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
The main character is a whiny, irresponsible study of how to throw yourself a pity party. She loses it at the drop of a hat, acts pathetic, is schizophrenic, and left me wondering why on Earth she doesn't understand why these 'friends' of hers haven't called her in three years. (Get a clue, sister - you're a juvenile mess!) I couldn't stand her or the friends. I never felt connected to any of the characters. To make the entire movie even more unbearable, someone went far out of their way to put the world's most hideous collection of crocheted and knitted hats in existence on film for all of eternity (this alone should warrant someone be put on wardrobe probation for a decade!)
The acting wasn't awful, but not really believable either, and in the end the only thing that I DID care about was the two hours I'm never going to get back. Don't waste your time - go catch up on a dentist appointment instead!


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


user
Before I begin, let me get something off my chest: I'm a huge fan of John Eyres' first film PROJECT: SHADOWCHASER. The film, a B-grade cross of both THE TERMINATOR & DIE HARD, may not be the work of a cinematic genius, but is a hugely entertaining action film that became a cult hit (& spawned two sequels & a spin off).
Judge and Jury begins with Joseph Meeker, a convicted killer who was sent to Death Row following his capture after the so-called "Bloody Shootout" (which seems like a poor name for a killing spree  Meeker kills three people while trying to rob a convenience store), being led to the electric chair. There is an amusing scene where Meeker talks to the priest about living for sex but meeting his one true love (who was killed during the shootout), expressing his revenge for the person who killed her  Michael Silvano, a washed-up football star who spends his days watching his son Alex practicing football with his high school team (and ends up harassing his son's coach). But once executed, Meeker returns as a revenant (or as Kelly Perine calls "a hamburger without the fries"), whose sole aim is to get his revenge, which basically means making Silvano's life a misery.
Let me point out the fact that Judge and Jury is not a true horror film. It is a supernatural action film, with Meeker chasing Silvano, using his ability to change form (which amounts to David Keith dressing up as everything from an Elvis impersonator, a French chef (with an accent as bad as his moustache), a drag queen, a clown & a stand-up comedian), a shotgun which fires explosive rounds & an invulnerability to death (although that doesn't stop Martin Kove from shooting Keith with a Desert Eagle), to pay Silvano back for killing Meeker's wife.
Director John Eyres does not seem interested in characterisations, instead focusing solely on action scenes, which the film has plenty of. But that is the film's main flaw, since there's nothing to connect the action scenes together. The acting is surprisingly good, with Keith delivering the best performance, supported ably by Kove, as well as Paul Koslo, who plays the washed-up cop quite well. Kelly Perine is annoying as the cabbie who tries to help but makes the situation worse.


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


user
If this is not heavily featured on every list of "what not to watch", it should only be because those keeping that particular list are not aware of its existence, which, as long as that remains so, is the acceptable alternative. I'm not kidding you, this is a *bad* "movie". Joseph Meeker returns from the dead, with various vague, undefined supernatural powers, the most employed of which would seem to be appearing in new, increasingly comical-looking and ridiculous(and never scary or creepy... in general, when this goes for the latter of those, it winds up just being bizarre, and attempts at the former just don't work, period) outfits and stereotypes/archetypes, and he is portrayed by David Keith(whom I respect in... well, at least Daredevil), doing a more often than not terribly inconsistent(which could also have to do with script) and often over the top performance. A character or two have personalities so unbelievably irritating that they're painful to watch. The editing thinks it's considerably more clever than it really is(and what on Earth was with the red tint for the flashbacks?). Cinematography... oh, dear. Framing, coverage, effective use of angle(that one could be attributed some to editing, too, perhaps), please, guys, stop me when I say something you've ever heard about the existence of. As far as the technical side goes, this is a pretty lousy excuse for something more worthwhile to put in the projector than unexposed film. But why stop there? The plot is just poor. The basic idea's been done, and it's been done so much better than this(The Crow would be one). The way it's told is gimmicky, and while there is some explanation behind the flashbacks, it still doesn't satisfy. Pacing is about non-existent. The lead is distinctly unlikeable, and there's more personality in a barn door, not to mention that those are also considerably less wooden. Kelly Perine and Thomas Ian Nicholas? What in the name of all that is good and just(pun intended) are you doing in this? Perine, you were already funny before this, on The Drew Carey Show, Nicholas, well, I haven't seen you in anything preceding American Pie, but if nothing else, you *were* funny later on, and in those productions, the amusement was intentional. Dialog is... the less said, the better. Language is unrestrained, and tends to be stupid. The violence is shoddily done, and they don't even seem to care to try to hide it(hinting at it might have been the smarter strategy). Characters, don't get me started. Why spend so much energy on portraying unexciting, at times utterly illogical, events? The more you think about this, the worse it gets. It's not even passable as a "bad horror flick", or a B movie(it may very well pass through the rest of the alphabet, and go further still), it couldn't scare you on the scariest day of your life if it had an electrified scaring machine. I recommend this only to people who want to disprove how bad this is, and don't say I didn't warn ya. 1/10


