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
There are three main problems with the film. Or rather there are three reasons why it isn't even a contender worthy of more serious consideration.
Firstly, and this was always going to be true, it's not nearly as good as the books. However, at least we could have expected to reflect some of the Sapkowski's wit or depth.
Secondly we have the production. Fantasy movies are, in my opinion, the hardest to produce well. Everything from the props through costumes, scenery, stunts and (especially) CGI is substandard.
Finally, and this is many be very subjective, I just can't quite take the acting seriously. I wasn't brought up in Poland so I can't really judge- it may me my lack of familiarity with films in polish. All the same the lines seem very amateurishly delivered... The casting could be better as well.
In summation, the only possible redeeming feature of this film is the remainder of the plot shining through: not unlike a diamond ring on a rotting cadaver.
On a separate note I heard that the books are coming out in English. I haven't seen them yet but I can't imagine how one would even begin to translate them... I would ask the English-speaking reader to bare this in mind when judging 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
a very mediocre film based on a superb series of stories and novels. I hope Somebody, someday will be able to film it the right way. In the meantime, look for the books (by A. Sapkowski), a very inteligent, postmodern fantasy. By now there should be a translation in english, there translations in german for sure.


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


user
Yes, that's true. That movie is a horrible piece of... you know what. Almost all fans of Sapkowski's books in Poland think the same. The truth is that polish cinematography can not afford producing fantasy films. It's a shame when you compare "Wiedzmin" and "Conan the Barbarian" for example. I hope no one outside Poland will ever see this nightmare.


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


user
not many people outside poland have had an opportunity to become familiar with andrzej sapkowski's brilliant writings. he's very popular in poland for his fantasy short stories ( i believe none of them has ever been translated intrto english. alas!). to make a long story short, wiedzmin - the main character of sapkowski's books - is a traveling monster slayer, a man of extraordinary strenght and skill: he's pretty much your favourite tolkien-style cool guy. unfortunately, no one would figure this out after watching the film. 'wiedzmin' the movie is nothing but a collection of random scenes, featuring wiedzmin and other characters from sapkowski's writings, but not eben remotely resembling the plot and dramatic pace of the original. event the fact that some of the shots in the film show attractive naked women does not add any quality to it. the movie gets worse and worse with every minute, and does not even meet the requirements of 'so bad it's actually good' category. if you really are into fantasdy and want to learn something about wiedzmin, read the books instead.


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


user
I grabbed La Bandara because it reunited Jean Gabin and Julien Duvivier, whose Pepe le Moko is a noir masterpiece. I'll give it a few points because Gabin is in it, but the clumsy plot, cheap sets and the ludicrous Annabella making like an Arab princess put the film on my `to sell' shelf. If you watch it, you'll find yourself asking, why didn't the idiots build the fort *around* the well, instead of a deadly few yards away from it. And why use tin roofs in the middle of the desert? But by then the sheer perversity of contrivance that makes up the script should numb you to any further contemplation.


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 a television biopic is released on a celebrity, its, at the very least, campy (i.e. Cybill Shepherd as Martha Stewart, Lauren BaCall as Doris Duke), this is the most horrendous, cheap, and BORING television movie ever made. If VH-1 is going to make a television film, they have GOT to spend a little more money on them. Flex Alexander--though gifted with the Michael voice--is not a great dancer, does not resemble Michael one bit, and does not even have his mannerisms down. VH-1 would have done better by hiring an actual impersonator, that way when see Michael go into get plastic surgery, he doesn't actually come out looking EXACTLY the same. Why should we be taken aback at the shrinking of Michael's nose when its exactly the same size as in the beginning of the film? The woman playing Elizabeth Taylor cannot act and looks nothing like her, and don't even get me started on the woman as Janet Jackson. Terrible script and a severe case of miscasting needs to keep VH-1 from producing any more movies. Flex Alexander would have made a much better JERMAINE JACKSON rather than Michael. Costumes? Trashy ripoffs. Neverland? Spliced together footage from news docs. Don't bother with this one....its not even remotely worth it. The one good piece of casting--the actor portraying Joseph Jackson and MAYBE the actress as Lisa Marie Presley, though she should have been more tomboy than girlie girl.


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


user
I am speechless, honestly I cannot understand how anyone could have conceded to a script like this, cast anyone in the film let alone direct it. The fact that I am writing this review feels like an insult to my fingers, this film should be thrown in to the dustbin rather than be reviewed. I am disappointed in Flex Alexander for even thinking about accepting such a POOR EXCUSE FOR A SCRIPT let alone essay the role. OMG! I think I just insulted the word "essay"...uh yeah I did. Y'know what, the less said about this mindless drivel, the better. You have been warned, nobody warned me I had to experience the horror myself. WATCH AT YOUR OWN RISK.


