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
This is really a terrible film by any of the regular yardsticks. Plot, storyline, acting, effects, direction - I could go on. Suffice to say it's poor. However, it has a certain appeal. Many totally out of context sex scenes appear, it's fun looking for the Batman references. Umm - that's it. Poor really, don't bother.


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


user
Pun intended. This low budget action/horror vehicle for Don Wilson's ability to kick things is the stuff direct-to-video fare is made of.
The plot: Wilson is a humorless vampire hunter who comes under fire from local law enforcement after he is forced to slaughter creatures of the night in view of the public. Police chase him, vampires chase him, he responds by kicking...a lot.
There is a little more to the story, but it is so inconsequential that I honestly can't remember it; I think people actually spoke in the movie, but that's up to debate. The plot is nothing more than a set-up for Wilson to kill as many vampires as possible in the running time, usually by kicking them.
The technical specs are, in a word, anemic. Little color treating, amateurish use of lighting, simplistic use of camera and angle. Blood and gore is noticeably limited, odd for this type of film. The most hurtful of the filming foul-ups is the jarring shift to super-shaky cam during each and every fight scene. If the camera begins to bounce around like a reese monkey on speed, then you know Don is about to start kicking everything in sight.
All in all, this is the kind of bad movie that can be made good with a few friends and a lot of cynical humor. Otherwise, do not watch, unless you really like to watch things get kicked.
3/10


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


user
Don Wilson stars as Jack Cutter (Ooh real tough name!)a vampire slayer who goes up against a vampire army, you see the story is a little different because vampires can't be killed with silver, crosses or sunlight but rather through snapping their necks (How convenient as it cuts down on the budget) and it's here Cutter runs into a reporter (Melanie Smith of Trancers III fame) Night Hunter's action sequences shake for no reason during the fight sequences and although it's meant to emphasize the mood, it just makes the movie more jarring. What is worse is that these fight sequences are botched beyond belief as Wilson's martial artistry is disguised by disjointed editing. Of course the most interest comes from the fact that indeed this predates Blade, however the problem is that this was done on a small budget and that it had Don Wilson in it. It's from Roger Corman and basically this turkey is a movie most people would pay NOT to see. I unfortunately am a bottom feeder and I cater to the section of the store looking for gems, in this line of work you always run into turds. With Night Hunter, I just may have the world's stinkiest turd.
1/2* out of 4-(Awful)


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


user
I think vampire movies (usually) are wicked. Even if the film itself isn't all that good, I still like it 'cos its got vampires in it. But this stinks. It really does give vampire movies a bad name.
For a start, the cheapness really shows. I'm not usually that bothered about low budget films - one of my favourite all-time movies is El Mariachi which only cost $7000 - but I hate this. The actions a load of crap as well, resorting to a 'stylish' wobbling camera which gives you headache.
Theres not much more to say other than don't watch this. I bought it for £1.50 as it was an ex-rental and I feel cheated out of my money, even for that low price.


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


user
While credited as a Tom and Jerry cartoon, this is not the cat-and-mouse team but an earlier Mutt-and-Jeff rip-off featuring them going to Africa and disguising themselves in the stereotypical burnt cork makeup to try to blend in. While the dialect humor is mostly lame, there is a brief musical sequence involving "black skeletons" that was entertaining. I have to ask however, how could Tom and Jerry still have their makeup stay on even after being dumped in the water a couple of times? One of many entries produced by the Van Beuren Corporation for distribution by RKO Radio Pictures before RKO made a deal with Disney. Only worth seeing if you're an animation buff or is interested in how certain ethnicities were stereotyped as entertainment way back when.


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


user
Tom and Jerry are transporting goods via airplane to Africa. But being white men, they're worried they won't be safe, so they put on blackface to fit in. Once they're wearing it, they adopt black dialect and fully inhabit their new characters. They crash into the ocean and use the wing of the plane as a raft. Before reaching land, they suffer the advances of an over-affectionate octopus and more serious danger from sharks, a swordfish and a whale. Once on land, they're frightened by fantastic creatures, and duck into a cave. Inside it's even worse when they encounter living skeletons in blackface. And upon exiting the cave, things are even worse than that when they are discovered by cannibals.
"Plane Dumb" is an especially sloppy effort from Van Beuren Studios. One example: a lion, unknown to Tom and Jerry, enters the cave before they do. But the animators must have forgotten about it, because the lion never appears again. Another example is the ending that's not an ending: it's just an arbitrary stop.
According to a YouTube poster, the cartoon "was originally intended to feature the voices AND caricatures of a popular 'Negro' comedy team known as Miller & Lyles. But Aubrey Lyles died of tuberculosis before the recording session was completed, and co-directors John Foster & George Rufle were forced to rework the animation into a 'Tom & Jerry' story."
They shouldn't have bothered. The crude animation and poorly-executed gags make the film a loser from beginning to end.