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


user
So much for JUDGE AND JURY, which lives up to its nonsense title. What good is there? The lighting is terribly foggy! Another horror movie you ask? Well, that's perfectly explainable. David Keith actually does pretty good at disguising clowns, chefs, and other shenanigans while being the killer who escaped death row. But overall, despite some new twists, it's reasonably stupid. Unapix has been putting out some ludicrous productions recently, and this one only means so much. We, the jury, find this film guilty for its indecent exposure to many of us sitting around believing it's a total waste of our time!


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


user
I rented this thinking it would be pretty good just by the cover of the movie case. Judge and Jury started out pretty good killer chasing the man who killed his wife on a bike with a cool gun, but this movie got progressively stupider as it went on. David Keith is awesome actor especially when he plays a role like this too bad the movie was a piece of crap it really wasted his talent. Judge and Jury was well plain dumb I gave it a 3 should have gave it a 2, I gave it an extra star just because David Keith's gun was cool.


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


user
It`s funny how instinct warns you of something . For example as soon as the company credits read Nu Image I knew instinctively I`d seen a really crap film by them somewhere before but couldn`t remember where . Nevertheless I just knew JUDGE AND JURY was going to be crap and it was . Maybe I`m psychic ?
!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!
The opening is rather violent with several people getting blown away for no more reason than being in the wrong place at the wrong time . I don`t know about you but I`m geting slightly fed up with exploitive violence onscreen nowadays along with bad language , especially if it`s spouted by actors as bad as the ones in this movie . Anyway the plot revolves around the bad dude getting executed and coming back to reek revenge on the man who shot his wife . Oh did I mention the bad dude and his wife murdered a couple of people on their wedding night ? Yeah he`s a serious badass mofo . In fact he`s so bad ( And I don`t mean the acting - I`ll get to that in a moment ) that he`s impossible to take seriously and this is before he`s executed only to return as Elton John , Elvis , a French chef etc . I wonder if Keith David got paid for this ? because he looks lke he`s having so much fun on screen that`s the only reason he`s playing the role . What a pity this reviewer didn`t have any fun whatsoever watching JUDGE AND JURY . Hey maybe the producers could send me Keith`s fee ? Gawd only knows I deserve it.
I disliked this movie a lot as if you hadn`t guessed and my main beef isn`t with the stupid plot or the cheap production values but with its attitude to violence . If like me you`ve had a wine bottle cracked over your head or been kicked in the ribs very hard several times you`ll know violence is an obscene painful thing , but JUDGE AND JURY will have you believe that if you`re thrown through a window , crash through some bannisters and fall twenty odd feet onto a table not only will you be unhurt but you`ll be able to outrun a couple of rabid devil dogs . It could of course be argued that any film starring Sly , Arnie or Bruce also suffers from this same dishonest showing of violence but with JUDGE AND JURY it yanked my chain


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 has EVERY cliché of every terrorism or airliner crisis movie.
However, it is not entirely unwatchable, thanks to good performances by Rowland, Loken and Smallwood (and maybe Enberg).
What IS amazingly bad, though, is the computer animations they try to pass off as live action scenes. Boy, oh boy, the CGI scenes in "The Last Starfighter", filmed in 1984, are better than these (filmed 17 years later). The feeling of cheepnis really sends shivers down your spine.
A pity, this could have been a much better movie with a little more budget and taste.


