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
I watched this cooking show for a few times before I wanted to pull my hair out. Just one question.....Who CAN'T cook a slapped together plain meal in 30 minutes when everything you need is at hand, already bagged, sometimes pre-chopped and you have very little else to do except chop a few greens. Also, almost every cooking show on TV is 30 minutes and most of these chefs do all of their prep work (except for Sandra Lee), during their show. Oh and yep....they do full meals too.
Love the comment by the guy who hated the "EVOO" comment. Add "DE-LISH" to my list of stupid tag words.
Then you have the obvious....a Loud, gregarious woman who is truly her own best audience. She laughs at her own lame comments, mugs too many times for the camera because she wants to convince us that she's as good as the thinks.
NO she ain't "the cutest thing." She's a 40-something year old woman who isn't DE-LISH.


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


user
Forget what I said about Emeril. Rachael Ray is the most irritating personality on the Food Network AND all of television. If you've never seen 30 Minute Meals, then you cannot possibly begin to comprehend how unfathomably annoying she is. I really truly meant that you can't even begin to be boggled by her until you've viewed the show once or twice, and even then all words and intelligent thoughts will fail you. The problem is mostly with her mannerisms as you might have guessed. Ray has a goofy mouth and often imitates the parrot. If you love something or think it's "awesome" (a word she uses roughly 87 times per telecast) just say it. And she's constantly using horrible, unfunny catchphrases like "EVOO" (Extra virgin olive oil!). SHUT UP! What's worse is Ray has TWO other shows on the network! I think this is some elaborate conspiracy by the terrorists to drive us mad. Give me more Tyler Florence! Ray is lame.


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


user
I found this movie immensely interesting yet a little jaded, it talks of violence and what there doing, I still don't see the point in becoming terrorists in order to stop the terrorists. We have similar people in the United States and other countries justifying the use of violence and war tactics because they think they are right. Think of the Puritans,and the Christian crusades against the Islamic people during the Medieval times. Lots of blood and death far exceeding the violence of today, the western world has had a negative impact on the religion. I do not justify their actions but western culture in the past has had a very negative effect on some. But still do remember the majority of the Islamic people are PEACEFUL! People of any nation feel some sort of patriotism but to start a war on the fact that I'm right and your wrong needs to be rethought. Again I repeat you cannot stop terrorists by becoming like them.


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 complete nonsense. I've studied Nazism and read many manuscripts from the day - the "parallels" use most of the classic debased apocryphal myths of Nazism and then compare it with complete specious generalizations about what constitute 1/3 of the planet. It's crafted for an audience of Polly-Anna complacency who diet heavily on spoon-fed gibberish, horribly thought out arguments, irrational conclusions, fallacious ideas, and nonsensical logic.
Who made this hit peace? Easy.
When all is said and done; Que Bono? That is, who benefits, in the long run?
You don't. You sacrifice money and rights. Muslims don't, they get our bombs. Try again. Answer this, and you've unlocked a major door.


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


user
Brought to you by the following among others:
1- Yigal Carmon (Hebrew יגאל כרמון) is the president and founder of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)
Yigal's Career:
Colonel, Israeli Army Intelligence from 1968-88 Acting head and adviser on Arab affairs, Civil Administration in Judea and Samaria, 1977-1982
2- Raphael Shore is an Israeli-Canadian film writer, producer, and Rabbi employed full time by Aish HaTorah. He is the founder of The Clarion Fund, a non-profit organization that seeks to advance the idea that the United States faces a threat of radical Islam. Shore is also a regular critic of the media coverage on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, coverage which he alleges is regularly anti-Israel. (LMAO)
3- Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Funny how ADL supports this hateful propaganda. You can never tell by reading their "Anti-Defamation" name title.
Use your mind and see how objective these people are. They have their own agenda!
I think, therefore I am.


