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
Pretentious horror film that looks like a soap opera gone goth about a drug that send you to a fantasy world where strange creatures lurk. The film has some good imagery but its odd mix of whats real and whats not doesn't go anywhere. Worse are the vague pronouncements in voice over from one of the characters. It seems to herald a more serious, more meaningful film, but I don't think they even got into the serious or meaningful territory to begin with so trying to over sell the meaning comes off silly. There isn't a great deal to say, people talk, take drugs have visions...they talks some more. Its not bad so much as pointless and dull. The dull is the sin here and the reason you'll want to avoid this.


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


user
worst. movie. ever made. EVER. I have no words to say about it.. other then it truly had no point, no plot, no... anything. sheer crap!!! I don't know how everyone in the movie didn't shoot them shelves after watching it.... .... .... ... .. I love vampire flicks and mysteries, and alternate abstract outside the box films, and.... this was non of those. I mean what the crap!!! I cant even tell you what the film was about cuz I still don't know, and I just wasted an hour and ahalf of my life watching it... bottom line.. I think the maker of this film just wants everyone to do drugs. thats the only thing I got from this film. please don't watch this... I mean for a " sultry sensual vampire flick" there wasn't even the to be expected nudity you'd get from a vamp flick. anyway back to my point.... this movie blows. go set yourself on fire instead.... .. ..


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


user
simply i just watched this movie just because of Sarah & am also giving these 4 stars just because of her,on the other side This movie was easily one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Theacting was horrible. The script was uninspired. This was a movie that kept contradicting itself. The film was sloppy and unoriginal. its not like I was expecting a good film. Just something to give me a jump or two. This did not even do that.
he worst thing is that, the more I think about the overall plot, the less sense it actually makes and the more holes we keep finding. A real shame really, as I'm fairly sure that there was a good idea lurking in there somewhere...
I'm perhaps being a bit harsh giving the film a 4/10 but given the actors involved and again SARA obvious writing talent, this film really should have delivered far more.
This movie is just crap, I cant put it differently. Since the very beginning one knows is going to be crap.
The story, dialogue, acting, special effects, make-up, pretty much EVERYTHING sucks. I like vampire movies and I know they will never be Oscar winning movies but this one is not even worth seeing, I can't believe how somebody produced this thing.
It's not even about vampires, it's more about a dream/reality experience. The development of the movie is incoherent, the motivation of the characters is... Doesn't exist, everything seems like a big joke. Maybe that's what they tried to do, but I sincerely doubt it. I wish I knew what they tried to pull but it just backfired, it's definitely one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life (and I've seen many bad movies, but nothing compared to this) Please, make yourselves a favor and do NOT watch this.
P.S. It's also full of clichés! P.S. 2 Bad Script, Bad directing, Bad cinematography. P.S. 3 I bothered commenting on this as a favor to everyone.


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


user
Dubbed beyond comprehension, the HBO version of Lumumba is a disastrous rendering of what looks like what was once a decent film. Some scenes simply don't make sense in English and the actors bring zero energy to their voice reading. Add in the self-censorship involving CIA operative Frank Carlucci, and you have a film stripped of both its drama and its power. Here's hoping the subtitled version gets to American television screens at some point.


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


user
This movie is the last straw in a list of films I have seen this week that have pushed me over the edge and forced me to join IMDb and spread some warning to the public. It was absolutely horrible. The film was drawn out and painfully boring. The sound, effects, and even picture quality seemed like they came from Willow (1988) or maybe even Conan the Barbarian (1982). The battle of Bannockburn was absolutely absurd. This "largest filmed reconstruction of medieval battle ever staged in the British Isles" made me snicker. There wasn't even a coherent formation at all, just a few guys with spears and horses running right through them. The scenes of Douglas, especially in the last battle, were simply horrible, as was most of the acting 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
The murder of the Red Comyn in Grayfriars Abbey was a long way from one of the most horrendous things ever done in the Scottish War of Independence and fights (and killing) in churches wasn't unusual at all. Not that much later Robert Bruces wife, daughter, two of his sisters were captured during a fight in a church in which people were killed. And comparing it to the massacre of Berwick in which the English slaughtered at least 8000 non-combatants (some, yes, in churches) is ridiculous.
That said this is not a well-made movie. It is slightly antidote to the absolutely RIDICULOUS sniveling representation of Robert Bruce in Braveheart. Whatever Bruce was, it wasn't a wuss.
Too bad that they didn't do a better job of this because someone should make a really GOOD movie of a war that is so amazing that it sounds like something someone made up going from complete defeat at the Battle of Methven to a secret return from hiding to a long guerrilla war to Bannockburn. This isn't it though. Poorly made and to a large extent poorly written and acted. Too bad!