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 under assumption that this was the cat and mouse duo but it wasn't instead it was something that shouldn't have been made not even for its time. They disguise themselves in the "blackface" fashion because they fly to Africa and they even act like Stepin Fetchit and all the others rolled into one. There are some cartoons that are racist but they are classics, being a mixed woman I have the right to say this, but if you are into the historical aspect of these cartoons try Merrie Melodies "Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs" or "Angel Puss" you won't find them on DVD because the distributors promised not to put them in the mainstream, but you can find them on a site as YouTube. I don't recommend little kids seeing this but if you want to see how early America was racist and ignorant these are better suggestions, not to mention this particular cartoon has poor animation, i know it was 1932, but I have seen better for its time.
"Plane" unnecessary. -1 out of 10.


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


user
My God, the things that passed for entertainment in this country...
This is *not* the "Tom and Jerry" you may have enjoyed on Saturday Mornings, featuring a hapless cat and a clever mouse. This is a much earlier animation series, featuring a pair of Mutt-and-Jeff clones who get themselves into various scrapes that result in any of the then-typical dancing-skeleton-type gags that made up so much of early animation.
This particularly vile outing, apparently originally intended as a vehicle for a pair of actual black stage comedians of the time, has the pair crashing in the ocean while flying to Africa, necessitating black-face make-up, exaggerated "negro" dialect and "Feets, don't fail me now" situations.
It only shows that in the 70 years between emancipation and this film, the American view of Africans hadn't progressed much. Then again, at least one of them apparently had a pilot's license.


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


user
For a scientifically-engineered super-dog that was supposed to be the answer to petit crime, CHOMPS was a chump.
All I ever saw Chomps do was sit, or walk, or run. Or run, then walk, then sit... and then get back up again and stretch, and then walk, and then jog to K-Tel dance hits. And sometimes it had all the answers to the daily Jumbo. But mostly it just sat a lot.
All I am saying is: In a Celebrity Death Match, Chomps couldn't take out Mr. Bigglesworth.


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


user
C.H.O.M.P.S. is very much like any number of cheesy late 70s Disney family comedys-The Cat from Outer Space or Unidentified Flying Oddball, for instance. Utterly devoid of anything creative, beating the same cliches to death, yet vaguely entertaining in a mindless sort of way. The actors won't win any awards, nor will the director, writer, or FX crew, but in its inoffensive ness and bland predicatability there is some vague entertainment to be had. The idea of the robot dog as security system is so full of holes you could use it as a colander. The incredibly repetative disco soundtrack will stick in your head, so beware.


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


user
i think south park is hilarious, and i have no problem w/them taking shots at people on the left, but you'd think that, after taking a whole movie to attack celebrities for risking their careers taking on an illegal war, and then being GASP right along, they would have the sense to start giving w. and the bastards ruining the country a shot or two. bush seems to get a pretty free run from these guys for as stupid and messed up as he is.
gore is fair game, but please, what do the republicans have to do, how bad do they have to f^&k up the country before these guys finally act like maybe they aren't just trying to do the best they can, and that they have done some true screwing up...or maybe just go after rush limbaugh...hes a good target...or even just make fun of condoleeza rice's gap teeth.


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


user
An awful film; badly written, badly acted, cliched, hackneyed, dross. The premise is such a good one and a chance to educate about black cowboys but the film is truly dire. It is a curious mix of a bad 1950's Randolph Scott B movie and a bad 1970's spaghetti western. The villains are cardboard, the flashbacks laughable, the dialogue excruciating.
The deliberate anachronisms (such as 'Victorian' rap singers and modern swear words like "motherf****er"), are irritating to the extreme.
A Frankenstein monster that died on the lab table.