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


user
- Contains 1 spoiler, market with: ***** -
Not presenting itself as yet another remake of "The Interview", Five Fingers actually is. Alas, besides maybe the hardship of physical torture, it never adds anything to it's predecessor's accomplishment in terms of suspense, plot or performances. In fact, Five Fingers never gets anywhere near its level.
What I found to be in particular painful to watch wasn't the torture itself, but the way Martijn (Ryan Philippe) acted out his ordeal. To me it looked as if Philippe tried too hard to get his accent right and it made his performance glibly amateur which in turn even dragged down the performance of an otherwise great Colm Meaney. Phillipe's accent btw, being far from anything near Dutch, sounded more like Eastern European.
Besides the acting of Philippi(which to my surprise turned from poor to actually decent towards the end) there is the matter of the flashbacks with the hackneyed Dutch scenery. (If these scenes were set in Switzerland they would have had the cast eat cheese on mountaintops with endless pastures with grazing cows wearing expensive timepieces). Scenery aside, The way these flashbacks pushed the plot didn't work for me at all. It made it being served like French fries at a drive-in and caused the build-up of suspense to flatline.
Admittedly the movie did become more enjoyable as Phillipe's acting improved but I couldn't help being annoyed every now and then with scenes that were just too implausible. E.g.:
************ Start spoiler
At some point (after days) Philippe is almost tenderly washed by the female terrorist. This only to be followed by the brute severing of yet another finger. Why give the guy a wash if he's in for a torture? And the severing of that last finger seemed to only serve the title of this flick anyway, I mean, he was practically begging to have it knifed off. Didn't make sense
************ End spoiler
What ultimately kept me watching was the performance of Fishburn who once again proved to be a brilliant actor but who also had the best part of the script to work with.
All in all one is just far better off seeing "The Interview" with that other Matrix-icon: Hugo Weaving. And when you do, I'm confident you won't find this review that disagreeable.
3.5/10
"The Interview", 1998 www.imdb.com/title/tt0120714/


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


user
Five Fingers relies heavily on barbaric, shock value Hollywood tactics to elicit apparently a positive movie-going response. This is where this movie fails throughout, primarily because it is too graphic to be taken seriously. I was repulsed and disgusted that Five Fingers was even made, and essentially had to force myself to continue watching it. Torture in and of itself is gruesome. Even the sounds coming from a room where someone is being tortured are gruesome. But obviously the makers of this stinker of a movie felt that was not enough. It had to go way beyond what was needed, and simply and effectively ruined any chances this movie had of making some sort of valid point. For this reason, this movie came across as nothing more than being self-gratifying. Five Fingers also pretty much relegates itself to a B-movie status solely by its indulgence on manipulation of time. In other words we are shown the present and then the past is revealed in snippets. This is a little bit of a twist of the normal Hollywood manipulation of time. Whereas the viewer normally is shown page 95 in a 100 page script as the beginning of the movie, and then the rest of the flick is essentially explaining the ending, Five Fingers is dedicated to flashing back, which gets quite tiring by the end of the movie. Overall, Five Fingers made me feel stupid for watching the whole movie, because torture is obviously obscene, and it certainly was not necessary to resort to graphic mutilation to make this point. I am surprised that Dick Cheney did not make a guest cameo appearance at the end as some sort of torture superhero. This movie is a perfect example of what happens when an important topic falls into the hands of greedy, mindless dolts.


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


user
Boring movie. Poor plot. Poor actors. The movie happens in a room supposed to be in Morocco but actually in some American city! The "Arab terrorists" are the patriots the blonde patriot is the "Arab terrorist"...DAMN!
There is something good about this movie though (that's why the score is 2 out of 10). The director turns the ridiculous stereotype about terrorism the media feeds us every day into the real thing, the terrorists are Americans (or western people if you like).
The movie is divided into two parts. The first part of the movie concerns the Dutchman travel (15 seconds) while the second part is about the staying in the amazing dark brown room (1 hour and something).
The Dutch guy is going to deliver money in Morocco to some "charity organization", gets off the plain, takes the bus and ends up kidnapped in a dark brown room. He is kidnapped with another guy that is shot after telling "They will not shoot at us". The Dutch survivor is forced to play chess with a Morpheus-like Arab guy for so long that you'll learn how to play chess too! At the end the dutch guy reveals his plot not because they cut four of his fingers off but because he is tricked by such a lame game you should watch the movie for!
Good when you are so tired you can't sleep.


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


user
Five Fingers is so bad, that I hardly know where to begin. So let me admit first, that I have only seen the first half hour. When the first finger had been chopped off, I thought sleeping a more useful activity. I told my girlfriend the meaning of "five fingers" and she immediately followed my example.
Couldn't the producer, the director and/or the scriptwriter consult a chess-amateur? Like me? They should have used a digital chess-clock and not an analogue. This major goof makes the mental pressure put on Martijn just a laugh. How, when and why did Martijn date a Moroccan girlfriend? Such an affair is very rare in The Netherlands.
Calling me a retard is of course an insult to all those people suffering with a much lower than average IQ. Moreover, as far as I know, retards don't play chess. I do.
The biggest problem is the script of course. Just compare the little intelligent movie Hard Candy. To keep the spectator in a grip, the information must be revealed bit by bit. A nice twist now and then also helps. I understood from other reviews, that there is a big one at the end of the movie. Any smart person can guess what it is. This of course just raises more questions - why is the travel guide killed? Oh my, why should I even care? The whole movie focuses on just one thing: the chopped fingers. The makers have not even learned Hitchcock's lesson: it is thrilling to get a bomb exploded. It is more thrilling to show that bomb ticking. But no, we don't see the paper-cutter until the impossible countdown is over. I will not waste more words on this crap. Go see Hard Candy.