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


user
When my Mum went down to the video store to rent a film for the night my sister and I learned a lesson, to always company my Mum to the video store! In fact the only reason why she chose it was because Colin Firth was in it and she *cough* thinks he's a good actor!
It starts off with some beautiful veiws of Africa and then goes DOWN AND DOWN AND DOWN, AND DOWN. After this film I was very surprised that Colin Firth got as far as he did since this pointless film could destroy any actors career.
The story is about a divorced women who's son is trying to matchmake her to a man called Matthew Fields who he met whilst impressing his friends because of his large house.
Nimi the divorce does not like Matthew at all and is going out with the local vicar who does not like her son John.... and the same with him!
I am sorry if you disagree with me and i hope i haven't offended you but to all the people who haven't seen this film, I leave you with one word of warning, DON'T WATCH THIS FILM!!!!!


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


user
The glorious Edward gets to move up in the world when his supervisor tells him that he can drop those filthy Swedish drama movies and head up stairs to the splatter and gore department. Excited along with his big anticipations for the new type of movies he soon will be going to edit, he asks all sorts of questions, about the wage, his workspace and lunch brake. Well, not really. Edward is maybe quite the opposite. Calm, stuttering guy, on top of that, he got glasses. With the exception when he's insane. I guess that created a much creepier atmosphere.
Evil Ed is with all reason a Swedish movie, but somehow a magical force came across the good actors and turned their lovely Swedish accents into stereotypical American voices. I guess that's some of the expertise an actor needs these days. The acting is very.wooden, as in they are inflexible, not bendable (well hey, what did you actually expect?). On top of that the movie has a jamming techno theme song, sounds like its E-Type. In any case, this only makes the movie experience worse. Since I'm fairly harsh against this movie so far, there will usually be a breaking point where I tone the level of happiness up. But there's really not much to say. The blueprints look good, but somehow 'Hanz' spelt coffee over it and partially destroyed it. That's how I look at this movie. If the movie ended where Edward is taken to a mental institute and they refurnished the parts from where he goes insane and kills people, the result would have been much better, but that's just my radical view. I would also like to see more footage from the lose limbs movies.
There are also illogical things to discover in this piece of movie. Let's to say that the actors really are American, living in America, why would they then work on a Swedish movie, like Edward did? And also, that delivery man, why is it that he never uses the doorbell which is located directly beside him? Instead he goes away with tapping softly at the door. Good old Edward really got some good ears to hear all that while he is editing.
Anyway, this movie had its moments, it's just a shame there were not that many. But that doesn't mean I would not recommend it. It's a rather cheap movie, go ahead and buy. It's almost like I see a pattern for the price and the movie. On the other side; if you like watching dubbed movies getting crappier by the second this might be IT. My verdict would then be a rock solid 4.


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


user
Calling this film a decent or enjoyable horror tribute is far too optimistic. Heck, you can't even refer to it as a nice spoof of the genre because it's way below average ( it's funny, but not "haha-funny, you know). But still I'd say to give it a look. If only for the huge amount of trivia elements in it. By the way, all those people who're complaining about this movie here in their comments have only themselves to blame. When you see the DVD-cover of this film, you should already know that it's not going to be on the same level as "The Piano" for example, so don't come complaining afterwards...
Evil Ed could've been something but the totally screwed it up. I suppose the main idea behind this film is criticism towards the growing 'cutting-committee' in horror nowadays. It shows an editor named Edward who's slowly (well,not too slowly) going nuts by seeing all the violence and gore in the movies produced by his company produced. The big boss is named Sam Campbell...Funny, isn't it ? Personally I also expected a character named Bruce Raimi, but to my surprise there wasn't. Anyway, this guy became rich by making movies called "Loose Limbs". They feature ( and I'm not kidding you! ) scenes in which a girl is getting raped by a BEAVER (?) and then gets shot in the head by a bazooka !!! Now, who says horror isn't original anymore ?
With all the gore and the 'loose limbs', it's hard to believe it but it really gets boring very quick. After a decent first 25 minutes, Evil Ed turns into complete boredom and never recovers from that. The only think left to do then ( besides pushing the eject-button, of course ) is look for the obvious amount of references to other, much better horror films. I saw scenes obviously stolen from The Evil Dead, Silence of the Lambs, Braindead and several others.And there's a huge amount of classic horror posters on the walls to admire as well.
Evil Ed finds it origin in Sweden. I'm convinced there's a lot up talent there, far North ( take the Danish "Nattevagten" as an example )...but none of them talents joined the cast or crew of Evil Ed. Only to see if you're in a dumb mood and you don't want to use your brain 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
This Swedish splatter movie tries to parody/imitate American horror films such as "The Evil Dead", "Gremlins" and others. Writer/director/actor/cinematographer Anders Jacobsson and writer/producer/actor/makeup effects supervisor Göran Lundström (did I miss something?) were obviously inspired by Sam Raimi. But the camera work is a bad copy of what can be seen in "The Evil Dead" and elsewhere. Some other users have written that they enjoyed the humor of this film but I didn't.
The film rather disturbed than entertained me. It tries to combine suspense and comedy and the final product just left me with a feeling of oppressiveness although it wasn't scary or shocking at all. The combination of different genre elements made this film very strange. I was never sure if it was meant to be scary or funny.
The story is quite inventive except for the showdown at the hospital but I didn't like the way it was staged for the reasons mentioned above. The gore & make up effects are considerably good and at least the "Loose Limbs" sequences were quite entertaining because in these scenes the film-makers didn't try to mix scares and jokes.
All in all a strange film that you will either hate or love. Rest in pieces, Evil Ed.
My rating: 3/10 (made me stick to American productions)