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


user
This move is bad on so many levels I don't even know where to start. OK - the good points - Peebles is beautiful as a dirty outlaw in black leather. Some of the landscape photography was stunning. That's about it. Oh, and it was a nice touch having the buffalo head above the bar door in Freemanville, I figure it was a nod to the Buffalo Soldiers. The movie starts sort of OK but the characters are so flat, so comic book, so 'much', the bad guys are just over the top bad, I choke trying to describe them further. The Spanish-Cuban-American war was 1895-1898 with America being involved only in April to August of '98. I think the movie said it took place in 1893 (I could be wrong but I don't want to look at it again to check). A big part of this movie hinged on the KKK killing Jessie's daddy. Well boys, the original KKK started in 1865 and was destroyed by President Andrew Johnson in 1871. The Klan wasn't even around during the time period of this movie. Of course the nasty bas**rds got busy again in 1915 and we know the rest of that. BUT for the purpose of the movie it is historically incorrect and that was a major part of the plot. I think I could make myself crazy going into it a lot more so here a few jabs and I'm done. I didn't know that Boyz2Men and other bands like that got their inspiration from New Orleans street singers from the 1890's. I also didn't know that fetish necklaces were all the rage for Sioux women in the 1890's...but then I was surprised to see a bar singer doing jazz while wearing acrylic 1" nails... We just about died laughing and I like a cheesy western more than most people do. Such a waste of talent and money - this really had the chance to show a part of American history that isn't well known. http://www.coax.net/people/lwf/bkcwboy2.htm for some more information. This could have been so good but it was just....bad from 1-10 this gets a 1 instead of a zero because Mario looks good in his hat and there was an Appaloosa horse in the film.


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


user
It's not just that the movie is lame. It's more than that. This movie is just unnecessary. Do we need another Western? How about a western with afro-Americans in the titles roles? Sound stupid, implausible and a lame attempt at modernizing the genre? It is. Incredibly lame and simple minded. It's like that lame Baz Luhrman film "Romeo and Juliet" where he set it in modern times to attract young folks and create some hype with his revamping of a classic tale. Well, Baz Luhrman failed miserably and so does this mess. The story is actually not bad however the whole idea of removing the racism out of a racist genre by casting an all afro-American cast is racist in itself. It's also puerile and simple minded (like Baz Luhrman-man he's a bad director). Hey (I hear you say) this was directed by Mario Van Peebles! He's also IN the film! How can it be racist? It's not. I said the idea of casting all afro-Americans instead of Caucasians was. The film isn't racist, it's just pointless, stupid and very very boring.


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 worst movie of ALL TIME! It's one of those that is so ridiculous and the acting so bad that you turn off the video 1/3 into it so that you can use your time for better purposes like cleaning the toilet. If you actually watch the whole thing, GOD help you.


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


user
Wow, what a racist, profane piece of celluloid garbage, and what an insult to the great genre of Westerns.
Exploitive? Sex scenes abound, profanity abounds, violence and gore abounds.....everything that gives modern movies such a good name, especially among those who prefer classic-era movies. This is the kind of sleaze that gives the old folks ammunition against today's films.
Somehow I just can't picture nude male bathing scenes in Randolph Scott or Gene Autrey films. Nor can I picture hearing "motherf---er!" exclaimed here and there. I sincerely doubt that word was even around over 100 years ago. Yet, the f-word is so prevalent here you'd think you were watching a story centered in today's urban areas, not the old west of the 1800s.
Prejudice? Well, what if all the white characters were good guys and every black person was the nasty, brutal villain? Do you think someone might complain about a racist movie? Home come we don't hear an outcry when the reverse - as demonstrated in this film - is shown in hundreds of theaters across the country?
Mario Van Peeples wrote, directed and starred in this bomb. Remember that name. Apparently, he is the "Ed Wood" of today's filmmakers. Even Spike Lee wouldn't be this racist. You can't get much worse than 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
In my opinion, the movie was laughable--bad dialogue. Whoever wrote the script--please keep your day job. It's definitely NO Godfather or Goodfellas. It's good to be on the otherside of the table--poor choice of words. Some of the characters were clowns. But what do you expect from a low budget movie with no name actors.


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


user
Sometimes, changes to novels when they're made into films are not only necessary, but a good thing. However, in the case of Northanger Abbey, it's a very, very bad thing. Not only is the story itself ripped to shreds, but the satire is almost completely absent from the film, and it's mixture of romance and intrigue doesn't even touch upon the biting commentary that Austen put into her work. It fails to be amusing or satirical at all, and instead turns the character's fascination with her fantasy world into mostly a drama.
This affects the romance as well. It's meandering and aimless. Chemistry and interest are never established. The reasons Tilney is attracted to Catherine are completely absent from the film, leaving the audience to wonder what it is he sees in her at all.
Hopefully some day soon, we'll get a more faithful version if Austen's satire.