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


user
It must be a long time ago that I have seen such a bad movie. I have to say it is really hard to make a good and/or realistic movie about air disaster but this movie was such a waste of time and money. Also I think this is an unofficial way trying to get a bad reputation on Airbus. First, the cockpit look a lot like an Airbus cockpit, second you got a stick, third using computers to control rudders/elevators/aileron via "fly by wire". When I saw this movie I thought like the intention of the film was "don't fly with computerized airplanes like Airbus, use Boeing instead they have a direct connection of steering and rudders."
All I can say: Bad story, horrible acting (most of the actors), worst film trick ever...


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


user
I rented this movie because I love Kristanna Loken and I've watched her on many TV shows and since she's having her 15 minutes of fame nowadays with her new T3 movie I wanted to check out what other movies she has been in.
She's just OK in terms of acting. Not good and not bad either. She makes up for everything by being extremely gorgeous. YUMMMMM
Rodney Rowland was quite a surprise as the hero. He provided the only solid good acting in the movie. He's a very good actor and should probably be an action star.
Besides Kristanna being OK and Rodney being really good everything else about this movie is garbage in its purest form.
A computer hacker hacks into the system of a plane from the ground and using a joystick he tries to slam the plane into a nuclear power plant ..... or something. And of course there are the heroes who stand in his way and ruin his game.
This is one of the worst scripts I have ever seen and no wonder it was a low budget flick.
What's shocking is that this movie was made in 2001 and it has way too many similarities to the September 11th tragedies.
Why do they make movies like this in the first place?
Panic * - one star (a waste of too good actors) (also a waste of time) (also known as Air Panic)


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


user
It amazes me that someone would actually consider spending some money on a movie like this. Really. Let's forget for a second that the plot doesn't even give a single hint of originality... Most of the movies today are based on other movies' stories, so a "simple" lack of originality is not that big a deal.
But I can hardly believe that none of the guys involved in the movie had never even got on a plane before shooting this. Because, let's be honest, that would be the only excuse to come up with something so ridiculous. To be sincere I think a 6-years-old child with a fake camera could have come up with something technically much more believable. Some examples following.
The scene that really drove me crazy is when the engines turn off when they regain control of the plane. When they have to turn them on again the guy on the radio says something like "Ok, push the 1 and 2 buttons on the dashboard". Now, those are not buttons. They should not be pushed, they should actually be pulled up and toward the pilot. That's something only plane-addicted would know, you say? Wrong. The next scene you can see their fingers pushing the "buttons"... And of course the so called "buttons" don't move at all! Not even a single millimeter! (And note that I haven't even mentioned the fact that aircraft engines are not like cars engine, that you just turn the key and the magic happens... You have to do quite a complicated procedure to turn them on...) Come on guys! You could have faked the movements at least!! Not to mention the hilarious final impact, where the plane crashes against every single thing along the runway (Light poles along the runway? What where they thinking?!)... And the wings don't even get ripped off! It happened to me too, once... Except the plane was made of Lego! What about the flight attendant? She's actually so skilled that she perfectly knows where the "aux 1" and "aux 2" fuses are, in the middle of the wires behind the cockpit. Should we mention, then, the guy that can drive an ambulance _and_ fly a plane behind the ambulance using his computer? And how did he turn the other airplane engines on?
Really, I could go on hours with this stuff. This is the dumbest movie I've ever come across, and I'm including garbage like Alone In The Dark and other stuff in the list. Want to do yourself a favor? Don't watch it.