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


user
Once in a while i like a good horror movie, so i thought this would be a splatter and gore movie. but it was a boring boring movie, maybe because i have seen a cut version, because there where only two things that where a little splatter, one time where some ones cuts someone arm of and where some one shots an arm of, but that where the only things. Wismaster for example had more cool senes then evil ed, its more a boring ed than a evil ed. and some actors where lousy to.o


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


user
A swedish splatter movie? Has the world gone insane?
Probably not, but it's still not a common sight in these days with swedish gore-flicks, the b-movie business in Sweden seems to have troubles these days, long gone are the golden days of "Rymdinvasion i lappland". And this movie seems to have some troubles on its own: it's just too much talk in it, it still manages to be somewhat amusing mainly for the good FX, which are great for a b-movie. The script and most of the acting is still pretty bad though, but that actually don't matter that much, it's supposed to be a gore flick and nothing more, that's where it goes a bit wrong for some reason. There's is simply not enough blood to fill the void.
Every person who know about Gert Fylking will have a good laugh over his role as a sgt. though. I nearly laughed my ass off. It's really that hilariously bad.
Besides the good parts I've listed there's really nothing else to recommend here unless you're starved for swedish B-movies.
4/10


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


user
This flick is TERRIBLE! It sets out to disgust and make you laugh, but it fails horribly. The director obviously has no sense of slap stick gore comedy, and the actors are like nothing I've ever seen - lacking both acting talent and flair of comedy. Even their attempt at the English languish is really sad, and actually the down right peculiar Swedish accent, in which the incoherent dialog is spoken, is probably the most comical and enjoyable thing about this film. Even the gore i awful and unconvincing. If you crave gore comedy, I'd suggest you turn to classic fare such as the evil dead series or even brain dead if you must. We all enjoy a bloody good laugh, but this is ridiculous!


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


user
Not as bad as some people say...This is a unofficial Bond movie and a remake of "Thunderball", written by Kevin McClory (co- producer in "Thunderball"). Well, the cast is very very interesting, Maria Brandauer is a great Bond- villain, Kim Basinger and Barbara Carrera are just like the "original" Bond- girls, plus Rowan Atkinson and a truly great Edward Fox, who looks really refreshing in the "M" role. In fact, the whole movie is refreshing and gives some new impulses. Sean Connery does it once more confident and charming, except that he looks a little bit too old. But alright, he is the original Bond and it was great to see him once more in this role. The locations are also typical- Bahamas, France, etc. The only thing that really fails is the music score, the song "Never say never again" is O.K., but the theme song is just missing. All in one, a nice try to make a difference from the comic and silly Roger Moore movies like "Moonraker". Only if there was another story, "Thunderball" was a excellent movie and really did not needed a remake


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


user
Though some would prefer to comment on the value of Bond movies in the connection of learning frequency, and while most of the jargon that tends to limit Bond to a meager 007 following has been exploited beyond all reasonable contention, there are several redeeming plausibilities that extend the credibility of Sean Connery in this doubling role that had seen its counterpart adaptation in part of a previous performance by Jessica Tandy in Driving Miss Daisy. While Connery had been less visible in the latter, his woman-seeker qualities had maybe not cast a frown on the face of embittered spectators as it would in this latest rendition which, to most involved, approached the 007 theme with kind resentment, albeit while the general flavor had been altered. Great for those who interest others while faking to be who you're not!