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


user
Poor Jane Austen ought to be glad she's not around to see this dreadful wreck of an adaptation. So many great Jane Austen movies have come out recently that this one deserves to be permanently buried along with two other movies I despise-The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit and the 1969 version of David Copperfield. My main beef with the movie is that it completely misses the point of the book. Jane Austen was poking fun at the Gothic mania in her society, and much of the novel is tongue in cheek. The movie, however, is serious and comes across terribly melodramatically. The lighthearted, fun-poking flavor of Austen's writing is completely and conspicuously absent from this ponderous foray iinto horror meets period drama. The scenes of Catherine's imagination are both gratuitous and uninteresting. Also, Henry Tilney is dreadfully unappealing. Why, I ask, would anyone fall for him? If you are looking for a fun-filled Jane Austen evening, watch Emma instead!


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


user
Normally BBC productions of Jane Austen are pretty good but Northanger Abbey is just odd. What were they thinking? This film has little of Austen's charm and ironically mimics the Gothic novels that Austen so wonderfully mocked. Not only that, the "gothic" sequences are tacky, over-the-top, and frankly silly. The actress playing Miss Morland is poorly cast with no obvious appeal to attract the attentions of an eligible bachelor, and though I rather liked the creepy Peter Firth as Mr. Tilney, he is not a bit like the novel, even when delivering dialog straight out of the book. Robert Hardy as General Tilney turned in one of his few terribly "ham" performances. This film was so bizarre and strange that I actually watched it again just to savor how freakishly wrong it was.


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


user
Is it possible to give a 0 out of 10 rating? Because this one deserves it. While I'm not a big fan of Jane Austen's books, I sat through this one with two women who are. Well, at least we had a big laugh about how bad this film is. Robert Hardy was the only actor with any charisma in the whole thing, though he overdid it as he usually does (nearly as bad as William Shatner). But that wasn't enough to save this stinker from total suckitude. It's often hard to separate the girl's dream sequences from what is "really" happening, and so many holes are left in the story that you can barely figure out what is going on. Too many loose ends and the ending feels like a "tune in again next week" climax. The lead actress is too ditsy and weird-looking to be a heroine, the leading man is too goofy-looking and effeminate to be a convincing hero and the music sounds like some kind of cheap new-agey pet project of the director's hippy daughter (I mean saxophone??? mixed in with some kind of spacey operatic female wailing?). So, in conclusion, I suggest you blow the budget and order a DVD of this one as soon as possible. Especially if you like disappointment.


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


user
My first hugely disappointing BBC/Jane Austen flick. The tone is off, the costumes are off, the hair is off, the music is from outer space, and Robert Hardy, bless him, looks like he's really annoyed to be in such a stinker. Even some of the casting is off. No, I take that back, a good director can make a silk purse out of a sows ear, so to speak. The performances in this thing are so over the top and melodramatic that it's almost a farce of a Jane Austen story, which is ironic since Northanger Abbey is a sort of homage/send up of the early Gothic novel. I wanted to slap the female lead after awhile; who made the decision that she should be such a ninny? I had to watch Pride & Prejudice ('95) immediately to get the bad taste out of my mouth. Phew!


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 started off well enough, sticking to the mood of the book fairly well even if the acting was not top notch. The soundtrack was torturously bad. Saxaphone and electric guitars? It was gratingly incongruous. The female singer was positively dreary! In the second half of the film the story takes a decidedly darker turn. Too dark for Austen. Northanger Abbey is made a dark and scary place whereas in the book it was disappointingly tame and modernized to Catherine's eyes.
Who in the heck is this Marchioness with the ghastly makeup and wig? A totally extraneous and unnecessary character.
One of the key elements in the book is the General is not a Gothic monster like the characters in Catherine's books. His monstrosity is far more complicated in his oppression of his children's spirits and his treatment of Catherine based on money concerns alone. He does not lock up his wife or kill her but he does send Miss Morland on a 70 mile trip alone in a hired carriage with not enough money to pay her way home. Only her friend Miss Tilney's thoughtfulness in handing her some money on the way out the door saves her from being stranded. This whole point gets seriously muddled in the film. They make the General too dark from the outset.
Peter Firth should have not sung! This part was painful to watch. His depiction of Tilney wasn't too bad but it was a shade dark in places. Henry Tilney of the book made sport of Miss Morland's imagination on trip to Northanger but he was never dark. Firth would have benefited from better direction. The young lady who played Isabella needed a better acting coach. John Thorpe was appropriately odious. The striped waistcoat and coattails combo he wore was ghastly! It certainly fit his character.
I think the film would have fared much better with a completely different soundtrack. It cast an oppressive pall over the entire movie. If I watch it again it will be with the sound OFF and subtitles on. Perhaps I would give the film a 4 then.
The sound quality of the DVD was quite poor. The picture quality was not much better. This is glaringly noticeable on a digital television.
When I think of what this film could have been, I think of Persuasion with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds.