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 isn't that great...at all but it's good when you want to just laugh, because it's pretty ridiculous :) there are a lot of mistakes in it and it's cheesy. i got this movie for Christmas like 5 years ago but for some reason i've never given it away. i guess i just like it for a rainy day even though i only watch it like once a year. This is a very 90's movie so it's really funny to see how everyone dresses and acts. this movie is good for someone young...although come to think of it, i didn't even like it much when i was like 12 but that's just my personal opinion. the movie was really predictable. i wish it had had some extra weird twists but i guess it was trying to be an appropriate movie for everyone to enjoy. i think it was appropriate for the whole family but Hallie's dress was a bit unmodest but certainly appropriate enough for family material.


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


user
Maybe the target audience of this Disney Channel TV-movie will be pleased with it, but if any parents are watching along with the youngsters, they will clearly see that "cranked out" is written all over this production. Obviously it was no one's dream to make this movie, but rather, this was concocted in a board room somewhere, then produced with cold efficiency. There is some talent among the cast, but actors like Dabney Coleman and Jay Thomas don't get much of a chance to showcase their talent. The impossibly cute Elisabeth Harnois is engaging as the First Daughter, but Will Friedle is stuck once again playing another dumb character, though he's not nearly as moronic and annoying as in his "Boy Meets World" role. The background for this movie is Washington, D.C. and the White House, but there is no real "presidential" feel to the film and the Secret Service is made out to be little better than the Keystone Kops when it come to doing their duty. The Disney Channel presents a lot of original TV-movies and most of them are better than this.


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


user
If this was nominated for a screenwriting award by the WGA, a professional association of screenwriters, then it's time to hang up the word processor. Astonishingly inept writing, direction, production, at every level, even for a TV movie. No cliche goes unexploited in this jaw-droppingly bad movie. What were they thinking? Does anyone really believe kids are stupid enough to watch this?


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


user
Pointless and pretty silly film that is just basically a compilation of clips from horror, science fiction and suspense films. There are unnecessary shots to an audience watching the clips and Donald Pleasance and Nancy Allen are among audience members who turn to the camera and explain why we love horror films. Not a bad idea but all the explanations are obvious ("movie horror helps us deal with real horror", "you are at the mercy of the filmmaker in a theatre") and pretty trite. Also the clips are shown very quickly and the changes are kind of jarring. And, shown out of context, these bits aren't very scary at all. And it's REAL short--I saw it in a theatre back in 1984 and was outraged that I paid $5.00 for an 84 minute movie!
Still, it is reasonably well-edited and Allen and Pleasance seem to be enjoying themselves. For people who have an interest in knowing more about terror this might be fun and interesting. But if you're a horror fan (like me) you'll probably be bored silly. Good idea, bad execution (no pun intended). I give it a 3.


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


user
I used to think that "It Came from Hollywood" was the worst movie I had seen that showed clips from horror, sci-fi, crime and drama movies. Of course, I hadn't seen THIS beauty yet.
What's wrong with "Terror in the Aisles"? Four things:
1) It assumes that most of the great moments in shock cinema history began in the '70s when directors like John Carpenter and Brian De Palma came along. And what bones are thrown to the true classics (i.e. - the black and white films) like "Frankenstein", "Dracula" and "The Wolf Man" are either shown with Martin and Lewis or Abbott and Costello alongside or not at all!
2) The clips are most times so brief and out of their originals' place that they just give a momentary shock to the viewer and, for those unfamiliar with these films, will make no sense at all (indeed, the moment where the shark jumps out of the water at Roy Scheider in "Jaws" is shown much to the effect of a sight gag. Whereas, in the original's context, it had power.)
3) Did we really need Pleasance and Allen in the audience reminding us that "it's only a movie" or that most of the violence in the horror movies "is, sadly, against women"? So, is that an indictment against the movie-makers for adding those scenes or the movie-goers who tromp into the theaters and watch the same kind of fodder time and again? Sorry, that's a whole can of worms to open for a more deserving movie.
4) And most importantly, why is the movie so SHORT? It isn't like there wasn't enough of these kinds of movies to use. If they had just opened up their resources and used EVERY available film, they could have had a "That's Entertainment!"-style movie that would have been comparatively more entertaining. Heck, even drag out Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing (Cushing was alive then, mind you) and better yet, even Vincent Price would have been more than willing, I'll bet! What a cheer THAT would have gotten from the audience!
But no... all we're left with is a dreary little flick that pretends to pay homage to these movies but all it does is leave the viewer feeling cheated out of less than 90 minutes with which they could have went and watched a REAL movie. Don't get me wrong; it was good to see what clips they did show, but if they could have just done more with the goods!
Two stars. Another good idea left laying "in the Aisles".