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


user
Sad in every aspect, this poor excuse for a career boost for Connery was neither that nor the hit Warners wanted it to be. Overlong by 20 minutes and filled with embarrassing moments for everyone involved, this film and "Robocop 2" are proof that Irvin Kershner did not have any real control over "The Empire Strikes Back." Connery hadn't been in a hit since he bowed out from Bond in 1971, but this didn't bring him back at all. "Octopussy" was released several months before this film, and easily outgrossed it. Imagine that - a Roger Moore Bond not only better than a simultaneous Connery release, but outgrossing it (and compared to "Never...," "Octopussy" is on par with "2001."
The worst Bond theme song, even worse than "The Man with the Golden Gun," pointless scenes that drag on pointlessly (with the worst example being that ridiculous video game sequence - MY GOD - WHO CARES?!), and the most atrocious collection of non-talent as far as the fabled "Bond Girls" go. Does anybody SERIOUSLY think Kim Basinger is attractive in this movie? There were girls in my high school who could never get dates who looked better than she does in this. And Barbara Carrera - just plain stupid - but the way Kershner has directed her to prance around all the time didn't help her out any. She is the seedling that would become the very impressive "Onatop," which was about the best feature of "GoldenEye," but that doesn't mean anything as you laboriously struggle through this film.
Casting Leiter as a black agent was an excellent idea, but the buddy-loke interaction Connery and he are supposed to have is awfully bad. Two actors never appeared so clumsily linked together - witness the scene where, to escape local authorities, they strip to their boxers and pretend to be out exercising - I can not imagine another scene in any movie that tried so hard so fruitlessly to get a laugh.


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 more than just an adaptation of Bond: it's a plain rip off! With mediocre character sketches that Ian Fleming would not have approved of, this film goes down as the worst 007 movie. An older (even haggard) Connery tries to relive his past 12 years later. The result is a humourless, tacky version of the classic hero. Give me Roger Moore any day!


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


user
Connery climbs aboard the Moore buffoon train in this stinker of a movie. Tossing away everything that made Bond successful in the first place, this movie further degrades the Bond character throwing him into the category of Inspector Gadget. Get Smart this ain't. There is no style here, only second rate actors performing on cheap sets. It's a shame that Connery couldn't lend an element of class here but it doesn't come across. Everything here reeks of mediocrity, including Connery's bad toupee. Perhaps if I was snowed in and given the choice between watching "Never Say Never Again" and "Howard The Duck" I would choose the former. If you want the real James Bond, pick up any Ian Flemming novel.


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


user
Thunderball and Never are two of the biggest box office misses and Never is a surprise farce from Empire Strikes Back hero Irvin Kershner. Klaus Maria Brandauer seems to steal the show, when, in the midst of the unfolding plot, Bond's mission turns more to Hollywood romp (Sometime around when Basinger comes in). How about Klaus Kinski? I still think that the casting of Largo makes or, as is evident in both films, breaks the story. Worst of all is the attempt to pass off the aging and very hairy Connery off as the sex symbol he indeed was in the '60s. The '80s was a barren time for Bond flicks mostly, though For Your Eyes Only is a great title. At times, when I happen to need to waste some time over the holidays by watching this film in the often string of Bond re-run festivals, I think the best attribute of the film is its score, and I'm not into soft '80s 'jazz'.


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


user
It only took one viewing of this dog, for me to say "Never again!" It's so profoundly unmemorable that I had to read other people's reactions to it before I could remember anything beyond (1) it was awful, (2) Connery should have quit while he was ahead, and (3) the film included a total gross-out bit involving faking a retinal scan through the most gruesome (not to mention horribly inefficient) means possible.
Actually, I've never understood why anybody would prefer even the best of Connery's Bond films over even the worst Moore or Dalton outings. Or Lazenby, Brosnan, or even David Niven, for that matter. I personally found Octopussy and Moonraker, among other "canonical" Bond films, to be far more entertaining than this, and probably for the very same reasons why others deprecate the Moore Bond films, namely their wry humor, and their willingness to surrender to the preposterousness of the whole basic Bond milieu.


