a movie can commit, it is extreme boredom or disgust.
The movie is just a collection of endless and excruciatingly boring and disgusting scenes of people talking at tables in various languages. There is even one scene where 3 people talk for nearly 45 minutes at the same table, before, thankfully they are all shot. I wished they would have been killed off after 5 minutes. Even Woody Allen knows when to shut the F**K up.
This table talk style is a Tarantino hallmark, but in other films, I actually cared about what they were saying and the people who were talking. Here, I couldn't care less. All of Quentin's films display an enormous confidence, particularly Jackie Brown. But here there is a pervasive feeling in every scene, Tarantino had no idea where he was going with the film.
Is it violent? Sure there's torture and scalping galore, but you'd have to remind me. Thankfully, the film was so thin, I didn't even remember I had seen it earlier in the day when until I saw a review headline on MSNBC.
He's out of gimmicks and apparently dying to write a novel. But do us a favor QT and spare us the movie.
I walked out of this movie halfway through and I would never recommend anyone seeing it no matter what a die-hard quarantino fan he or she is.
I give it 0 / 10.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I deliberately did not read any reviews of this movie on IMDb before I watched it because I really wanted to see it and make up my own mind. I have been a big fan of QT in the past, I think we can all agree he has made some great movies, but lately he seems to have been overcome by his own mystique and disappeared up his own fundament. This "movie" proves that. It consists of few scenes of the Basterds at work. It consists instead mostly of long, tedious, boring stretches of conversation between people that, after a while, you realise you just do not give a stuff about. It's longwinded and lacks any of the great sparkling dialogue that QT has been responsible for in the past. The entire movie is anticlimactic. There is no tension - what is going to happen in every scene is telegraphed so clearly in advance that by the time it happens you just don't care. Honestly folks, don't believe the hype. This is a very boring movie and you will be missing nothing if you don't see it.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I am sorry folks, but I have to say I really cannot understand the overwhelming feelings everybody gets by seeing this movie...
When I saw it I looked at my watch to know how much more time I had to spend with this Kindergarten nonsense.
So why this verdict?
First of all: The movie tells a story that doesn't deliver any excitement! It is not even the amusingly distorted reality of a Quentin Tarantino we used to know. This story could have come out of every little kid's head. It doesn't have anything intelligent in it, neither anything inventive and it goes on for hours... the story has appropriate content for about 30 min. The rest is just awfully enhanced scenes that are supposed to leave a somewhat cool image. Doesn't work. Even the previously seen cutbacks that Tarantino often uses just confuse and are not in any way cool.
Second: Some guys go to Germany and kill Nazis. Ah really? Do they? The only Nazis they killed were a handful of guys, one of them being man enough to rather die than betray his companions. Is this the ugly face Tarantino wanted to give the Nazis? A brave soldier that is more valiant than any of the "Basterds"? Certainly not --> fail And what happens to the terrible Nazi-killing Basterds? Well they all get killed by Nazis except two who are taken hostages --> wow, what terrible revengeful monsters they are...
Third: Any characters? Yes one! The only role and the only gleam of hope for the entire movie is Chritoph Waltz who is building a truly deep and very detailed character here. Great acting! Brad Pitt really sucks and is completely out-acted by Waltz. Never seen a such a weak performance by Pitt... And the rest? Well, some Germans you've never seen before and will never see after. When the movie started and I saw the group of the seven Basterds I hoped to see something like the "Magnificent Seven": A group of extraordinary guys, each one with a distinct character, making their way to their destiny fearless and knowing... I was then very disappointed, when I saw the "inglourious Basterds". No details at all, no characters, no real men, just some random guys you won't remember who were not given any chance to differentiate themselves... But in fact you don't even need to differentiate, cause the "Inglourious Basterds" except Pitt hardly play any role in this movie...
So I was really disappointed, and seeing this movie on place #40 of the greatest movies of all time is the only thing about this, that leaves me with my mouth opened...