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


user
"Terror in the Aisles" might look like the ultimate treat for horror fans but it has, in fact, very few to offer. Granted, it presents a decent and versatile (too versatile?) selection of horror/thriller fragments that are considered classic but ...what's the point? This documentary primarily aims for the horror-loving public so we've pretty much seen all these clips already, haven't we? The only thing really praiseworthy about this project is the editing. If you're into scream-queens, chases by vile murderers and that sort of things, "Terror in the Aisles" has some neat compilations of the most famous sequences. All these different scenes hang together by a lame wraparound story starring Donald Pleasance and Nancy Allen sitting in a movie theater. In between two sequences, the address the viewer and "explain" why we love horror so much. Those speeches naturally are soporific and rather obvious (it's in our nature to be afraid ...bla bla bla) and I fail to understand why many people love the concept. This is worth a peek in case you're a loyal horror fan but it certainly isn't essential viewing. On the contrary: in case you still have to see a classic genre title, beware that bits and pieces of it here don't spoil your future viewing. The main reason why I overall disliked it is because it shamelessly ignores a lot of lesser known, but fundamental (foreign) titles endlessly focusing on "Halloween". This does result in a cool inside joke, however, when Donald Pleasance screams to the screen at his own character.


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


user
So you've got a number of models on an island, and one by one they're picked off Agatha Christie-style. We get somebody lost at sea, pushed off a cliff, poisoned by a solvent, driven off a cliff, blown up, etc. Nothing terribly graphic.
Before any of that starts, one woman inexplicably has a dream of a killer in a weird human face mask.
The owner of the magazine is a sleaze who had an affair, and somebody had photos taken of her before she was of age.
In the end, it's all about business, or something,
There's an 80s style montage of a photo shoot, most of the bathing suits being one-pieces, surprisingly. A couple are fairly translucent. There's camera clicks during the montage where the frame of the camera appears as a white square or rectangle within the picture. The photographer is rather bad at framing!


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 just happened to be on HBO yesterday so I watched it. This was a mistake. I guess I got sucked in and kept watching although it was a lot like a train wreck, terrible, horrible, but somehow you just can't look away. shaudenfraud I guess! ; ).
This is the story of a photoshoot for models on some island in the Caribbean. One by one they are all murdered. One drinks cleaning fluid, one gets blown up on a waverunner, one goes over a cliff...so these are NOT accidents, but for some inane reason the police are never called and no one thinks that perhaps they should "wrap" the shoot and go home, not just in respect for the dead, but perhaps out of fear for their own lives. No. They just continue with their shoot because THAT is what's most important. Forget about the dead models, we have a magazine to produce!
One of the subplots is the Evil magazine owner, played by Lee Majors, Rex is his name. He is the most obvious suspect and every time a model gets killed he twirls his mustache and says "well, I can't say this won't be good for sales", mooo hoo hoo hoo ha ha ha ha". So absurd. Another subplot is when it's revealed that Rex is one of the models baby dady, only when he learned of the baby he tried to convince the girl to abort. She didn't, but always resented him for even suggesting this.
They try to give you false clues and point toward some guy named Raule, seemingly because he's the only one with an accent and "looks creepy".
At the very end (sorry to spoil, but this movie came out years ago so if you haven't seen it by now...) one of the women was found face down dead in the pool. THIS was the Last straw!!!! Vanessa Angel, forget her characters name comes at Rex with a gun, they struggle, the gun fires and now SHE'S dead too!!! While she's laying on the floor his business associate tells him that with all this bad press the magazine will be worthless and it's all his fault. He gets him to sign over the magazine to him. Once he does voila! All the dead models come back to life and you find the entire thing was an elaborate ruse to get back at Rex.
Oy! What a ridiculous movie. As someone else said; if you want to see something like this April Fools Day is far better!