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 like so many biopic TV movies I have seen: formulaic, exaggerating, poorly acted, and most importantly, happening too soon.
What I mean by that is the movie was filmed and, for that matter, aired before Michael Jackson's acquittal from his child molestation charges, which I think was one of the most significant periods of Jackson's life and career so far. It probably would have made a great ending to this docu-drama. However, this movie already bites off more than it can chew, cramming too many details in this overly ambitious project.
It's no doubt that Michael Jackson has led perhaps the most interesting life so far of any musician, let alone modern day pop star, to date, and his story would probably take six Behind The Music specials to tell accurately. This movie tried to tell too much in three hours, and needless to say, it failed.
Flex Alexander did what he could in playing Jackson, but he came off more like an SNL caricature by the likes of Tim Meadows and Amy Poehler. It would admittedly be pretty hard to find someone who accurately portrays Jackson without meeting with the King of Pop himself and studying his methods of madness. On a shoestring budget, though, one can only depend on what they see in the tabloids, and those do not necessarily give an accurate representation.
Furthermore, the director's efforts to make Alexander look like Jackson are completely foolish. The Caucasian makeup on Alexander's face makes him look more like a reverse minstrel show, and everyone who has been in a grocery store knows that Jackson's nose is not as big as Alexander's. It's also amazing to me that the film documents Jackson going under the knife to get cosmetic surgery, yet in the next scene, Alexander still has the same size nose. This kind of suspension of disbelief that the director expects can't hold up to TV viewers in the 21st century.
It was even more distracting when footage of the real Michael Jackson (i.e. the time he hung his infant child over a balcony in Germany) was interspersed into the movie in real time. It was a nice try, but it just didn't work.
If this movie as it is was released into theaters, it would gain a profit only because of its tackiness. It even pales in comparison to "Mommie Dearest", and that's saying a lot. Above all, this was a movie that was probably rushed into making, like many TV movies that aren't on HBO. It could have been done a lot better if it had just told of one aspect of Jackson's life. Even if it just covered the child molestation allegations, it probably would have been done a lot better and would have even been more intriguing.


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


user
The writers and creators of this film should actually be sued... For polluting the world with this crap! "Man In The Mirror" is in fact beyond horrible! Way, way, way beyond!
...and people, I'm not just saying that because I'm a Michael Jackson-fan! Or due to the fact that this is truly one of the most retarded depictions of his life I've ever encountered!
I'm saying it because this is a waste of time, money and celluloid! I feel ashamed of myself just having seen all of it! That's 1 hour and 26 min of my life I'll never get back! I'm telling you; watching grass grow is literally more entertaining than this film!
Consider yourselves warned!


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


user
Even though i sat and watched the whole thing,i must say it was not good.it was all over the place,with big chunks of information missing about how things developed and even inaccurate at some bits too.If you know nothing about Michael , you wont understand a thing.You have to rely on your current knowledge of the man in order for some bits to make sense..Acting was a bit dramatic, Flex Alexander looked nothing like Michael which was a put off for me and towards the end he literally looked grey.saying that portraying Michael as somewhat naive but highly positive, gentle and loving individual was okay even though they still made a fool out of him time to time.If you want to watch MJ's life story check out "An American dream". It is much better but the only thing is it will cover up to "Bad" era. I have no doubt that they will eventually make a big budget movie of MJ's life story, cos Michael You rock ;-) !!!!


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


user
Okay, first of all, I missed like the first 15 minutes of the movie, so I missed credits and stuff. SO when I finally got to it, I was like "Who the hell is this dude?". I found out it was Flex like hours after watching the movie.
Flex didn't look like Michael Jackson. Not one bit. He couldn't dance like him, or move like him, the only thing he almost had was the voice. People commented on Elizabeth Taylor, but I can't really comment on that because I don't know much about her.
The whole movie was like just plain wack. The dialogue sucked. The cinematography-if it can be called that-sucked. The soundtrack sucked. The acting sucked. Yes even Flex...I'm so upset about it though. I didn't want it to suck. I'm so sad that Flex got told he can get away with it. But the whole thing looked like dress-up. You know? It's like, nobody looked like they were supposed to except for Joseph Jackson.
The concert sequences just sucked. I'm sorry, but Flex just can't dance like Michael. I mean, like what the hell was VH1 thinking? The makeup didn't even match like the time of whatever Michael was going through. For example, in the movie he was still dark when Neverland got raided the first time around. In real life, MJ was white as hell. There was some sort of stupid delay in his skin discoloring.
The movie wasn't boring, well for me it wasn't. It wasn't really anything. I was just so upset about everything that was wrong with it. I wanted to see how it turned out and if Flex could redeem himself. He didn't, really. The only part I found like a bit interesting was the whole Lisa Marie thing. When they fell in love. That was nice. But I had to turn my face away when they kissed. Heh. And only two parts made me collapse with laughter. The first time was when they cut from Michael with short hair, you know the Thriller era, to Michael with long flowing hair from the Dangerous era AND HE WAS STILL BLACK! That was funny. The second time I laughed was when they showed all of the posters and memorabilia of Michael but they had Flex's face instead! It was so funny.
Overall, this movie was cheap trash. It was simply two hours of dress-up and could have been so much better. But no, VH1 is cheap. Watch if you want. But this movie is not funny, considering the ridiculousness of it. I came out of it feeling angry. And when I found out it was Flex, I just started to feel so bad. So...watch if you want.