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I will never go to another Tarantino movie again. The entire film was worthless. My wife and I both regret that we didn't get up and walk out at the first indication of what the film was really going to be about (which is still hard to determine since it was such a ridiculous storyline...blood, guts, and violence seemed to be the only real theme), but we kept hoping there'd be something redeeming just around the corner. Unfortunately, there wasn't because there wasn't anything that made sense! We, along with a lot of the other people in the audience walked out of the theater muttering "that was disgusting", "what a waste of time", "I should've walked out", "where was the comedy", "that was pathetic", etc. It actually made us, the audience, voice our disgust and the feeling that we had just been thoroughly ripped off. The only thing of merit in the film was the costuming and the acting ability of almost everyone in the film....there just wasn't a plot/script worthy of their talents. I rate this a 1 because there isn't a 0. I can't quite understand how anyone could rate this higher than a 0!


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Chapter One: Once Upon a Time At A Table (1941)
In which a German Nazi and a French Dairy Farmer talk at a table for 20 minutes; first in French, then in English.
Chapter Two: Three Years Of Inglorious Basterds In Sixteen Minutes... Without Tables (Mostly)
In which an American Lieutenant talks to his newly formed 8 man Jewish- American commando unit. There are no tables present. Cut to Adolf Hitler, three years later. He is angry at his men's inability to deal with the Basterds. Hitler does have a table. We return to the Basterds in a flashback. Again, distinct lack of table-based content.
Chapter Three: German Night in Paris... At A Table... Talking
In which a Jewish woman who escaped from under the table in Chapter One has somehow managed to become the proprietress of a cinema. The Jewish woman talks to an Actor at a table in a bar. Later, the Jewish woman, the Actor, Joseph Goebbels and a Translator talk at a table in a Restaurant. The Actor and Goebbels talk in German. The Translator translates the German into French. The Jewish woman replies in French. The Translator translates the French into German. Goebbels decides to hold a film premiere at the Jewish woman's cinema. The Actor and Goebbels leave. The Nazi (who talked with the Dairy Farmer at a table for twenty minutes back in Chapter One) arrives. He talks with the Jewish woman at the table. He leaves. The Jewish woman breaks down; overcome with emotion at having spent so long talking at a table.
Chapter Four: Operation Table Talking
In which Austin Powers sends a British Officer to join the Basterds and an Actress on a mission to talk in German at a table in a Tavern. After 21 minutes of talking at a table they all shoot each other. The actress survives but spends the next 5 minutes lying on a table talking.
Chapter Five: Revenge of the Giant Table
In which, The Basterds decide to continue the operation by talking in Italian and suicide bombing the cinema. The Nazi takes the Actress into a small room where they sit next to a table. A hoe that he found under the table in the Tavern fits her so he kills her. Then he takes two of the Basterds to a big room, where they sit and talk at a table. Meanwhile, the cinema burns down, Hitler is riddled with bullets and the two Basterds blow themselves up for no good reason at all.
The End


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen.
What is the purpose of this movie? A bunch of Americans enters Nazi-occupied France and starts slaughtering Germans. You see them scalping their enemies and beating them to death with baseball bats. While making jokes, of course.
Some will say that this movie is a parody of a certain genre. For a parody, it is neither witty nor funny. The contents is zero. It is exceptionally brutal and disgusting. Underneath lies a subtle political message, because it is again "the good guys" killing "bad Nazis". The whole plot is unthinkable if you turn it around. Could you imagine a storyline where Nazis (while making jokes) kill everybody in the Warsaw ghetto with flamethrowers? Probably not, but this movie is exactly about that, with the exception that is satisfies the weird moral expectations of a certain audience: slaughtering people is so cool when done by the right people.
This movie only works because of the hidden Nazi-ideology underneath. It does not regard the enemy as people. And if the latter is supposed to be an element of the fun, I am happy to say that this kind of fun will always remain a mystery to me.
Another mystery is how such violence can fascinate the American crowd while a bit of nudity will freak them out. But if a naked body is pornography, this movie with all its brutality is pure pornography at its very worst.