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


user
I caught this during a brief run in a Philadelphia theater. Despite its local provenance (and its relation to a hometown tragedy, namely the beating death of Eddie Polec in 1994), I really have to come down hard on this movie. The director, for reasons best known to himself, decided to shoot the entire film guerilla-style, with nonstop handheld cameras and rapidfire cuts. Such technique might work for the scenes of jarring violence, but is utterly inappropriate for the rest of the material, which makes up the majority of the film. A stroll down the sidewalk, a brother-to-brother discussion on a sofa, hell, even a kiss on a first-date are all shot cusinart-style, distracting this viewer from ever being able to enter into the drama. Martin also undercuts his narrative by packing in far too many topics: besides the birth of mob violence, we get anorexia, alcoholism, divorce, racism, parental abuse...did I miss anything? No doubt a better cast (and a better-focused direction) would have knit these threads together, as Martin surely intended, to demonstrate how one moral flaw leads into and sustains a host of others...but good intentions do not necessarily a great film make. Just a sprawling mess. Martin, I know you're from my town, and I'm down with you man, I really am...just do a better job next time, like you did in Two Plus One.


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 outright painful for me to watch. I understand that indie films do not have the same resources as other mainstream films. But there are basic elements of film making that typically you want to adhere to. First off, jump cuts. There are numerous in the film's opening 15 minutes. There are shots in which it appears that two separate takes of the same shot were edited together. What I mean by this is a character will say half a line from one take, and the rest of the line is from a different take. Secondly, the dialog. I understand that many writers strive for a very realistic and true dialog for their films. Since this film is very specific to its location, the dialog must be spoken in a specific tone also (example: set a movie in Boston, yet people use west coast slang with a Chicago accent). Even with understanding this, it is still hard to sit through some of the lines these actors present. These are only the two most vivid problems I encountered with this film. There were a few others. I do not mean to sound like a harsh critic who doesn't know a thing. I have years of experience in the film (more importantly the low budget indie film) industry. I also understand that with many directors there is often a method to their madness. I have been unable to discover this method used in this film. This makes it difficult when trying to decide whether I view this film as an example of unique style in film making, or just another low budget, poorly put together film. I honestly hope that it is not the latter. If anyone has any insight into why things were done a certain way, or has any thoughts/views of their own concerning this film, I would love to hear them. Hopefully I can understand this film more and my current opinion can be changed.


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 example of a movie that can have great potential and is executed very poorly.. i am a fan of kids and thumb sucker and many other so called teen angst films, but this one bugged me.
why is every white kid made into a thug who loves rap, its getting to be one dimensional. the acting was awful but simple since It mainly consisted of just dropping f bomb after f bomb just a bad bad movie if you'd like to see better movies like this : thumb sucker kids bully all
those i think are better so i recommend one of those is you'd like to see a good "teen movie" i hope my comment you found useful and hope you hear future comments from me


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


user
Like the above poster, I got burned on the title thinking I was getting the other Piranha... This movie is everything the above poster said and worse...
Poor camera, lousy acting and just plain horrid storyline...
There was very little here that was even worth watching... How this movie even got released is beyond me.
Make sure the movie you buy is the one you want... and not this one.
The movie I bought was labeled "Piranha" and not "Piranha, Piranha!" which is what it actually is... This is the only way they sold this movie at all.
Peace Out.


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 duped as well. Here I was expecting all sorts of man eating Pirahnas and what the hell do you get.
An hour and a half of nothing, but awkward silences with some weird guy, who isn't weird enough to be scary.
I thought there was no way $5 could be too much for a movie.
Damn I was sooooo wrong. It was very hard to watch the whole thing.
Don't fool yourself. Its not so good that its bad. Its not even that kind of movie.
Its nothing. an hour and a half of absolutely nothing.
PIECE OF CRAP!!!!!!!!


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 just one of those films which cannot justify much of anything that happens. These people are going on a trek: the young girl wants to photograph animals. There really are no Piranhas, but I guess the psychotic hunter guy is the real piranha. Anyway, there are lots of animals and there is lots of driving. There is considerable anti-gun talk, but we all know where that is going. Toward the end, there's lots of action and a rape thrown in. Somebody must pay, and they do. It would have been nice to have a couple of piranhas to sort of fill the thing out. There were lots of monkeys. If you fast forward through the dull parts, you have a tight little five minutes.