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


user
I bought a tape of this film based on the recommendation of other IMDb users and have to say that I was very disappointed. I'm a college professor and showed this movie to my class; they unanimously voted that it's a terrible film. I guess that if you like the old Dark Shadows series, then maybe you'll like this. (I liked Dark Shadows when I was a kid in the '70s, but now I think it's just awful). The first half hour or so at least has the virtue of some fidelity to Wilde's novel. After that, the story veers wildly off course, at least as compared with the 1945 MGM version (which won two Oscars). Nigel Davenport as Lord Henry is really about the only thing watchable in the whole production. A lot of the other acting is bad, the music is melodramatic, and look of the film is terrible. Actually, it's not a film at all--it was obviously shot on video and has that characteristically claustrophobic BBC look about it. The opening scenes are particularly poorly lit, the women's costumes are terrible (the men look all right), and a lot of the characters--including Dorian--seem to have 1970s rather than Victorian hairstyles. The movie does well to include a lot of Wilde's dialog, but the voice-over narration in the voice of Dorian contains a lot of rubbish that directly contradicts Wilde's character. I'm a big Oscar Wilde fan, and I fear that he must have rolled over violently in his grave when this monstrosity was made. Its only improvement over the 1945 version is that the homosexual subtext is definitely more apparent, without being heavy-handed. I haven't seen either of the more recent versions, but if one is interested in seeing the story well told, I would have to recommend the 1945 MGM black-and-white over this one.


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 supremely disappointed with this one. Having just read the wonderful Oscar Wilde story, I had hoped for at least a little of the magic to translate onto the screen. Well, there was none. This version played like a condensed, dumbed down Reader's Digest movie. Not only did it feel rushed, it was cheapened and needlessly re written. Major characters and plot points were either changed or completely removed. I appreciate the difficulties in trying to bring a novel to the screen, especially on what may very well have been a limited (TV) budget, but there is no excuse for mangling a great story in this way. I thoroughly recommend reading Wilde's tale of the depravity that exists under even the most beautiful exteriors. But I cannot advise anyone to rent this travesty.


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 first recorded effort to put sound with a movie, and a the oldest that, obviously, is still in existence. This historic piece of film is the opening segment in the "More Treasures Of The Natural Archives" DVD.
It's only a 15-second clip of a man playing a violin in front of a huge recording cylinder. Next to him are two men dancing. Near the end, another man walks on the stage. William Dickson, the director of this experiment, is the violin player. This "movie" had several titles over the years but the sound experiment was not really a success. It took over 30 years from this point to the synchronize sight and sound to the point where something could be issued to the public for entertainment. However, this was a start, no matter how primitive it came off.
For more of the technical information and history of this film process, see the other review here by "Boba Fett1138."


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


user
Director/screenwriter Allan Burns seems to have patched two different scripts together before coming up with this minor outing: a comedy about infidelity and a melodrama about loss and sabotage. It results in a wincingly unfunny film. Christine Lahti plays a crass, cynical TV news reporter who makes friends with aerobics instructor Mary Tyler Moore and is soon having dinner with Moore and her family--only to discover Mary's husband (Ted Danson) is Lahti's secret affair! Burns has a strange, stop-and-start rhythm to his dialogue which is neither realistic nor effective (just increasingly annoying, because nothing important ever seems to get said). Rail-thin Moore, looking alarmingly frail in her leotard, has a radiant smile but doesn't convince as Danson's wife, and Danson gets stuck with a paltry, thankless role (he's just there to be a cad). The movie attempts to cover all the bases in a classic case of overreaching (woman's role in the workplace, the TV news-biz, the cheating family man, the working wife and mother who wants more, a woman's need for female friendships, et al), but nothing substantial comes out of these ideas since Burns only half-heartedly examines the issues. As a writer, he is surprisingly free of punchlines, but is devoid of a purpose as well, and the heavy plotting just gets all fouled up. *1/2 from ****


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 what used to be called a "women's picture" and later a "chick's flick" when times and movies got more juvenile. The plot is just soap opera for women and will only appeal to those types. The only appeal for most guys is if they wanna see a too rail-thin Mary Tyler Moore in leotards. (If you're of a certain age, like me, that might still be enough to give it a look.) Otherwise MTM gives another of her typical by-the-numbers performances that she's been giving since the early 70s when she took it to heart that she was America's Sweetheart. Christine Lathi gives another of those abrasive and unpleasant performances that seem a real part of her as a person and probably only appeal to those of that type. (Sorry, but it seems true.) Ted Danson is too young as MTM's husband and usually gives off a slightly creepy appeal unless he has an acting partner who can soften it. And it doesn't happen here. Allan Burns wrote & directed and probably got it all through because he worked with Mary before, wrote it as a project for her, and she had the juice at this point to get it made. There seems no other purpose to it.