Inglorious Basterds is a pointless, boring and tasteless waste of time and money.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I was debating between this movie and 2012 but chose Inglourious Basterds due to it's amazingly high IMDb rating. I must say now, what a disappointment. I expected a certain amount of gratuitous violence, but I also expected a lot of witty dialog. I got a huge dosage of the former, but not nearly enough of the latter. I felt shortchanged. The ratio between violence to plot is very important and I think this movie gets it totally wrong. And the plot? It's that believable or really all that entertaining either. Save your time and money. I can't believe what this rating says for the gory and violent tastes of the modern masses.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Hooray for Title Misspellings! After reading reviews and contemplating, my girlfriend and I confirmed that this movie is an utter piece of trash. This movie lost her as one of those Rare Tarantino fans.I wish it were made on nitrate film, and all the copies piled neatly underneath a chain-smoking Tarantino fanboy. The literally needless violence, the plot holes, Tarantino's table-itis sans drama, and absent character development made this a thoroughly painful, glorified montage.
What acting was there? And how much of that was just because I was too busy reading the subtitles? I watch my share of fansubbed anime, and kudos for the attempt at authenticity, but it was overdone for an English-language movie. With the glaring historical inadequacies, the constant reading killed what acting there was.
Why pay money for a narrator who will have absolutely no tie to any of the characters, plot, themes, setting, or anything involved in the movie? When the movie needs that sort of off hand explanation, it's foreshadowing the utter filth that follows.
Historical Research - while it was sprinkled with interesting factiods, used the proper costumes and props for the soldiers, this movie stretched the truth beyond belief even for historical fiction. Kudos on Mata Hari reference, though using it as foreshadowing was a bit much. Mata Hari was executed by a firing squad, not choked in an isolated room. This ruined any sense that the reference may have had.
Other reviews mention more than half a dozen homages to other artists in the first 15 minutes. Considering the audience, all these and other references were completely lost on many who would bother to see this movie, and all who would enjoy it.
I'm confused by his choices of when to start a scene, end it, and what needs to be included. In a movie promoted as an action film, why did it take nearly 20 minutes to set up any sort of testosterone?
What I believe to be the message was trite. The idea of rats and how we act on a primal nature against them, and "who is the rat?" were at best clichéd, but at worst not realized. Mention of American camps for the Japanese and German Americans would have added legitimacy to this question to the moral high ground. Literally every character in the film that gets a speaking role was caught up in their own legend. Is that the world in which Tarantino lives?
I'm glad I didn't pay to see this one. I regret that I bothered to view it at all, even with well-meaning hosts. There was a rich base of ideas to develop, but none were realized.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Every movie Quentin Tarantino has made has become progressively worse. I'd like to believe that most people would agree with that statement, but seeing as "Inglourious(sic) Basterds(sic)" has an 8.5/10 from over 100,000 ratings, it doesn't seem like the general movie-going public has any sense. Even his best work, Reservoir Dogs, wasn't a 'masterpiece.' The trouble is that claiming that you like Tarantino's work has become trendy. As soon as that happens, you get boatloads of people ready and willing to hop on another bandwagon. They will ignore laughably terrible acting, and utterly self-indulgent writing just so they can be part of the exclusive club called "everyone." This movie is so terrible, that I swear it must be some sort of twisted joke by Tarantino to see how much torture his fans will tolerate and still praise him. Like another reviewer has already said: "Previous Tarantino movies were from a guy in love with other movies. This one is from a guy in love with his own writing." I couldn't agree more. This movie is nothing more than self-indulgent and in-joke riddled writing paired with acting ability taken right out of a high school play. But, thanks to the general movie going public, I'm sure it will still go down as one of the best movies ever made. Bravo, Tarantino. You've pulled-off one of the best practical jokes of all time.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
The first half of this movie was quite good. It was interesting and suspenseful. The second half was pretty bad. The comic book revenge story came full circle and we see lots of comic Nazi characters and some badly acted "good guys" blowing them away. There's a lot of violence in this movie. I'm not squeamish about violence but I think it should at least have some purpose in a movie. There was little purpose to the violence here except to create a genre film where we see lots of people getting mowed down with rifles. We're somehow supposed to be amused by this.
I watched Reservoir Dogs recently. There was a movie where violence was employed effectively. It was realistic within the world the movie created. There were never any over-the-top sound effect. It was a crime movie which played it straight. Inglorious Basterds should have played it straight but didn't. I was rolling my eyes at how the violence was exaggerated with sound effects and extra bullets to the head and face.
None of the back-story of any of the Basterds is really explained either, they're simply Nazi hunters. We don't really get to like any of them either because they're too busy cutting scalps off and shooting people in the face. It's all about "revenge" and very little else.