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 dreadful. Biblically very inaccurate. Moses was 80 years old when he led the people out of Egypt, the movie has him about forty. Moses was about forty when he fled Egypt, was gone for forty years, and was with them wandering for forty years. Moses was 120 years old when he died, and was denied the privilege of crossing over to the promised land. I realize movies use a lot of "poetic license" as the biblical account isn't that long, but, if making a biblical movie they still need to reflect the facts known, and keep the general flavor of the main biblical character, this movie fails in this aspect, and in many others.Even though the 1956 version has its problems as well, theatrically it was much better.


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


user
I realise it's very hard to live up to the first The 10 Commandments movie (which was grandiose and personally not a Charleton Heston fan) but wow...this movie/mini-series was disappointing. Even the animated The Prince of Egypt was better.
The one thing that threw me off was Ramses. Compared to Yul Brynner's version, Paul Rhys's version just seemed so weak and un-Pharoh like. The acting really wasn't that great. For a modern adaptation, I was expecting something better. It just didn't look as stunning visually as the first one. I guess they were running on a tight budget or something. There's an occasional voice-over narrator which I found strange and unnecessary. It also broke up the flow of the story. And um...God's voice/lines were kinda weird.


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


user
I really wish Hollywood would come up with some new ideas and quick. Instead they go around and recreate and mess up a perfectly good movie with a re-make. This movie is awful from the DeMille version. All the way through this movie I was saying to myself, Huh??? - What???? - I don't remember that part. The only exciting thing in this movie so far was the parting of the Red Sea. And in Heston's version - it was a heck of a lot better than this version. Did anyone else see an atomic or nuclear bomb cloud fade in and out when the Red Sea was being parted? I think I did. Anyway, I Might - Might - watch the last part tonight.
I wish Hollywood would tackle different ideas and subject matters when they are making new movies. Instead of re-hashing old films.
They should of left well enough alone.
UPDATE:
Well I watched the last part. Did Moses make up the second copy of the ten commandments with his own hand - or was I seeing things - please someone - email me and let me know. HORRIBLE


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


user
if you're a fan of the original ten commandments, this movie will make you weep inside. granted, i'm only about 1/2 hour into it currently, but it's so painful, i felt it was my duty to warn away real ten commandments fans before they are subjected to this bastardization. i didn't think it was possible to actually make the special effects worse than they were in 1950s when the original was shot, but this 2006 remake proves me wrong. i can forgive some lame special effects, but the craptastic dialogue, melodramatic lifetime movie-style schlockiness, and the stilted we-are-wax-figures-come-to-life acting makes me hope they'll rewrite the plot and drown moses in the red sea.


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


user
The reason why this movie sucks, have these people even read a bible? Everything in the movie was about moses, God was staying out of it. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN! God directed everything, he told them where to go and what to do. Also the people wandered for 40 years AFTER they arrived at Canan and betrayed God again! They didn't wander for 40 years then suddenly find it, It was a punishment for their doubts. Maybe if the people who made the film actually picked up a Bible first they would say oh no we got it all wrong try again. Everything in this movie was about Moses. They made God look like a jerk who was messing with Moses the whole time. NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!! God was their the whole time and he wanted the people to see he was taking care of them. How dare they say otherwise not even close to the passage. AND Moses was kept out because he was angry at the people and blatantly disobeyed God! He sinned badly and was told he would not be allowed to enter for it. When did moses run off and yell at God for everything in the Bible? NEVER!!!!!! Actually read your story before you make up whatever you think is a good idea. Also this whole God stayed out of it for the most part and made them do it themselves is not true!!! God did everything for the people, he provided for them in every way and God told them where to go. He was there the whole time. The whole we have to do it ourselves is true in some ways, but back then thats not how it worked! Yes today He doesn't work directly for everyone to see, but back then he actually killed people after the golden calf thing! God worked directly with the people. Read the Bible Next Time Echo Bridge or don't make another Bible movie!