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


user
The BBC and the Arts & Entertainment Network should be ashamed of themselves for foisting this unfortunate production onto the world. The acting is, with the exception of Robert Hardy as General Tilney, amateurish at best and excruciatingly painful at worst. The costumes are over-the-top and feature some truly ghoulish excesses -- was the costume designer obsessed with feathers for women's hats? Surely EVERY woman in Bath didn't have feathers in her headpiece in the early 19th century. The production values are poor and the pacing of the film makes one feel it was hastily and clumsily edited at the last minute. Altogether an agonizing film that I had to force myself to watch to the end. It's a shame, as the producers obviously spent a lot of money on costumes and location shooting. Compared to Emma Thompson's sublime "Sense and Sensibility" or the extraordinary 1995 production of "Pride and Prejudice" or the subtle intensity of 1995's "Persuasion", this production of `Northanger Abbey' surely has Jane Austen turning in her grave.


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


user
Shaky hand held cameras (this piece was shot for television mind you, not film) not only keep you utterly conscious of how horrible the cinematography is in this film, but make you absolutely unable to become immersed in the story. Poor Miss Austen must be rolling in her grave. All I can say is, if you enjoyed the novel, stop there, until the BBC creates one of their smart & sensible period masterpieces (like Pride & Prejudice with Colin Firth, which, speaking for what I imagine in my opinion, Austen would have revered). The BBC would never dare overdub cheesy saxophone solos and Indigo Girl hollers over a shot of an historic castle and a loving embrace. Giles Foster seemed to be often confused that they were editing the music to The Specialist. If you want Austen as you love her, look for the BBC logo...


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


user
The filmmakers were clearly on drugs. That's the only explanation I have. How else do you explain this travesty of a Jane Austen adaptation? Northanger Abbey is a parody of a Gothic novel. But this film was made as if it WERE a Gothic novel. The bizarre music and dream sequences to me suggest drug-induced hallucinations rather than a naive, innocent girl with an overactive imagination, as Catherine of the novel is...
The actress who played Catherine just stands around bug-eyed all the time. Peter Firth looks at least 10 years too old to play Henry and he actually seemed a bit on the gay side to me. I don't see the attraction between him and Catherine. John Thorpe's portrayal was rather odd but Isabella actually wasn't that bad. But nothing could save this PIECE OF CRAP movie! One more thing- This film invents a character not in the book, a French friend of General Tilney's, "The Marchioness." Why exactly they added her is beyond me. Must have been the drugs. She is scary-looking beyond belief, with white foundation, red lips and black lines randomly painted on her face (dimples?).
You'd think this would at least be entertaining in a "so bad it's good" quality but unfortunately, it's not. It's just BAD.


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


user
Northanger Abbey is not my favorite Jane Austen novel, but it has its charms. This movie doesn't. It has some of the same character names as the book, but the story is drastically altered, and the sweetest man in the whole Austen canon (unless Emma's Mr. Knightley gets pride of place) is made out to be a heartless and mercenary creep. One or two totally extraneous characters are introduced, and a palpable air of corseted perversion hangs over it all. I was so disappointed when I first saw it on its release in 1986; even today it ranks high on the list of films that disgrace the books on which they're based. Even Robert Hardy fans should give this one a wide berth. It has nothing, and I mean N-O-T-H-I-N-G, to recommend it.


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


user
What an awful adaptation. The worst part was the music. Saxophone muzak and synthesizers playing in a story set in the early 1800's?????? The only character that didn't bore me to sleep was Robert Hardy. I had to fight to keep my eyes open on this one, and I love Jane Austen movies usually. I didn't even rent it, I borrowed it from the library. They should have paid me to take it. I don't quite understand how Catherine and Henry managed a passionate kiss at the end when throughout the movie they had no chemistry or indication whatsoever that they cared for one another. Isabella and her brother were way overdone; it was no secret to me immediately that she and her brother were the "bad guys" and part of the excitement of Jane Austen movies is the discovery that who you think is good, isn't. This is probably on my list of the ten worst movies I've seen.


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


user
I'm afraid I did not like this adaptation. When I started watching it I had a strange feeling of watching some 70s TV series, due to the filter and the musical score. I did not like the end scene. Mr Tilney appears dressed only in his waistcoat. Jane Austen would never have a gentleman ride out without a frock coat. Looks like the producers made a modern misinterpretation of a romantic girl's dream. I appreciate the more modern JA adaptations much more, that show an eye for these details, that makes the BBC series so worthwhile. Sorry, looking forward to the 2007 adaptation. I hope that will be better and will show the benefits of 20 years of Jane Austen adaptations.