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 absolutely the worst movie I have ever seen. I hope the REAL family and other portrayed characters have lawyers suing the hell out of VH1 for there portrayal. The acting is horrible, the writing is worse and the portrayal of characters is scary. Its supposed to be a drama, but it was a comedy to me, you have no choice but to laugh at the bad acting. I usually like Flex Alexanders acting but this time he has completely missed the mark.
You could argue he took this role for a couple of laughs himself, because it was so horrible. If you really want a dramatic movie for the night, DO NOT CHOOSE THIS ONE. But if you are in for some laughs over bad acting and stupid writing, Tune in. Other than that, don't waste your time.


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


user
Where the hell did VH1 find the scriptwriter for this movie??? Out of high school? This movie tries so hard to be sympathetic to Michael Jackson, but instead, turns him into a horrible, tacky caricature. All the lines are filled with clichés but surprisingly the acting wasn't bad. As usual, this is a bad movie with pretty good actors. The actor that plays Michael Jackson, jeez, I feel sorry for him! I think he did the best he could with the weak script. I didn't mind that Flex did not look like Michael Jackson, I thought he did the best he could, but later on when he had all that white make-up on, oh man, did he look yucky! The other actors that played Debbie Rowe, Priscilla Presley and Elizabeth Taylor were pretty good. Except that the actress that plays Liz Taylor looked too young and healthy to be playing Liz. The actress that plays Diana Ross didn't look at all like her and I couldn't figure out who this woman was until much later on in the movie.
This movie does a disservice to everyone who is on the side of Michael Jackson, or against Michael Jackson. It doesn't do anything to change anyone's opinion. As a matter of fact, the only opinion anyone will have after watching this movie is, oh God, this movie really, really sucks! And where the hell is Michael Jackson's wonderful music and songs? There are none to be found in this movie. I love the soundtrack to this movie anyway and I'll probably purchase it if I could.
On the lighter side though, this is a very funny, campy movie! It's a great time waster if you want to watch something light that won't trouble your brain too much. I'll probably watch it again, because it just is so entertainingly bad!


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 based on Michael's life from 1983/4 till 2004. Flex Alexander did a good performance but looked nothing like Michael. I feel Michael was portrayed as a stupid person which I don't believe he was (even though he trusted the wrong people at times). I thought Flex Alexander looked Chinese when they made Michael look white. I think Latoya should of been portrayed in this, she was always pictured with her brother in the 80's. I never thought any of the supporting cast looked like their counterparts. There were some things that were inaccurate Lisa-Marie Presley's son looked about 4 in the wedding scene even though he was not yet 2 when Lisa and Michael got married. Also when Michael says to his mother Katherine he thinks he and Debbie should marry if she is carrying his child, it was Katherine's idea for the two to get married.


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


user
You might suspect that the plot of this movie was written in the process of filming. It begins as a "punks versus vigilante" movie, but in the middle of the film, the plot changes abruptly when the vigilante turns to be an honest man with his honest girl and his honest gym and has to fight the corrupt "businessmen" who want to turn the gym down at any cost to build a mall or something. Then, the plot changes again, and we forget about the corrupt guys. The villain now is the friend of the leading man, who thinks he is a Ninja. The guy becomes "crazy evil" and wants at any cost to win a Martial Arts Contest. Seeing this movie is like having a nightmare with the television on.


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 filmed in my hometown and I was acquainted with many of the "actors" in minor rolls. Most of them were students at the local karate school and even at the time it was filmed we all knew what a stinker it was. It was interesting however to see it being made. Most of the places it was filmed at no longer exist, such as the nightclub, the pizza shop, etc. The "world premiere" was held at The Akron Civic Theatre and we all laughed hysterically at how inane it was. I personally believe it's the worst movie ever made but it brings back many fond memories for me. Watch this movie with a word of advice...enjoy it for what it is..a very low budget, poorly made , karate flick.