There was 2 1/2 hours to work with here but few of the Basterds were really examined in depth. This seems like it was simply a revenge flick pure and simple. We saw that in Tarantino's last flick, "Death Proof" which I didn't care for either. It suffered the same problems. The characters were almost interchangeable.
The first half again, was pretty good. I wanted to see the exploits of the Inglorious Basterds across Europe. I was presented with a much lamer movie about the resistance movement plotting revenge against some comic book Nazis when they all go to one movie premiere in France.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Bad bad bad....
This is another stupid movie. still don't know what is the language of this movie? is itEnglish or french or German!?!! you have to be speaking all 3 languages ( at least ); preffered Italian too to understand it. poor quality translation with very hard to read font. showing a very stupid way of ending this movie!! in the mid of the movie you will lose interest in this movie and start to think why am i watching this?! brad pitt is proving that his acting talent is going down.
Maybe this is the movie number 1000000 that talks about Nazis. is there any other subjects that Hollywood can produce?! I think this movie is another American propaganda to show super heros American. I expect next Hollywood movie is American hero will save Jesus!!!


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This movie is not worth a descend review, it just made me decide that I am not going to go see the next Tarantino film. And I used to love Tarantino's films.
Not artsy, not entertaining, not witty, not funny, nothing, just dull and stupid. If this movie would have been Tarantinos first, it would have also been his last.
Tarantino has to get a grip on himself, otherwise his next movie is going to be 3 hours of meaningless, boring and uncool dialog. It seems like he has fallen in love with his dialog - and his love is blind.
After you finish your popcorn's there's no reason to sit in a theater anymore.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Countless Historical & cultural mistakes 0/10
(1) A Jewish guy named OMAR!!! Hahahaha (2) Brilliant detective was taking out by the least intelligent guy in the movie! (3) Jewish suicide bombers!! That was funny. (4) Hitler and his top guns went to watch a movie downtown Paris!!! With two guards at the door. !! shoot me. (5) Brad Pitt overacted and it was painful to watch him. (6) Mr. QT is re-writing history, "Hitler was killed in a theatre really!" the funny thing about this is that people "and I mean stupid people" will actually believe this plot.
And finally can any one tell me, how this movie made it to the top 250 movies of all time!!! Shame shame shame, still wondering how can anyone like this movie.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Quentin in my opinion has written and directed only really one good movie and that was the multiple award winning Pulp Fiction. However, most of films, especially of recent, have been real REAL turkeys. People still rate him and his stuff today and i really can't see why. There are many other directors and writers nowadays producing far better entertainment in all aspects of their movies. From this point on, i shall not believe the hype that is a Tarantino movie.
Inglorious was too long and worse still you felt it. The humor was, well, minimal and not that humorous. The violence was nothing new (minus the end scene). The dialog was sometimes very VERY drawn out.
For some they'll love this movie; and for others they'll hate it.
... and i thought the subject matter of Nazis was finally put to bed with the awesome 2004 German movie Der Untergang.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Little Quentin seems to have mastered the art of having the cake and eating it.
As usual, the pure sadistic display can be explained as a clever thought-provoking way of sending violence back into the audience's face.
Sure, Mr Tarantino. Violence is Baaad. Sadism is Baaad. It is well worth wading in it to make that point. How very brilliant.
The juvenile part of the audience may well not be clever enough to follow all the smart references to higher levels of consciousness though, but I'm confident they'll see the light one day.
Thanks for making this little world of ours a little better. You deserve a medal.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Inglourious Basterds IS Tarantino's worst film he has ever made. It's full of his usual ingredient's i.e. snappy dialogue, brutal and sudden violence, but it all feel's deja-vu. The directing is typical Tarantino and nothing seem's new at all. It's almost as if he's copied exactly from his only masterpiece, Pulp Fiction.