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


user
normally,i would say i loved this movie.not for acting,although that was OK.not for the script,which was so-so.the reason i would have normally loved this movie is for the intense action,which starts from the get go and doesn't end until the final credits roll.but,the problem with this movie,and i felt it was a big problem,was the horrible CGI.it looks like they ran out of money and couldn't complete the the effects shots. a lot of the effects look lime they are in their very roughest form.since it is obvious they didn't have enough money to finish the movie,they should not have released it.i actual found the effects insulting.it seems obvious they didn't care about making a decent end product for the consumer.if it weren't for that,i would give this movie a much higher rating.my vote for Air Panic is a 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
So it's a space movie. But it's low budget. You ask, "what about the effects?" The effects are at times good, and at times really, really bad. I mean bad. And notice I started with the effects.
There's a story here, but it's told in what I think is the wrong order. I don't mean a Tarantino style wrong order. I mean, it's told in a completely nonsensical arrangement. Most of it's about a mother (in the future, because you know, it's sci-fi) as told by her daughter, which is mostly exposition done in narrative from the daughter's perspective. Only once you're through the first hour and hear Paul Darrow's voice as a computer do you realize how much more tolerable the constant narrative would have been if he'd read it. This narrative is so constant and inclusive, that the actors on screen hardly say a word for the first hour.
There's also a lesson here for you up and coming filmmakers: if you're not doing 2001 and want to have some action (this one does), then PLEASE hire a good fight choreographer. Otherwise, your fights will look like, well, what's in BATTLESPACE. And notice the title has the word "battle" in it. Ugh.
I think this might be the classic scenario of trying to make a movie based on nothing more than a concept. And some effects. My biggest surprise is seeing the IMDb listing this film as costing $1.8 million. When you compare it to something like PRIMER, which did better with a budget of a few thousand, you realize in low budget film-making, it's all about the story. I wasn't expecting much - but I was STILL disappointed. Two out of ten stars.


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


user
I made it through half of this, but was not enough of a masochist to see it all. The first half of the film had next to no dialog ! Almost everything was voice over commentary to carry the story. The scriptwriter forgot that sometimes less is more and tried to explain several millennium of detailed history in the voice over. At the same time he forgot to do any character development. Most science fiction fans don't require huge amounts of character development, but it would be nice to know why the two main characters who survived the destruction of the space fleet together ended up fighting each other.
There are some good things going on in the film. The soundtrack was well done. Some of the computer generated graphics are very good, but others were just mediocre.


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 willing to tolerate almost anything in a Sci-Fi movie, but this was almost intolerable. While a few of the special effects are very cool (landscapes) this is no 'battlespace' rather a disjointed weird mother/daughter relationship with sci-fi concepts thrown in. The acting (wooden), framing and shooting (kindergarten film school) and with "hand-to-hand" combat scenes funnier than any Hong Kong chopsocky movie, this film bores. The plot line is convoluted and the devices used to move the plot along (narrator), unexplained scene jumps and plenty of deus ex machina reinforce the idea that writer cum director is not a good idea. Save your love of Sci-Fi for something else instead of losing a bit of it here.


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


user
Today I had a real craving for a sci-fi movie and so I decided to check out Battlespace. Sadly, that was one of my biggest mistakes this year.
I see that the director, Neil Johnson, has directed over 500 music videos, and I suggest he goes back to that. Music videos are a perfectly good form of entertainment, and not everybody can cut it making movies.
The worst part of this movie is probably the voice over. And that says a lot since the special effects are appalling at times. Voice over didn't work in Blade Runner, and it doesn't work here. The first hour or so is spent watching the main character walk through the desert, while her daughter tells the story. I think the story could have made a great movie, but not like this.
The second worst part are the effects. They are simply bad and they don't blend into the rest of the picture at all, so you simply don't believe in them. And absolutely all the frames in the movie has been filtered, and not in a good way. Filtering used as an effect is good. 90 minutes of it, bad.
And what is it with all the gadgets talking all the time, and not shutting up!?!? If I had used technology like that I would have gone mad. I was just waiting for the guns to blurt out with: "I am awfully sorry, but I seem to have run out of ammunition." No, stay away. This movie is just not worth the time.