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


user
Poor Jane Austen. This dog of a production does NOT do her wonderful tongue in cheek novel any justice. Starting at the top ... poorly adapted. The screenwriter deserves extra low marks for trying to -- come to think of it, I don't know WHAT she was trying for, but suffice it to say she missed the mark by light years!! Couple that with all the over-acting and awful production values, this is one adaptation that should never have happened. It would have been far better if they just gave all the money they poured into this flop and donated it to a worthy charity. Do yourself a favor, read the book. It is almost certain that you will enjoy it a thousand times more than trying to sit through this excruciating production!


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


user
(This might have a spoiler)
When I first started watching this movie, I thought it was OK. The music was good and that bizarro dream sequence I was willing to forgive, but the lack of looks in the main character and all of the other characters for that matter made me uninterested in watching the rest of this film. (I know, totally vain.)The music at the beginning was spirited and fitting I thought for a mock Gothic novel. But, come on! Saxophone music for an early 19th century film? It totally didn't fit. This movie was totally boring and if you're looking to watch a good period film or an Austen don't rent Northanger Abbey! I give it a 30%. 30% = a failing grade!


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 a terrible movie, that is barely recognizable from the book, although they have sort of similar plots. The time it takes to watch this movie (which is only 1.5 hours) would be much better spent doing anything else, including watching grass grow. The addition of poorly done fantasy scenes make Catherine seem insufferably silly. The actress who plays Catherine also comes across ditzy as all goodness and looks constantly surprised, even when she's supposed to be looking lovingly into her Tilney's eyes. Honestly!! The movie ends with a Catherine fantasy-like scene where one can't help but wonder if it's happened or if she's merely delusional, and not in the good way that makes you think but in a perfectly horrible way that basically sums up the terrible movie. The only good thing about the movie is the title, which was written by Ms. Austen herself. I generally love the BBC's productions but this one is horrid.


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


user
It is hard for a lover of the novel Northanger Abbey to sit through this BBC adaptation and to keep from throwing objects at the TV screen-in fact, if Jane Austen herself were to see this, she would be somewhat amused and possibly put out. Maggie Wadey's adaptation has made Northanger Abbey into what it satirized, the Gothic novel (and the readers of Gothic novels).
The role of Catherine Morland in the adaptation is portrayed fairly closely to Austen's Catherine, a open-hearted, generous girl whose imagination simply runs away with her. But the Henry Tilney of the novel is not a snuff-taking, cane-wielding, sappy-line-making hero of a Gothic novel-he is a tease, a nearly-handsome man with a messy room and a living (that's right, Henry Tilney is a clergyman, a charm that is completely dropped from the script). Some of the best scenes from novel, when Henry, completely deadpan, outrageously teases the literally-minded Catherine on diction, journals, Mrs. Radcliffe, etc., are not portrayed in the adaptation. A large section of Henry's personality is lost when those scenes are not adapted. Besides, Peter Firth's appearance is not accurate-Henry Tilney is supposed to be 24 or 25, dark hair and a brown skin, not 35 or 40 and blond.
There are so many other absurdities within the adaptation that invoke surprise and disgust-who is the Marchioness, and what is she doing in the story?! Why is John Thorpe less of a dunce and more of a schemer? Why is Northanger Abbey a castle? Catherine of the novel, with her romantic visions, expects hidden passages and dark tapestries, but is very disappointed to discover that Northanger Abbey is actually a comfortable, modern house-another element of satire! Why portray General Tilney as a drunk? Why does Catherine have those strange visions of Mrs. Allen threading her finger, etc.? Catherine's imagination only runs away with her at Northanger, with Henry there to correct her gently. And lastly, why are so many facts concerning the Tilney family and Mrs. Tilney's death altered unnecessarily? To make the story more `horrible?' All of these oddities and more simply are too strange to be overlooked.
>