There is nothing new or exciting about Inglourious Basterds to be honest, it's just a war drama that isn't funny, nor brilliant as Pulp Fiction was. Basterds supposedly is Tarantino's tribute to Leone's Spaghetti western's but seem's mis-jointed and out of place especially with the continuing use of big sub-titles and throw's the audience of balance.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This is "realism"? If Rivette was seeking to give us a ground-level study of a woman in a certain place and time and how she was able to influence (and was influenced by) the world around her, he has failed miserably. Most prominently because we never get a clue as to why thousands of men would have followed her into battle. There is certainly not enough exposition of the cultural/historical context to define the country's need for such a savior and, god knows, there is nothing particularly charismatic about Joan as she is presented here. Unless Bonnaire's wooden posturing and flat line readings are supposed to indicate transcendent faith and determination. The use of landscape is particularly uninspired - we never lose the feeling we are watching twentieth century actors wandering in a supposedly medieval landscape. And as for the battle scenes (which, in contrast to some commentors claims, do take up a good 15% of screentime)- they look like look like some some History Club from your local high school recreating a medieval siege, although the kids would no doubt put more passion into it. I will give Rivette credit, however, for picturing a side of Joan left out by other movies: that of a petulant, naive, and narcissistic adolescent (played by a woman all too clearly at least twice the age of the character she is supposed to portray) obviously unable to understand her place within the movement she is helping to create or the world existing outside her own passions. Joan's outrage at her own soldiers swearing and astonishment at the enemy for their lack of respect and obedience to her are jarringly spontaneous and believable notes (you suddenly realize such moments must naturally have occurred)in an otherwise uninvolving historical "representation". Unfortunately they also serve to point out precisely what is not addressed on screen -what made Joan SPECIAL? I must say I also continued to be puzzled and frustrated by certain foreign film lovers who equate tedium and lack of dramatic involvement with "artistry" and "seriousness". Does this film really increase our understanding or involvement with the subject? Or with anything for that matter? 4/10.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
For one thing, he produced this movie. It has the feel of later movies with international casts that are dubbed. The opening credits tell us it was filmed in Vienna.
Bey was a delight in the Universal adventure movies of the 1940s. He was also superb in a movie I saw maybe ten years ago but have never heard of since: "The Amazing Mr. X." Maybe it was Dr. X. I remember it as a thrilling and frightening movie.
This one is pretty wooden, unfortunately. The plot isn't easy to follow. When I got the hang of it, I was disappointed anyway.
Francis Lederer looks great as a concert pianist. He was a very handsome leading man ten or 15 years earlier. He never really caught on as a major star, though he should have.
This isn't terrible but it's pretty heavy going.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This is the second addition to Frank Baum's personally produced trilogy of Oz films. It's essentially the same childishness as in the other two pictures, although I consider it preferable to the others because it's shorter. As in the other films, there are performers in animal costumes, an adult woman pretends to be a boy, and the characters and plot jump all over the place while the camera-work is static. This time, at the centre is a magic cloak that grants wishes, and the boy played by a woman is made a king.
Most of the special effects are witnessed at the beginning. Fairies are represented by multiple-exposure photography. And, there's a man in the moon that looks just like those made by Georges Méliès years before, most famously in 'Le Voyage dans la lune' (1902). Méliès' imaginative fantasies and creative trick effects made him the leading pioneer of early cinema, and the films he made around the turn of the century were far better and even technically more advanced than this trifling Oz series.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
At least it is with this episode. Here we have a time traveler, the Professor from Gilligan's Island, no less, going back in time to 1865. What does one do--why try to save Lincoln of course! No really interesting variations are rung on this old theme. As another reviewer has stated, this episode is particularly drab and unstylish, with little to suggest that "the Professor" really is back in the 1860s. Budget limitations are readily apparent, and the direction is stolid. John Wilkes Booth adds a spark but it remains a very flat production. We too often feel we are on stage sets, waiting for something clever to happen. There is a minor twist at the end, but I emphasize minor.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
If regarded as an independent feature I can't say it's too bad at all but from where I'm standing this sequel and the original "Lady and the Tramp" don't agree with each other! They are two completely different movies with different style, different voice personalities, different narratives and about the only thing that they share with each other is the visuals (e.g. the town-house of Jim Dear, Darling, Lady and Tramp) and none of those have changed.