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


user
You see a movie titled 'battlespace', what are you going to think? Space battles with cool as heck explosions and everyone shooting at each other. What do you get with this movie? Well, you do get SOME space battle goodness, but for a great majority of the time it's just stupid people wandering around doing almost nothing. NO ONE TALKS!!!! What is this nonsense?! We get a narrators, and a ton of British computers, but thats about it. The main protagonist must be the worst one I have ever seen, as she doesn't even have any dialog, and sleepwalks though scenes (literately!). Some of the things happening are just stupid, like they use a rocket (like to go to space) for basic transportation planet side, why not just use one of those nifty space ships? In any case, the music is almost non-existent, with a few boring dull lifeless samples, but the main thing you will notice is the Atari sound effects the ships use...you have got to be kidding me. I can also tell that the budget was low, because everything looks fake, which is not what you would expect from a movie, especially what should be a super cool space battle movie. I seriously think the budget must have been in the double digits it is so bad, making you laugh more than you should at how plain bad it is. I am starting to think that they paid the actors based on how much dialog they had, because their is very little here (if you can't tell already that is my main gripe here, as I probably said that like 3 times already).


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


user
In a world where humans can live forever you spend the entire movie wishing they would die. First off if you insist on watching this movie do two things first put it on mute, don't worry you miss a plot, hell they don't even talk for the first 70 min of an 87 min movie, after putting on mute you must now hit fast forward till the main chick dies don't worry even if your paying attention you won't know why or how she died. Once you get to the "good part" take it of mute. Oh, how will you know the good part, wait for an elevator scene with two morons in space suits with WWII weapons. These weapons won't seem like much till you realize that the first protagonist had a laser tag pistol and a bandoleer of CO2 cartridges. The only remnants of a plot take place between a glowing ball and a semi hot chick who looks like she was attacked by Wolverine. After listening to the "plot", you will wish they went back to not talking. Of the four people that are in this movie none of them can remotely act, not even a little bit, you will have better luck witnessing acting at a kindergarten theater.
To comment on the special on the special effects, let me just say "Wow", no really you will spend the entire movie saying to your self "Where did this movie's 1.8 million dollar budget go!" Seriously it will leave you in aw of the magnitude of ineptness. The best "sets" are basically windows wallpaper backgrounds. The Ships are basically flying wrenches, Wait some are barges that kinda look like whales . I have never heard so many made up words in my whole life. They have buttons on their wrist(large pedometers) that can put them in "fight mode" and super runing mode (makes them super blurry). This will seriously drain their power reserves but they find bits of wires to chew on to regain their strength. The explosions were less impressive than my fourth of July, I only had sparklers.
So the plot as far as I can figure goes something like this "mother" is a space ship captain and goes to the desert for a while rides a rocket dies. Then her daughter 6000 years in the future ( no I am not exaggerating) recalls her mother's memories through some sort of capsule. Anyways they jabber on for another 10 min and then the cause a big bang. Yes the Same "Big Bang" that started our solar system. It's explained how she goes back in time or something, it does not really matter it happened i guess. Roll Credits Seriously the whole script was mercifully on one sheet of paper, unless that actually detailed any of the dreadfully fight scenes.
After watching the credits I have now laughed more than I did the entire movie, the jobs the created like catering supervisor "galactius sarcophagus" and then the special thanks to George Lucas was just the best.
I really wasn't expecting that much for a movie I paid 99 cents for but seriously some body owes me for this. Most frequent comment heard after the movie "I want my life back". You have to admire that some but put time and effort in to this movie but seriously, why ?