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


user
We really don't know where to begin when talking about this movie. But we'll start with the plot. We sincerely suspect that whomever wrote/produced/directed this movie never read the book. Because they missed the entire point. SATIRICAL, not horror. Just a hint. Second, the bath scene. Enough said. Third, the added characters. The sketchy Gothic french lady and her black page who enjoys holding hands and cartwheeling. We don't understand where this came from either. And then there was the casting. All of them were really unlikeable. We were very upset that Catherine and Mr. Tilney ended up together, because they were so unlikable that no one would ever wish to see them happy. And...the music. We think that the BBC producers ran out of money, so raided their grandmother's attic. And they found some old records. Saxophone, wailing female voices, and an occasional electric guitar. *shudder*
Plus, the best line ever: "Since you left, the white rose bush has died of grief." If anybody has any explanation, we would love to hear it. Because it makes absolutely no sense.
We are still wondering what on earth everyone involved was thinking when they cruelly released this pathetic excuse of a movie out on the public. We think it should be considered a federal offense. Torture is illegal.
This movie is by far the worst we have seen to date. And I've seen a lot of movies.
Our recommendation: Give this movie to whomever you hate. They will watch it, and want to kill themselves. And we agree with a previous post, we would give this 0 stars, if at all possible. DO NOT WATCH!! And we strongly suspect that everyone who commented so far in favor of this movie were involved in its production. Or were mentally insane. These are the only reasons we have been able to come up with that would instigate giving a favorable review.


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


user
I've seen some terrible book-to-film adaptations in my day, but this one tops them all! The bizarrely unattractive cast detracts from the story, which is, in itself, untrue to the book. Mr. Tilney is nothing like handsome; as for Catherine Morland, a rat-like appearance makes this heroine a difficult one to sell to a sympathetic audience. Isabella is nothing like the Aphrodite one reads about in the original text, and James Morland appears in the film far too little to leave the viewer with any understanding of his important role in the story. Also, as others have pointed out before, this novel was intended to satirize the Gothic craze prevalent in Austen's time, but it appears that this "soft horror" film was designed and meant to be taken seriously. I'm sure Jane Austen turns over in her grave each time one of her fans is disappointed by this awful interpretation of what was supposed to be a joke.


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


user
Awful, dreadful, terrible. The actors are bad, the music is ridiculous and the filming pathetic. I rented the DVD and had to force myself to watch it until the end.
My advice: read the book, it is much better and you won't have to put up with all these silly images and ridiculous dreams Catherine has.
I think I have never watched such a bad movie.


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


user
Now and again, a film comes around purely by accident that makes you doubt your sanity. We just finished studying the novel, "Northanger Abbey", at school and decided to refresh our memory of this unexciting piece of humourless garbage with the BBC adaptation.
The funny thing about Northanger Abbey is that it actually makes you want to kill yourself. The film is NOTHING like the book, for example, the subtly evil characters seem to have been turned into transparent stereotypes. John Thorpe looks like a leprechaun on acid while Isabella plays the role of slut. Catherine, the main character, is the most depressingly stupid and irritating actress on god's earth (she looks like a coffee addict, her eyes are like basketballs) whilst Mr Tilney looks and acts like a retired porno stunt double. The plot goes completely off the rails at certain points of the film, I don't know what the hell the director was thinking when for no reason at all, a 7 year old black kid who we've never met before takes the main character out of the abbey and starts cartwheeling in front of her. Yes, that's right, cartwheeling. Nonsense of this kind is occasionally interrupted by Catherines "fantasies" in which she is being carried around a cathedral by an ogre.
Northanger Abbey is basically visual euthanasia so if you want to murder your boss or something like that, BBC have basically discovered a new way to kill someone. Northanger is a barely laughably bad film. Don't watch it unless you're in a padded cell.


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


user
I watched "Fuckland" a long time ago. I lied if I'd tell that I remember it in detail; what I remember most vividly is the irritation it provoked me and the feeling of a total waste of precious money and time, not only my time and money invested in watching the movie but also the director's.
Supposedly, "Fuckland" is a critic of Argentinians, presenting us (I'm an Argentinian too) as little people who take credit for and even boast about petty, ridiculous victories, and think we're the best thing that God (who is also an Argentinian) created. I'm not going to argue that. It's probably a true statement about a quite big part of the population (the part I despise, by the way). And even if this weren't true, that's not my point. The worst sin "Fuckland" committed was to express such a statement about its own director.
The continuous impression I received was that the director was too busy trying to impress us for sneaking a camera inside the islands to worry about making a good (even a mediocre) movie. Many of the takes made with a hidden camera are pointless. The director chooses to show off with a silly edition of old war takes and his own ones. And there's no plot at all.
Moreover, this movie proudly presents a Dogme certificate before the opening titles, only to disrespect its principles afterwards (for example, by including the director in the credits - another sign of his pride?).
I found the movie offensive, not as an Argentinian, but as a watcher. I felt underestimated. "Fuckland" is simply one of the worst movies I've ever seen.