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


user
Yes, it might be not historically accurate(actually only 6 soldiers of 9th rota were killed there), and yes, it has some mistakes and exaggeration(bended machine gun? come on! or the that "history lesson" about how Afghanistan was never conquered by anyone - educated Russian officer would know history much better than that - take for example British campaign in Afghanistan). And yes, it does not have multi-million dollars Hollywood-style special effects, but it's strongest point in showing soldier's life there, their relationships and their feelings when the best friends are being killed in front of their eyes. In my opinion 9ya rota really does a good job showing all those things.
Again, movie has it weaknesses, but, in my opinion, it appears to be one of the strongest Russian movie for the past few years.
8/10


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


user
First, I'm sorry for my English. Second, the true story of this episode: 39 soldiers, operation "Magistral'". 6 soldiers were killed. Hundreds of insurgents were killed too. Within 10 years the Soviet Army has lost less than 15 thousand person and killed over 900000 insurgents and civilians. There is no insurgents without permanent help of USA The veteran of war: "Traditions. There are no traditions in this film. There is no military oath, there is no first jump, no farewell to the Fighting Banner. There is no delivery of awards and medals. There is nothing sacred. There is only a hatred to Soviet army. Being in this area on investigation, we have revealed start-up jet shells by insurgents . An exact place could not define. So gunners have asked to give easier square. Also have covered it. Through pair minutes. Here it was the reality of fights. So there was no feeling "oblivion". These feelings have appeared then. Already on other war and in other state (Chechnya). Others were children. More kindly. More humanly. And "prapors" were as fathers. Well and culmination fight - full orgy. Shooting in anywhere. Mental attacks young Ben-Ladens, not killed both not broken through. And full absence of mutual aid. That there was a main thing on this war. Even Americans accused us of inadequate application of force against insurgents. And here it is direct on the contrary. In the summer 1981 I about myself have firmly solved, that personally should fill up a minimum 50 insurgents. As a result accepted "plan" has been under-fulfilled, and on a demobilization I departed strongly contused and malicious as fig. After returning the first months there was a feeling of that I not was at war up to the end, not business there have completed all how follow. There was any vague, but an oppressive sensation of discontent with itself and caustic irritation. Such here night ideas, can be and out of place at all. Officers really in film are not present absolutely. In occasion of that, what is the time they spent with staff. On fighting-is constant. New Year on fighting. From where did they take beds? In mountains? And so on..."
If you want a fairy tale about war, "9 rota" and "Shtrafbat" is for you. If you want truth, you must see "Come and see" or "Batallions Ask for Fire".


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


user
The main problem with 9th Company (9 Rota) is that it is not sure whether it wants to be Saving Private Ryan or Full Metal Jacket. The attempts at Spielberg sentimentalism are embarrassing, such as the burley sergeant crying in a field of red flowers!!! The training sequences have none of intensity or realism that Kubrick gave them in his masterpiece.
A further bone of contention is that the Afghan fighters are called Ghosts because they strike and are hardly ever seen. Here they attack a Russian strong hold almost in formation with no attempt to use cover. I am sure tactics have move on since Waterloo.
Every scene in this film has been seen before in other war movies and done considerably better.
I have to ask: Why do all talented marksmen need to chew on a match?
Finally, I am always suspicious of a film that starts with no narration yet needs to qualify the end.
"We won!" ...errrr....... no you didn't.