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


user
Boring, utterly predictable soap opera. Mary Tyler Moore is married to Ted Danson who's having an affair with Christine Lahti. Moore is friends with Lahti and doesn't know about the cheating. Danson dies in an accident and Lahti is pregnant with his baby. YAWN!
I'm ashamed to admit I paid money to see this in a theatre in 1986. I liked all three stars but even their considerable talents couldn't pull this off. I CONSTANTLY knew what was going to happen. Like another poster said--this plays like a PG-rated Lifetime movie.
It does have Lahti swearing nonstop at one point and even Moore lets loose once! Also there's a pointless shots of topless women playing football (!!!). Other than that it's TV friendly. The only good thing about this was Timothy Gibbs playing Moore and Danson's teenage son. Very handsome and quite a good actor. That aside there's nothing to recommend this. You've seen it before...and done better. It's obviously been forgotten. Skip it.


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


user
This four-hour miniseries production is about two hours longer than necessary, primarily because the filmmakers seemed not to have a clear idea how to adapt a novel to the screen. They seemed not to know what should be kept in and what might safely be left out. The film opens with Sir Walter reading from the Peerage book that is his primary solace in his troubles. This introduces the family - all of whom we get to know intimately over the next four hours anyway - but serves little other purpose. Similarly, the scenes where the Musgroves lament "poor Richard" serve no purpose but to drag the story down. Some of Austen's actual dialogue is allocated to different characters and some of her narrative is recycled as dialogue that falls awkwardly from the tongues of the characters. There is some fill-in dialogue, too, and this is uniformly dreadful. The scene where Charles Hayter is boring Henrietta with his concerns about getting Dr. Shirley's curacy was only barely interesting as narrative in the book; as a scene in this production, it is stultifying The scene on the Cobb, when Louisa falls and is "taken up lifeless!", is entirely without urgency, and I wondered whether Wentworth's line "Is there nobody to help me?" might have been directed at the writers, as well as the other actors.
This production often looks and feels like a play that has been filmed, rather than an actual film, and this is most evident in the acting, which is the opposite of subtle: booming delivery of lines, exaggerated gestures, and actors who have no idea what to do with their hands, feet, or faces when they are not speaking their lines. Charles Musgrove stands in his parlour, feet shoulder width apart, and appears to project to the balcony (if there were one) when speaking to the other people in the room with him. Louisa Musgrove's face, when not actively simpering or giggling, seems to be in confused repose. Louisa is a giddy, giggly, ditzy creature, and I did not for a moment believe that Wentworth would be interested in her.
The costumes are a mixed bunch, but mostly awful, and Anne Elliot's green tartan gown is quite possibly the most hideous alleged period costume ever devised. We are given the dates at the beginning of the show - it is the late 1790's or perhaps very early 1800s - and yet many of the costumes seem to be of Victorian design, and thus about 60 years too early! The hair is just so wrong that I won't even mention it here. Except to say that I won't mention it. :-)
This production does do some things right, however. Mrs. Smith is given her proper importance, and her history with Mr. Elliot, his dissipation and his intrigues, are fully addressed. I was also pleased to see the fleshed out "reconciliation" scenes with Anne and Frederick at the end, which are precious reward for the reader but were glossed over in the 1995 production.
If you love the book Persuasion, and even vaguely like the 1995 movie, don't waste a moment (or a penny) on this production; you will find it sorely wanting.


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


user
Okay, if you discount the production value, the ugly outfits, and the big hair, this adaptation is still far inferior to the 90's version. First Ann Firbank (playing Anne Elliot), is literally ten years too old to play this role and her acting leaves much to be desired. Amanda Root (playing the same role in the 90's version) can express more in her big, brown eyes than Firbank can with her entire face in a four hour production. Anne is turned into a peevish, whining, boring character (and what was with the scene during the `long walk' where she stops to spout off poetry?). Henrietta and Louisa looked so much alike that the only time I could tell them apart was when they stood next to each other (Henrietta was taller). And Louisa! Never was there a more obnoxious character! It was ridiculous to think that Wentworth was supposed to be interested in her. She is supposed to be high spirited and pretty and charming, not stupid and silly with her ridiculous laugh that's like nails on a chalkboard. When she starts to chant, `to Lyme, to Lyme, to Lyme,' I started yelling, `shut up, shut up, shut up!' The best part of the movie was when Louisa falls those three feet at the cobb because I knew I wouldn't have to see her anymore in the movie. Speaking of the fall at the cobb scene; it was the mose poorly acted, badly directed and edited scene of the entire film. How does a person fall three feet down, land on her feet, and still be knocked unconscious?
On the plus size, the character of Elizabeth was much closer to the book than in the 90's version. They also put in many more scenes with Anne and Frederick at the end.
I'll admit, I have bought this movie, even though I knew how sub par it was, but I'm a huge Austen fan, so I'll buy any movie adapted from one of her novels. Watch this move if you're morbidly curious, or to appreciate the 90's version even more.
The bottom line is, this version may follow the letter of the novel, but the 90's version follows the spirit.