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


user
Let me break down this film for you...
The first fifteen minutes are a showcase for terrible special effects. I'm not one to nitpick about special effects, but what you've got to understand is that if you can't afford good special effects, you shouldn't anchor your film around special effects. Starships fire blobs of color at each other, flaring into stock explosions, and careening past moons with polygon counts low enough to count with your fingers. You will have no idea what is happening. It will not make sense.
The second act involves a woman walking in the desert. At this point you will be treated to drab scenery, and illogical, boring fight scenes. Nobody speaks. Nothing interesting happens. The protagonist's goals are unclear, and are not very compelling. This goes on for about 45 minutes.
Then in a five-minute montage, she sneaks into an enemy base, straps herself to a rocket, tries to destroy a doomsday weapon, fails, and dies.
None of this has any bearing on the eventual direction of the film.
In the last twenty minutes, basically the chick's memories get transferred to her daughter, who goes into stasis for a very large number of years, learning the secrets of mankind. After this, we see the first, and last five-minute segment of human interaction in the film, then the new heroine is forced to choose whether she wants to become part of the material that causes the big bang or not. You know. Because when the universe is collapsing, you get to decide if you want to be a part of it.
She chooses yes. BUT THE MEMORIES OF MANKIND SURVIVE IN A CAPSULE. Maybe we won't make the same mistakes again, huh? If you like movies with characters, then this is not a good movie for you. The lead roles could have been fulfilled nicely by any old wind-up toy capable of staying right-side-up while walking through sand. All of the story is told through painfully dull narration.
The film tries to seem deep by throwing together a whole bunch of undeveloped science-fiction ideas. There are enough concepts here to fuel a number of films, but as it stands, it's bloated with completely irrelevant details. Two-thirds of this film could have been reduced to a 45-second montage. Instead, the narrator fills in a novella's worth of backstory without ever giving us a reason to care what happens to the characters.
There are good ideas in here, but nobody watches films to see ideas ineptly explained. People watched films to be entertained. This film does not entertain.


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


user
OK, please believe me when I say that this is a terrible, terrible, sci-fi movie. Its done so poorly that much of the film plays out as unintentional surrealism and its absolutely a 100% waste of time. Awful, but somehow also deeply unfunny. I watched this as a double feature with "Recon 2020: The Caprini Massacre" and although "Battlespace" WAS an incredibly superior film, that's not saying much. The plot of "Battlespace" is so completely convoluted that its impossible to follow. The narration is cryptic, often nonsensical, seemingly endless, and thoroughly exhausting. Literally half the film is duplicative scenes of the female lead, who looks like Brian Bosworth, walking through the desert. The movie actually starts out pretty cool, but then nosedives into pooptown and somehow continues to deteriorate, minute by minute. Absolutely horrible and truly an Absurdist Endurance Test. Zero stars. ---|--- Reviews by Flak Magnet


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


user
The film begins with a 30 minute explanation about the war, the human cyborgs, battles, history, and then dumps 2 actors into a gravel pit. They run around this gravel pit/desert area for about an hour shooting at each other. That's it. Must have cost about £10.00 to make, with change. Avoid.
Marks out of ten: Acting -9 Sets 1 Costumes -9 Direction -50 Production 1 Titled intro 4
I think to improve this film would be to: Lose the commentary. (Let the watcher decide what's going on). Remove some of the awful CGI. Add some techno rave music to it. They might just rescue it.......


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


user
I knew it would be a bad movie when I rented it but I hoped for a good bad movie. Oh well, had fun making fun of the endless sand trudging, eating camel dung (well, actually eggplant) and weird grimacing acting from I think it was about five actors. The DVD needs a director's commentary so that I can find out what he was thinking...or if he was at all. I can't believe they actually went to England, Austrialia and wherever to film this...could have been done ANYWHERE. Would have been better if they had managed to get her naked. The best line of the movie? "He waiting for his upgrades." "Yup, still waiting". Now that WAS FUNNY! If anyone had more than 3 pages of dialog (beyond the narrator....SHUT UP ALREADY) then I'll watch it again.