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


user
I borrowed this on DVD from a friend the other day. I didn't really know what to expect. I haven't seen a lot of Russian movies, and i don't think i've ever seen a Russian war movie. Maybe that made me expect something different, something more along the line of an imagined Russian mentality. But whatever those expectations came from, they were put to shame as this is a quite ordinary war movie.
The whole formula of following a few young people from their recruitment, through training, to deployment and through some battles, is well known. We have seen it done both many years ago, as well as more recently (as with Jarhead). Sure, there's a difference here because the movie is about Russian soldiers instead of Americans as is almost always the case. But in general this could just as easily have been a Vietnam-movie. I guess that just underscores my feeling that Afghanistan was the Soviet unions Vietnam. A country that should have been a pushover for a superpower made the war drag on for years with terrible loss of life both for soldiers and civilians.
The good points in this movie i felt were good photography (there are some beautiful ambiance shots) and decent effects for what i guess must have been a rather low budget movie. What made me disappointed is mostly the story itself. It just doesn't manage to stir any emotion in me. Mostly because the character development is lousy. And to really feel something when people are gunned down you have to make them people, not just faceless cardboard cutouts. They fail to do that in this movie. Also it's overly long, and that seems to a kind of trend lately. In my opinion a movie that's more than two hours long has to have a lot to offer, and this movie doesn't cut it. Also there is a disturbing music that's put like a wet blanket over every scene. Especially in the action scenes this is highly disturbing, not that you need action-music but something more than just slow keyboard-music would be nice. Otherwise the production values were good enough, that was not where the problem was.
I don't know how to view this movie. As a reminder of the fact that no matter where you are, war sucks? That Russian film-makers have already watched too many American war-movies to make something original? Regardless of which, this movie is rather clichéd, lacks in spirit and while it has acceptable technical qualities, it lacks in script and character development. In the end it just becomes another of all those war-movies that fails to make you think, and fails to add something to the genre. I've seen a lot worse, but a lot better too. I rate this 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
"The polar Express " was an awful movie .What makes this movie worst is the hypocrisy to present itself as a innocent ,sugary and harmless tale for children about the "true " meaning of Christmas . I never read the book of Chris Van Allsburg in what it was inspired ,but the most disappointing is that it was directed by Robert Zemeckis ,the same who made the great "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?",a excellent movie where he proof that the animation could be appreciated for kids and adults equally ,while in this movie it seems that he was victim of his own ambition and he give too much importance to create impressive level of detail than a interesting story .I'm sorry to say this ,but "The Polar Express " have so much artistic level as a publicity campaign of a video -game or toy . Everything in this movie seems to be so lifeless : the characters could look like humans ,but they don't have nothing of life on them ,and they have a malevolent touch in their eyes .
But the worst ...is the "message" in this movie .You could see it at some parts of the movie ,and believe me ,it was vile .Take for example one scene ,where one kid refuses to enter to the Polar Express . Notice that the character that looks like Tom Hanks makes a gesture like saying "you are stupid to don't accept my offering " .Second ,when the girl says that the toys are so "warm " and things like that . All the damn movie the kids keep talking about how big would be the gifts that Santa would give to them . There is even a song about the gifts !the vagabond is a irrelevant and weak character . And ,in the last scene the character seems to "discover " the true meaning of Christmas : and what would be ? what do you think ? the gifts ! many Christmas movies are close to say something like it ,but "The Polar Express " it's a ode to the materialism and greed . Seriouslly ,I refuse to call it a "children's movie " , because if is that what the kids would learn ,I don't want to think how would be our future .


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 awful. It creates characters not in the book, and some of them are ethnic or racial stereotypes. Including an obnoxious little Jewish boy and a politically correct little black girl. Not to mention the Yiddish speaking elves. The book was a simple story about belief, and this movie is a dark, ugly, and needlessly scary movie about nothing.
The animation is superb, but the story has been ruined by Hollywood.
The good thing is that this movie will take a bath in the box office and maybe producers will learn to keep from tampering with a story that needs no improvement. Hanks was overdone and i don't see why there couldn't have been other actors' voices be used.


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


user
Much like Final Fantasy, if you look at a still shot - it doesn't look so bad. But when the people start moving, it's utterly horrifying. Uneven jerky motions, frightening lack of emotion, and lack of a feel of life in the face gives me the creeps. The characters do not even appear ALIVE/organic.
I saw a preview screening with my daughter, who actually fell asleep! She was not at all engaged. For the record, I thought her to be easily engaged by both Pixar-esque films as well as a number of the 'bad' 2D films like Sinbad.
The lighting is painful, giving the children the appearance of holding a flashlight under their chin at a campfire. The lip syncing is bad - worse actually than Final Fantasy.
I also seriously question having Hanks play five characters.... this was a major distraction throughout the film. The role of the conductor is eerie - although in a way I just can't pinpoint. It reminds me of my father's fake "phone" voice when greeting clients.
I think this is why the multiple roles are distracting - you are accutely aware that the voice is the same, but yet distinctly different. It gives each character the feel of being ACTED, as opposed to being real human characters. The illusion of reality is broken by the multiple role playing of Hanks. I've seen the technique work - a la Eddie Murphy, but Hanks just can't come close to pulling it off with a voice alone, given the horrifying animation.
I would not waste my money on this - wait for the rental.