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


user
Well, Anne is way way too old. Wentworth looks younger than she and he should not. Louisa is much too young and too cheerful Oh sister Mary is way too pretty. She is supposed to be average, not pretty. When this actress complains the way Mary should all I think is that she is too pretty to be a complainer. Lady Russell is too Old. This is crazy. If you read the novel, she is Anne's older more mature friend, maybe as old as Annes mother would be which would be around 18-20 years older than Anne- so around 50 NOT 70! Its crazy, doesn't fit. How come Anne is so darn happy in the beginning? She smiles when she says "oh the worst is over, I've seen him now the worst has passed" yeah right. OK if anyone has seen the 1995 Roger Michell version than you cant compare these two. That one is right on. This one is way off. Read the novel and you'll know what I mean.


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


user
Oh yes, I have to agree with the others who describe this as appalling. The acting in this four hour feature is uniformly bad, so bad to the point that I find it impossible to believe any of the actors in this production could possibly earn a living as an actor. I still wonder who did the casting. Each delivers their lines without appearing to have any kind of engagement or emotional investment with any other character. None appear to have a true relationship, family or otherwise, with another. The direction is also appalling and any action scene is laughable and unconvincing. Were the film editors asleep?
The costumes appear authentic to the Regency period but the fabrics look 20th century and colors (especially the blue colors!) are jarring and I don't believe were available in early 19th century fabric except perhaps in silk.
Also the hair: the men have obvious 1970s haircuts, and the women have "big hair"---especially the woman playing Anne Elliot.
All the female characters, young and old, are quite lovely but this doesn't make up for the lack of acting abilities. The actress playing "Anne" looks as though she is in her forties while Anne Elliot is supposed to be 27 years old. I mean, where was the makeup and lighting crew if we were to find the woman playing Anne believable? She spends much of her time gazing pensively with her eyes at the level of the horizon whether indoors or out. I wonder still what that was suppose to convey. Regret perhaps? Yes, this production is regrettable!
The actress playing Louisa was truly appalling. She screams, squeals, giggles, and leaps around like an ill mannered twelve-year-old (my apologies to anyone twelve years of age reading this) that I found myself eagerly awaiting the moment when she knocks herself out. How this behavior is suppose to attract an adult male is beyond me. Most would back off when she first opened her mouth to giggle and shriek.
The actor playing Captain Wentworth portrays someone so bland and colorless one wonders why any woman could pine over him for eight years.
The rejoining of the pair at the end is not convincingly done or explained. How did they get together again? Not because Louisa was in a coma; that is certain. No, there has to be more than that and it is not explained in the film.
I rate this production two stars: one because it is Austens' work, and the other because some of the outdoor scenes were lovely. The only reason I could watch the entire production is that I was off sick with the flu and I got it from the library.
If you enjoyed the book see the 1995 version with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds. I would recommend this film even if you have't read the book.


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


user
Oh, my. Poor Jane must have done the old rolling-over-in-the-grave thing. Even allowing for poor production values for the time (1971) and the format (some kind of mini-series), this is baaaaaad. Whatever else you do with Austen, the dialog should sparkle (even in this, perhaps her most serious work), and melodrama should be strictly out of bounds. Alas, not the case with this production. By the time you get to Anne's "Frederick, Frederick, Frederick," you'll either be laughing or crying. Unless you're just out to visually "collect" all extant films of Austen's work, you can skip this one. If you do watch it, however, there are small consolations: The actresses playing Anne's sisters each do a wonderful job with their roles.


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 BBC releases a TV series one is used to a certain satisfaction guarantee. Usually the TV series is splendid, even if the story is boring, you can trust the acting will make the it worth while. When I came across, Persuasion, here at the local library, I was looking forward to an enjoyable evening, cause I read the story.
I'm glad I read the story first, otherwise I would not think highly of it. Further was I relieved to learn that the production date of this TV series was from 1971, since I thought, until that moment, that BBC had lost it. It is really bad, and should be used in acting schools as a horror movie.
The only positive thought I have about this series that the people in this film are not likely to appear or be involved in any BBC or other product this century other than the young Musgroves sisters, who apparently were taking their fist steps in acting, and doing remarkably well under the direction otherwise given.