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 a waste of 3 hours of my precious time..in the first 10 minutes i was already annoyed as i am familiar with the real version on the story according to the torah (5 books of moses)...but i decided to watch it to get my moneys worth and too see how bad it sucked. Well it sucked..way more then i thought it would. First and for most lets start with the script and characters the skeleton that makes up the body of a movie. If you study torah at all you'll see that the story is all wrong here are some of the distasful mistakes: moses doesn't do slave work because he was in the tribe of levi, moses doesn't kill anybody at mount sinai.. but yet the movie depicts moses being whipped and aaron and himself killing people...reeeealllly not!. When moses speaks to the burning bush he knows who hes speaking too but the movie makes moses look like an idiot, he states that he doesn't know who the g-d in the bush is... whatever|Aaron knews his brother well regardless of their distance growing up, aaron was known for his calm, composed peaceful nature but yet he is depicted as angry and arrogant in this movie. Moses looks like Jesus in this movie.. how ridiculous....pharoah the real one was actually and ugly dwarf who sat upon a pyramid of stairs so he could appear bigger then he was and moses was more then 10 feet and in the movie pharoah is taller then him and hes hot with light eyes! The woman of Am Israel (nation of Israel) covered themselves meaning their hair and bodies and they didn't dance or sing in front of men, they did not participate in the golden calf so they would definitely not dance with a man in public as the movie depicts. Moses's wife Tzipora was married to moses and she therefore covered herself and being as humble as they were did not cuddle or hold hands in public. Batia Pharoahs daughter ( the one who adopts him and saves him from the water) actual converted to Judaism and therefore would have been proud of Moses when he said he was going to go free his people.fast fwd to mount sinai moses comes down the 2nd time with two sets of tablets...with gibberish writing on it..at least put the writing in the holy tongue, hebrew or English and put it on one tablet not two sets.. Bottom line is the movie is horribly written, directed and the characters are all wrong..basically EVERYTHING is wrong about the movie... The old one is inaccurate as well but its more realistic, and they actors are believable. Am Israel Chai!


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 could have had a lot of potential. Certainly with today's technology, one would expect real special effects. But movies are not made with special effects alone, of course acting is needed. This film lacked both!
First, let me say to those who are upset with this not following the bible: why can't a movie take artistic license? If you want to know about the story of Moses, read the bible. I have seen very few movies that follow a true story fact by fact. Look at of movie from its artistic quailities.
In viewing this movie, you will inevitably compare it to the 1956 version. It fails miserably in that. Heston and Brenner had PRESENCE. They became their roles. You don't see this here.
Even if you don't compare, standing on it's own, this movie to too rushed. Parts where a scene should be developed, it does not. It becomes boring.
My advice: skip this and watch the other. As campy as the other is, it's far and away the better movie.


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 really wonderful movie, you could also try seeing the movie about Saint Francis of Assisi - good for any audience. Best thing I liked about this movie was the Mexico landscape, & it gets the movie up to a 2. I was surprised that these actors didn't have terrible sunburn, they were so were not desert dwellers. And Moses is said to have a speakING impediment, but certainly not here. Even the "miracle" scenes were contrived & un-believable. And what's the point if you can belief anything in a TV story? Talk about dumbing down, I thought this Hallmark-made movie was pathetic, & I can see why others hate Hollywood. I don't, just some of these corporate profit grubbers. You don't have to be any kind of religious to benefit from "Jesus of Nazareth", but for this waste of celluloid you need to be bored, with nothing to do, dumbed-down & religious. And for a real movie experience, try "Short Cut to Nirvana", a very highly rated film.


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


user
From the English accents to the so unnecessary violence after violence. Showing Moses as a murderer. People who actually believe in the Old Testament will just sit there and shake their heads. I am not a religious person at all. But even i felt as though the writers of this movie were trying to turn us all against God and the Jews.When Moses picked up that rock and threw the first stone at the woman to kill her for committing adultery. I wanted to stone the writers. I can't believe in this day and age that Hallmark and ABC (Disney) would attempt to show such garbage as this. Don't we have enough problems in this world already?


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 difficult to compete against classic greatness, but once you make that choice and the decision is in play, you need find the best and brightest resources to keep your product top drawer, and on the cutting edge of quality. If your intention is to aim for second or third (or fourth) best, why even try? It is with that, I wonder why this version of the Ten Commandments was written, produced, and aired. I would ask the producers, "What were you thinking? Were you endeavoring to create a projected deficit?" If perhaps the producers were thinking, "We want to examine this biblical story from another point of view..." Then I would say "OK, I watched the show, now what's the point of view?" The premise of this "possible point of view theory" eludes me. I can generally watch programs, and (right or wrong) at least get a sense of what the creators were trying to accomplish. Not so, here. I recognize names such as "Robert Halmi" (the producer) and I can associate his work with some eye catching product; Tin Man, Earthsea, Flash Gordon, Jason and the Argonauts. Low budget entertainment based on myth, history and comic book entertainment. A perfect genre for Sci-Fi Channel. So I still have to ask Robert Halmi..."What was the point of THIS Ten Commandments, What WERE you thinking?" FJS


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


user
Nice attempt to bring Shakespearian language alive in a post-apocalyptic setting, but the final result is dreadful. Futuristic Liverpool is not convincing at all; the budget was obviously not very big, but the production designer could have come up with a slightly more creative approach to the matter. Alex Cox has made some good films, e.g. Repo Man and Highway Patrol Man, but i really don't know what he was thinking here. Just an opinion.