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


user
I know most of the other reviews say that this movie was great, but I have to disagree.
Sure, it's a good book! It was actually one of my favorites when I was verrry little. But it's just not meant for theaters. Maybe for a little half-hour short, but I don't see how they can turn a short kiddie book into a whole feature film.
It is a cute movie, but I would only recommend it for really little kids. Older kids will have no interest it. Adults may have a little more interest if they watch it with their young ones. But anyone ages 7-Adult will have a snore-fest.
Sorry if you disagree with me, but this is my 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 am not kidding: there's a scene in this movie where a hobo hits his head on a tunnel keystone and explodes (with no fireball, though) into a million pieces! It made some kid in front of me scream in terror! ...In a G-rated film!
This film might serve to convince children that Santa Clause is EVIL! His helpers are ugly, misanthropic, over-the-top and mean! When Santa (here an anagram of Satan!) appears, all 200,000 elves begin singing "Santa Clause is Coming to Town" as though it were a Druid war chant. Then, in the reflection of this movie's "Rosebud" object (a jingle bell that whispers hints of why you can't hear it ringing: "doubt....doubt...)), old Saint Nick appears, looking like a stoic Donald Sutherland, his face glowing like Moses' from "K10C". When we hear him speak, his thundering voice sounds less like a jolly old elf, and more like James Earl Jones' voice slowed-down about 20%. Frightening!
The syrupy music is out-of-place, boring and repetitive. It doesn't follow any emotional threads (as in "Titanic's" very effective score). It just seems thrown in at certain points in order to generate feelings of warmth and magic. It fails to stir, partly because it doesn't match the imagery of the film. There are some musical train wrecks (no pun intended) where, out of nowhere, the eerie, symphonic score slams abruptly into happy, child-voiced POLKA about the title locomotive. It just makes the whole movie sound like it was rushed into production!
Finally, I agree with some other reviewers about how, well... "dead" everyone looks. It does seem a little macabre at times. The motion-capture technique is good for allowing the Kings Island-like roller-coaster train sequences to look convincing from a distance, but up close, "real" actors should have been used. Overall, nice eye-candy for killing time in front of the TV, but not much else here.


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


user
I do think Tom Hanks is a good actor. I enjoyed reading this book to my children when they were little. I was very disappointed in the movie. One character is totally annoying with a voice that gives me the feeling of fingernails on a chalkboard. There is a totally unnecessary train/roller coaster scene. There are some characters and scenes that seem scary for little children for whom this movie was made. The North Pole scenes with Santa and the elves could have been cute and charming. There was absolutely no warmth or charm to these scenes or characters. It usually doesn't work to make a short children's book into a feature film. This movie totally grates on my nerves.


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


user
I don't see the point. It's ponderous. The animated people are creepy (look up uncanny valley). Scenes go on and on and on for very little purpose. The plot is skeletal and must be padded out with lots of meaningless dramatic, screaming roller coaster rides, as if Disney or Spielberg were planning an amusement park ride based on the movie. Most of the characters are annoying and unlikeable. Some of them keep showing up as if they will have something important to add to a climactic scene. They don't. They just vanish with no lasting impact. Somebody summed it up as "if you don't believe in Santa Claus, you'll be kidnapped on a train on Christmas eve." That pretty much sums it up.


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


user
I like underdogs. So, 12 years after having first seen Star Trek V, and thinking it was bizarrely bad, I gave it a second watch, hoping I would find some redeeming quality which I missed the first time around.
I didn't.
The writing is half-baked, and although at first the quality of the acting is stable enough to keep the movie on its feet (albeit shakily), the further we get into the plot the sillier it gets. The last quarter of the film is just plain ridiculous. What was even worse, from the original cast's POV, is that this was the first ST movie to be released AFTER the franchise returned to television with Next Generation, and the average episode of Next Generation would put this to shame* - including the special effects! What an embarrassment.
The Final Frontier isn't thoroughly wretched - I gave it 4 out of 10 - but it's so far below the standard of its predecessors (yes, including the first one) that the only reason I can think of to watch it is because you'll appreciate the other movies more.
* unless it's an episode with Troi's mother in it.


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


user
What is it with studios like Paramount that have a proven hit film series on their hands, and figure it can screw around with the budget and formula? Paramount spent less on this film than they did on TMP, which doesn't sound bad until you realize that there's a 10 gap between when the films were made. The $40 TMP cost to make would be equivalent to about $75 million in 1989. This film is the reason that Shatner has never been given a fair chance to direct other films, as well. Every time he turned around, the studio was slashing the budget and making demands regarding the storyline. The fact that this was the one storyline that Roddenberry and Shatner could agree upon for the most part made the freshman directorial task tough enough, but after all the machinations were done, all anyone ended up with was an uneven story and a load of badly executed special effects not worthy of the original series, much less a major motion picture. The most glaring examples: - All of the Phaser effects were severely ashed out and fake-looking. - The shot of the Enterprise going into the great barrier was so obviously a still-frame shot being zoomed away from. At least the popsicle stick that held the Enterprise cut out up was successfully matted out. - God "chasing" Kirk up the mountain... Egads, they may as well have just cut in shots of Godzilla climbing the volcano at the end of "Godzilla 1985," and used thumbtacks to scratch the emulsion off of the film to make electric bolts come out of his eyes at the imperiled Captain Kirk.... Yes, friends, I have a real problem with the look of that last scene, especially.
Thank goodness Star Trek VI was such a redeemer of a film...