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


user
Shwaas may have a good story, but the director is utterly devoid of talent. He does not know when to stop. When the story calls for people to act confused, there are ten minute scenes of people miming the act of confusion. When the story calls for a little background history, there are ten minute scenes of Konkan's greenery. When the story calls for a kid throwing tantrums... you get the idea.
Not to mention the extreme closeups so that you can count people's nose hair. There are movies that should be seen on a big screen, this movie should be seen on a 13" TV. Also Amruta Subhash who plays Asavari is the worst actress I've seen in quite a long time. A normal human being would need to practise overacting for years to achieve what she does so effortlessly.
I give it 4/10 solely because the subject matter is different, and the story is not bad. The fact that a movie like Shwaas gets to be India's entry to the Oscars tells volumes not about the state of Indian cinema but the state of Indian judging committees. A movie is not good just because its subject matter is arty.


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 really loved GWTW, you will find quite disappointing the story. Those who may think this is just about a romantic story and the south, will be probably satisfied with this decent TV production (altought I consider an important miscast the choice for Scarlett). But, let me say that considering the novel, nothing good could came out of this.
I've read GWTW more than 20 times and I can really appreciate the adaptation Mrs. Mitchell did for the film. It took me some time to understand how good the ending was: Scarlett knew for sure she was going to recover Rhett, since she always got what she wanted. But there was no kiss in the end.
Then Alexandra Ripley came to "fix" this by showing us exactly how perfect and mighty Scarlett could be, and of course, describing in detail how exactly she gets Rhett back even when she had an important affair with someone else (nothing could have been further from Mrs. Mitchell mind, I am sure).
The story between these points is in my opinion just a long and boring ride made up to tie ends, showing off costumes and scenarios just to give us an obvious and totally unnecessary ending.
If Margaret Mitchell could came to live again, she would die one more time at the very moment she'd find out what Scarlett became after GWTW.
Sure it's not fair to compare this to the original but this is not GWTW fault. Isn't it? Is it any good if I don't compare it to the original? Maybe. Sorry to say I don't really care.
I would expect little more compromise to continue someone else's (suberb) work, otherwise don't even try.


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


user
As everyone knows, nobody can play Scarlett O'Hara like Vivien Leigh, and nobody can play Rhett Butler like Clark Gable. All others pale in comparison, and Timothy Dalton and Joanne Whalley are no exceptions. One thing that I really couldn't get past was that Joanne has BROWN eyes. The green eyes were the most enhancing feature of Scarlett's good looks, and in this sequel she has been stripped of those.
The movie, as well as the book, had several lulls in it. The new characters weren't all that memorable, and I found myself forgetting who was who. I felt as though her going to Ireland did absolutely nothing whatsoever. It could be that I'm only 11, but I saw no change in her attitude until the last say, 10 minutes when Rhett told her she had grown up. If Rhett hadn't told her that, I would have never guessed that there was any change in her attitude. She really loved Cat, her baby. She likes this child best because she had it with Rhett, her only loved husband. Still, if you've read Gone With The Wind, you would see that children make no difference in Scarlett's world.
Quite frankly, it seemed to me like there was way too much going on without Rhett. All anybody cares about is whether or not Rhett and Scarlett get back together, and Scarlett took way too long to get to that. It is virtually nothing compared to Gone With The Wind, but then again what isn't? If you have read the novel, you will like that better than the movie.
I would watch it, just because it is the sequel to Gone With The Wind, regardless of whether or not it's worthwhile. It may not satisfy you entirely, but it will get you some of the way there.


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 read the book 'Scarlett' and was expecting a good movie the first time I saw it. I'm afraid to say that I was disappointed. The movie did not follow the book and made many changes that I did not like.
One of the changes that I did not like the way that Lord Fenton was portrayed. It made no sense to make him out to be a bad man. The way that things ended between Lord Fenton and Scarlett was a lot different and their whole relationship was too intimate.
There was also a lot less confrontation between Scarlett and Rhett in the movie than was originally written in the book. The movie sent the two in two completely opposite ways and they did not seem to cross paths often enough to make it seem like there still could be love between the two. A fine movie, but I believe that it certainly could've been better than it was, had it more true to Alexandra Rippley's book.


assistant
0