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 confess that once I started watching this movie, it had a hold on me that forced me to watch it through to its conclusion. Quite possibly this was some latent voyeuristic tendency in me that wanted to see our hero get it on with his victim, or maybe fascination that they got funding to make, distribute, and show this film that kept me searching it for merit, or possibly some bizarre wish-fulfillment fantasy that there might be a point at the end of all the pain. But no such luck.
So you are warned to not start watching it in the first place, lest the same thing happen to you. There's nothing here worth wasting your hour and a half on.
The first-person mockumentary and the schtick about Fabian's "quest" to impregnate women of the Falklands comes out even more like a sophomoric (maybe Freshman - high school Freshman, that is) film student project than you might imagine. The effect ends up being both sneering at the local inhabitants (who, other than the two professional leads, are in fact real people) as well as engaging in rather disgusting sexual politics (no matter whether you take it all literally or symbolically, it's pointless and sexist).
The reason I ended up watching it all the way is the same reason that once one starts to pick at a scab, there's an irresistable fascination of continuing to do so until it's completely off, even when you know it's bad for you. You just want to see what happens.
In the end, this is rather dishonest filmmaking, because it seems ultimately to have no moral center, no elucidation of the local political situation, nor any place in the type of political-sexual-personal film universe a la Goddard. In short it's got nothing to say and spends a long time pretending it does. Smug would be the one-word tagline.
I'd suggest the filmmakers rent 'Waiting for Guffman' a few times, or hell, even 'Blair Witch Project' if they want to pursue the schtick with a little more style and a little more genuine emotion. Or at least entertainment value.


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


user
The preposterous premise of this flick has to do with Argentina reclaiming the Falkland Islands, having failed through force in 1982, by impregnating the European women inhabitants with Argentinean sperm thereby diluting the ethnic purity until it favored Argentina. Yeah, right. The reconnaissance is done by our hero/villan and cad, Fabian, who hauls his fish-eye camcorder from pillar to post secretly filming his encounters with the Falklanders including his courting and eventual conquest of one woman, Camilla. An unfortunate indie and fraudulent documentary, this flick favors us with lots of boring tourism shot from the hip....yada, yada, yada. The film has no plot potential and only begins to become interesting as Fabian and Camilla wend their way through the usual moments of awkwardness and uncertainty as they get from the handshake to the bed. "F*ckland" is only for those cinema purists who can appreciate the bleak, no frills, jigglecam austerity of Dogme indies.


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 an absolutely horrid excuse for a show. People say its witty and intelligence? I don't see how? Maybe because the characters use fancy words? Maybe because they are snooty, use dry humor, and have 2 dimensional personalities. I went to an Ivy league school and nobody acted anywhere near as obnoxious as these characters. In fact had I met someone like them I would have likely strangled them! The men act like little emotional pre-teen girls and all the minority characters are based off stereotypes... The characters are no AT ALL AUTHENTIC. Simply put they sound like a trailer park family trying to be rich and sophisticated. This show is just another cookie-cutter hit that brain-dead prime time viewers eat up on a regular basis.


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


user
Usually when I don't see a show on an original run, I find it later on cable and realize it's a gem. The "Gimore Girls" is one of those rare exceptions. I'm glad I missed it.
I truly despise shows that fill every minute of the actors space with rambling, stupid, boring banter. This is one hour of just that. The mother, Lorelei, made me wonder if she is Bipolar and off her lithium. She never stopped talking; every minute, every second, talking to every person she interacted with. Worse yet, her speech is childish and soooo, like, Valley Girl. She talked about guys, her hair, her mother, her clothes. Like, what's the sitch?? (for situation). I've watched this show three times and still don't get the point of this series. It's not a comedy, it's not a drama, it has no point except to make three generations of females in one family look like the "Girls" from Planet Mars. The males by comparison are smart and make the show somewhat watchable. If Lorelei ever existed and attempted to latch onto me with conversation, I'd have to mace her to get rid of her. She obviously doesn't know how to take a subtle hint to stop talking and start listening to someone else. She also doesn't know how to really notice the existence of others.
In one show Lorelei comes home from a date close to 10 pm. She got the date after pursuing a guy she met at an auction. She goes into her daughter's room where the daughter asks how it went. She dithers on about how boring the guy was. Her date somehow got a few words in edgewise. Lorelei complained about how the man didn't stop talking (choke). Hopefully the date learned how fortunate he was.
One other person here commented on how the mother acts like a teen and the daughter is the adult personality. Lorelei even dresses like her kid. This obviously 40-something mom dresses and looks like she hit the mall with her high school pals in tow.
I thought that this show should have been followed by "Just Shoot Me," because that's exactly how I felt.


assistant
0