If you're seeking any kind of continuity years after the release of the original for those memorable songs like "Bella Notte" and "The Siamesse Cats Song" this sequel won't give you any at all! Just about every song has a little pop to it and those good old characters like Jock and Trusty, Jim Dear and Darling and Aunt Sarah and her cats may well be seen but they're seeming to be somehow replaced by new characters, not to mention Peg not appearing at all, whose voices are quite annoying. Even Lady and Tramp don't appear often enough and as for Scamp?! He is so spoilt! And treats his father Tramp with utter disrespect, then runs away with no remorse even after hearing how much he's being missed at home! And they called his shameless getaway an adventure! I'd say Scott Wolf truly brought out the abusive bad boy in Scamp wiping out the typical cute Disney animal. Even the old characters just drive you mad in this; Trusty sounds like Goofy sick in bed, Jock (Jeff-stupid-Bennett) - and his VOICE - sound neither Scottish nor worth hearing! Zap him off as far as possible to free our poor ears from his voice and as for the dumb, feather-brained, EXASPERATING JUNKYARD DOGS!!!!!! Somebody put them down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Lady and the Tramp 2" isn't completely bad if you're not already having a tough day but I expect a lot more charm from a sequel to a true classic - Scamp is chavvy, so is his girlfriend Angel and there is a feeble storyline. Still, I think you should try it at least once because, as I say, there are much worse movies around.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I rented this movie, knowing that it would be bad (i have only seen one good Disney sequel and that was toy story 2), but it went far lower than my expectations. I am a die hard disney fan and i just don't believe in sequels with disney movies. For somebody who didn't grow up with the classics (either watching them when they came out, or renting them since you were born) it's a cute story. I just feel that the plot was dragged out a little too much, and was to predictable. The one thing that annoyed me the most was the voices of the girl children of lady and tramp. They were too high pitched. Although most reviews say that it isn't that bad, i think that if you are a true disney fan, you shouldn't waste your time with this one.
Hopefully Disney won't be making any more sequels to any of the other classics any time soon.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
My Take: Typically routine and lazy straight to video attempt from Disney.
Disney must have fallen in love with the family movie tradition that is the family dog. Many movies have devoted themselves with stories that solely center themselves with man's best friend. Disney themselves have made a handful. They also made a handful of those that are literally dogs. Add this one to that bunch.
I haven't seen the original for a very long time, so probably I'm not the right person to judge if this straight-to-video sequel fares any better. Anyone above the age of seven aren't the right people to see it either. Perhaps only the youngest of the young will want to see LADY AND THE TRAMP II: SCAMP'S ADVENTURE, and even they would grow up and say it wasn't the best kind of family entertainment they have ever seen. I guess to be fair, I can say is that it warrants a rental, but that ain't much to say.
This sequel pretty much picks up the parts left behind after the original oft-called classic. Lady and Tramp now have a litter of cute Crocker Spaniel pups... and one mischievous mongrel named Scamp who is a chip off the old block. Instead of the confines of home, Scamp wishes to run off with the other junkyard dogs of town, unknown of his dad's own past as one of those mongrels of the streets. To capture the charms of the original, this one throws in the same poor dog/rich dog love story, in vice-versa. Scamp falls for a one of the junkyard dogs named Angel (and who wouldn't with a name like that and a voice that sounds like Alyssa Milano?). Que replay of the famous spaghetti scene! Other than the "cute" factor, there is nothing in store for any audience in this lazy straight-to-video effort. Stick with the original.
Rating: ** out of 5.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
A few of my fellow writers have covered this movie's plot elements so I will stick to some of the cuff remarks...
1. This is entertaining - but not for the reasons you'd think. It's cheesy but somehow still watchable.
2. Tamra, Daniel's love interest has to be about thirty. The Christian girl that Dan ignores is way cuter.
3. Muriel stole his shirt from Mr. Spock. Also, if my guardian angel looks like Muriel I'm going to have to apply for a transfer.
4. Okay... so apparently... Dan is responsible for his parents' divorce! What kind of horrible guilt trip is that?! Muriel says that it was Dan's prayers that kept his parents together. I just thought that was absolutely ridiculous. Listen, I can pray for my parents as much as I want but the only way they'll stay together is if they decide they're going to do it.
5. I'll echo the atheist's comments on how this movie portrays non-Christians. Apparently they're all slovenly bullies.
6. For something positive - David White is a decent actor. He gives the movie a little bit of credibility, even if he is the only one. He pretty much holds this film together on his own.


assistant
0