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


user
I find it almost touching how Star Trek fans try desperately to like this film in spite of its unbelievable number of flaws.
To begin with, none of the familiar characters are really in character so to speak. Scotty is depicted as a bumbling tinkerer instead of the competent engineer he was in the original series. Uhura...Gods, I can't even think about what they did to her character. All of her dialog was painful to listen to. McCoy seemed like a neurotic stepfather to Kirk instead of his trusted friend. Spock...well, let's just say that Leonard Nimoy was terribly wasted. He was given bad dialog ("I do not believe you have grasped the gravity of your situation Captain." Gravity, get it? Get it?) and made almost into a buffoon. Kirk...oh man, don't get me started. William Shatner is a hammy actor to begin with, so to allow him to direct really is to invite disaster which is what we got.
The plot is beyond ridiculous. Giving Spock a brother is a pretty desperate story line and unnecessarily soap operaish. But hey, let's go with it. The search for God. Again, a weak plot basis. You don't think so? OK, let's go with that too. So assuming that the two aforementioned plot elements are sound, what's wrong with the script? Well, for one thing, it recycles way too much. The Enterprise, for example, is yet again, not working properly. Are we to assume that Starfleet would send a grossly malfunctioning ship with a skeleton crew into a potentially dangerous situation just because they want James Kirk to handle the situation? If that's the case, then why not put him on a better ship as an adviser? Adding to that...the crew is grossly incompetent. Scotty has the ship in pieces (and apparently is cloddish enough to bump his head knocking himself into unconsciousness WHILE there are hostiles on board!), no one seem to notice the Klingon ship decloaking at a crucial moment (despite the fact that the sensors are clearly showing the ship in weapons range) and the crew all seem way too familiar with each other. In other words, there is no sense of discipline. If this is the flagship of Starfleet, then it's a wonder that the Klingons hadn't already overthrown the Federation.
As to the personal struggles with pain, it was crap. Lawrence Luckenbill is a competent actor, but even he couldn't save this turkey. In short no one could. Of all the people involved, I imagine Leonard Nimoy is the most embarrassed by it. I hope he is, anyway.
Thank god the original cast didn't bow out on this cloddish opus.


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


user
This was so bad I can't even review it. So I'll jot some sentences about what I witnessed, and it'll be up to you to decide.
Captain Kirk, with toupee and tubby gut, is rock climbing Yosemete's El Capitan. Spock meets him halfway riding on a floating skateboard-like hovercraft. Kirk falls. Spock flies down, catches him inches before Kirk hits the ground head- first.
Later, that night, Spock, Kirk and McCoy are eating beans around a campfire. Spock likes the beans. Then, Kirk and McCoy sing "Row Row Row Your Boat", and want Spock to join in on the three-way harmony. Spock doesn't want to sing. And later that night, he disagrees. "But life isn't but a dream, Captain". Should I go on?
Okay... A renegade Vulcan, who happens to be Spock's half brother, leads a revolt on a sandy planet - taking hostages. The crew of the enterprise land on the planet, and Uhura, pushing fifty-five and weighing two-hundred some-odd pounds, lures the natives with her bare legs. But they can't trick the brother, who claims he can find God.
He kidnaps the crew and the Enterprise. They go to a planet where a big bearded apparition, claiming to be God, spits fire at Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Spock's sibling, realizing it isn't God - but is really a form of himself - or something - joins with the apparition in order to destroy it and... sparks fly.
Then, after stuff happens too complicated to explain involving Klingons who resemble Lorenzo Lamas...
The Three Amigos - Kirk, Spock and McCoy - return to Yosemite (did I mention, Kirk was wearing a GO CLIMB A ROCK T-shirt?). With Spock playing some kind of funky Vulcan guitar, they sing "Row Row Row Your Boat", this time all three harmonizing as the credits roll.