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


user
i really wanted this to be good as i am from Liverpool where it is set but it truly awful. the acting from everyone involved is cringeworthy the script is terrible absolutly terrible. terrible


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


user
Does anyone care about any of the characters in this film? - Or for that matter what happens to them? - I doubt it. That is the key problem - for a tragedy to work we have to care about at least one of the characters and none of them inspire any sympathy or appear to have any redeeming qualities at all.
What may have worked in the 16th Century, certainly does not work in one can only assume 'post apocalyptic Liverpool' if that was indeed what it was meant to be. The problem is the characters in post apocalyptic Liverpool, whilst still driving around in cars, using mobile phones and watching television, have reverted to speaking in Shakespearian language - with a Liverpudlian dialect. Oh dear! Bad enough you might think - but this often lapsed into pure scouse - with comments such as 'eh lah are you a cockney? And was that a Merseyrail announcement during one of the scenes filmed in the underground? Well the good news is that in Post apocalyptic Liverpool - the trains are still running.
The characters without exception are badly drawn, wooden and more like charicatures on the lines of the Joker/Penguin in Batman and Robin except there is no real storyline to speak of - or if there is - it is one that doesn't work in a modern setting where half the sets are gloomy and 'Blade runnerish' and the other half are fluorescent garish or just 21st century normal. Costumes are also mixed up with half wearing their everyday clothes (Parkers are big in post apocalyptic Liverpool - apparently) and the other half wearing costumes from the leftovers of a fancy dress party?
The film explores the ideas of lust, incest and revenge in the most inane fashion imaginable - the tragedy is that this film was made at all.



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


user
Uncle Fred Olen Ray once again gives us a little of his Retromedia "goodness" in the form of this soft-core Cinemax non-classic.
A numb-nut pair are out looking at rocks when they come across a swirling vortex a "black hole" as the intelligent dolts put it. Pretty soon an attractive cave girl from one million years ago happens into out time-line and she beds her way into the future. Pretty soon her studly other half makes his way into the future as well and blazes a path through the beds of the future.
Ray again delivers a passable (but barely) smut-fest that has horrible acting but some decent skin. Yeah it's barely titillating but heh! If worse comes to worse it will cure you insomnia.
S10 reviews: 1/5 or 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
The VHS cover for The Evil Below makes it look like a cool underwater horror flick. Sadly it's closer to a boring adventure flick and has no real horror elements. It starts off with some divers who get attacked and we see a bit of blood, but that's the only blood in the entire film.
The Evil Below isn't the worst around, but for a horror film it is tediously boring. The acting is decent and to be honest the only thing that keeps you watching is the developing romance between the two leads. There's a few nightmare sequences where it just seems like the director didn't know what to do. I manged to sit through it all (just about) but I wouldn't recommend this film to ANYONE. Horror fans might want a copy for the cool VHS cover, but it's best left at that.


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


user
Max Cash a charter boat captain who works off the Caribbean island San Sebastian is hired by Sarah, who's looking for legendary boat, El Diablo and its stolen treasure that sunk out in the reef in the 17th century. But something seems to be protecting the whereabouts of the ship, as people who knew anything about it are being killed.
I have to agree with those that were under the impression that this was going to be a horror feature. Instead what we ended up with was a low-rent, b-grade late 80s take on 1977 deep-sea adventure film 'The Deep', but with a baffling supernatural origin and an injection of mystery. The story is a tame muddle (so many inconsistent angles don't make a lick of sense and encourages a blotchy pace) and the technical side is clunky. Nice exotic location and under-water photography though. While the carefree performances weren't too bad either. A gruff Wayne Crawford is enjoyably witty and June Chadwick is fair along side him. Sheri Able is pretty much eye candy. There are some bizarre developments that amuse and one or two eerie sequences. However there's a real lack of cohesion. Most of the cutaway deaths happen off-screen, except for the bloody, fitful opening kills done by something unseen. Again just another thing that leaves you high and dry. The music is generic with its thumping cues to warn us of approaching danger and the POV shots get a good working out. Tatty, but watchable.


assistant
0