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


user
... Once. "Manos, the Hands of Fate." That was worse than this, quite a bit worse: but it did have one thing: it had beautiful women in negligees wresting each other -- for about 20 minutes. This has a fat 45 year-old with 3 tits and a tail, in a cantina scene cloned directly from "Star Wars." Not to mention an obese, blue seductress Uhura, her fat legs and ass hanging out of some sort of insane bird costume, in this Method Acting Mess. She always wanted to perform before a "captive audience"? She must have meant the poor slobs who shelled out 8 bucks hoping to see another "Wrath of Khan," or at least a "Voyage Home." Captive" is right. I wonder how many people in the theaters tried to slit their wrists while crying out: "mother, make it stop."
No question about it, "Final Frontier" is not just an unmitigated disaster, it's cruel and unusual punishment. This is Star Trek from hell. This is Shatner on mushrooms -- or maybe peyote. This is Where No Man Has Gone Before and Wished He Never Had in the First Place. Or, to paraphrase a review of "Heaven's Gate: "It's as if Gene Roddenberry sold his soul to the Devil for the success of a TV series, and Devil is just now coming around to collect."
And don't even get me started on a drunken Kirk and a grinning McCoy singing "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" together, like they were lovers in some sort of demented gay fever dream. Then we've got the Hideous Dynamic Duo of Sulu and Chekov, hiking through the woods together... probably en route to a Barry Manilow concert. Then there's Laurence Luckinbill as Spock's brother???!!! Yeah, right! Amazing how these relations we never heard of suddenly crawl out of the woodwork when we need a new plot line. And not to forget Spock rocketing through the air after Kirk when he falls from a cliff in Yosemite. Sure. He catches up to Kirk and saves him ONE FOOT away from the ground. Where'd you get those nifty Rocket Shoes, Spock?!


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


user
The voyage here is a search for God, the big guy in the sky, the big cheese with a beard. Cunningly disguised as the thirst for ultimate knowledge. Taking over from Leonard Nimoy in the directing chair is The Shat himself, Captain Tiberius William Shatner Kirk. In an attempt at blending the fun corny aspects of the series with sci-fi histrionics {Klingon dialogue consultant, really?}, Shatner and his co-writers have only achieved what is almost an embarrassing parody of a parody. Where's the danger,? where's the brothers in arms spirit,? in fact where is our badly underwritten crew?. Star Trek humour is a wonderful thing, when it's in the right places and done with a straight lace so befitting what has come before The Final Frontier. Some light moments exist, but they do not compensate for the lack of serious moments. While do we really need another Spock revelation,? really?.
Some nice sets and little knowingly Trek moments aside, The Final Frontier is just a bad movie experience. 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
When I first saw it 9 years ago, when I was 9. I thought it stunk. I'm 18 now and I still think it stinks. I mean geez no Special effects or anything, it was boring and kinda anti-climatic. My cousin watched once and George Takai (Sulu) kept talking about how it was supposed to be so much better, but they kept cutting to the budget. It would have been a great episode, but it was a terrible movie.


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


user
Leonard Nimoy directed Star Trek III, which wasn't half bad. Maybe William Shatner thought seeming as how Nimoy did it he could. After seeing this film he should have reversed that decision.
Star Trek V The final Frontier is the worst in the series. The acting from all involved and that includes those like Shatner and Nimoy is bad and washed out and making them seem as old as they look in real life, the special effects are tacky like when Spock has to rescue Kirk on a jet pack when he falls down from a mountain.
The attempts at humor were pitiful and story is so awful it dosen't bear thinking about which basically involves a Vulcan stealing the Enterprise to find god (seriously) I just didn't care about any of this film and oh not to mention Uhura does a belly dance to distract male guards. She looked like she was taking part in a granny competition. If they meant to make her look sexy. They were wrong. She looked grotesque.
How this got to production or even written...well it dosen't bear thinking about. The only place good for this film is in the garbage. The worst one of the series.


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


user
Even not being a fan of the "Star Trek" movies or universe of shows and books and such, I still find some enjoyment in some of the movies featuring the old cast and in the case of "First Contact" even the new cast a bit. This one though was kind of sad to watch...it seemed to want to be so much, but it failed on so many levels to be one of the worst Star Trek movies. The plot is very far fetched seeming to want to combine three or four stories into one ultimate Trek adventure, but it ends up an unfunny when it tries to be, not tense when it wants to be and not action packed like it tries to be mess of inconsistencies. The whole movie to take a phrase from Spock is illogical. The effects are nothing special as I have seen episodes of Next Generation that are just as good, which is to say it is fine for a television show, but not a major motion picture. The plot is laughable as the gang at first tries to stop Spock's brother then joins him on his quest to find God, yes you read that correctly. The Klingons make a tacked on appearance, which actually will set up the much better Undiscovered Country movie. All in all you know it is bad when the best part of the film is Kirk, Bones and Spock singing row your boat, well Spock was not really singing, but rather questioning the lyrics.


assistant
0