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 rented for free, I had no misconception about this being a very bad movie. I rented it for Thanksgiving because we eat turkey and then the family watches an awful movie. So you ask, what makes this movie so bad you gave it only 2 stars? Dialog. The lack of dialog makes this a movie perfect for a deaf audience. In fact if you rent this, just turn the volume down to zero and pop in any heavy metal CD from your favorite artist. I know you will enjoy it better. The plot of this holiday turkey was so encumbered with tech and geek speak you need a translator for the narrative. Now for all you people who enjoy good sci-fi effects... eh, they are not much better than video game trailers or cut scenes in cases worse. The actors, um both of them, are not much to look at either. They say nothing much through out the entire movie. Many of the technical aspects will make you laugh like the scene where the hero straps herself to a missile and fires it at the city 70km away (it never showed how she landed). The scene before that we see a robotic sentry fire at her with a cannon from 12 feet away and he misses multiple shots. Also we are told that the political division between the antagonist and protagonist is bio-tech (genetically enhanced humans) vs cyber-tech (machine enhanced humans) but both seem to be cyborgs or enhanced humans. What told me this was a bad movie at the rental store was the cover that looked like a video game cover art and there was only the one copy, good new releases have many copies available.


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


user
I have no idea what these people were thinking when they made this film. No plot, very limited action, and what is with the 3rd person commentary throughout the film???? Instead of running around the planet to shoot on all of these locations, they should have spent some money on script writing and actors. What acting there was, was lousy. This was 90 minutes of my life I will never be able to get back. I should bill the director for the cost of renting this film. To the director and the writers of this film....please quit now. This film should have a tag on the front of it saying beware of boredom. The only good thing I can say about this film, is the computer generation. It's OK as generation is. This movie should never have a sequel....ever.


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


user
I watched the first 10 minutes and it bored me to death. So, I fast forward all the way through the end. This movie must be the worst of all in the low budget sci-fi movies category so far. Bad acting, cast, directions, Lara Craft custom imitation, story, plot, everything! Through out the entire movie, I think that there maybe only 6 to 7 people in the entire cast, but ONLY two of them started in the entire movie. I was expecting something like the Starship Trooper, but it was nothing close to it. I was fooled by the movie title and the picture on the DVD cover. Don't waste your time watching this boring and bad movie. Come to think of it, I wonder why did they even bother to put out bad movies like 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'd never heard of zero budget "auteur" Neil Johnson before seeing "Battlespace" on DVD at Hollywood Video. A few minutes into the movie I realize this isn't a bad thing. Like many straight to video Sci-Fi movies, this is a film dominated largely by overused bad special effects and a constant parade of pretentious sci-fi concepts that fail to create a story.
Viewers are tortured with a religious sounding text introduction, then a spoken introduction followed by a narration by the main character's daughter. To me this seemed like a smoke screen to mask a film with militantly ugly visuals and zero character emphasis. Some people on here seem all too ready to take this film seriously and swallowed it's seemingly new age messages hook line and sinker. These favorable reviews must come from the same kind of people who can delude themselves into thinking that things like "Battlefield Earth" was a brilliant movie, or that Shasta is just as good as Coke.
Those who were lured in by the cheesy cover art can look forward to lousy acting (in small doses, spaced with long blocks of people not talking), rotten computer animated effects (in extra large doses), and irritating talking computers. What you won't get is excitement, emotional stimulation, memorable dialogue, or a good story.
"Battlespace" is impenetrable bull and the constant irritant of the narration proves it. Real science fiction, hell, real film-making, is about characters and their dialogue, not special effects and dull predictions. This is right down there with similar direct to video sci-fi like "Cl.One" and "Recon 2022". If the boredom of "Strange Horizons" and "Alien Visitor" is something you seek out, by all means, watch the crap out of this. If you enjoy good storytelling and hate fake lens flares, you're better off with a real movie.


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 have to say that i don't like since fiction movies at all so much! But there are some movies i liked really. This is one of the others ;) I've the same opinion like some (most)others here. The Film is still going on in my back, but the few effects are really not enough to watch the whole time....I think what they have done well are the animated sceneries with 3 suns and 4 Moons, but its the only i liked. There are no intelligent dialogs (are there???). But its a Great Film for everybody who loves Lara Croft or some other Girls in HOT-PANTS... ;)
For the directors: " Stop to try again, PLEASE!!! "


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


user
...and that's saying something. No matter how bad a movie gets, I'm normally able to sit through it so I can judge the full movie. Through this one, I made it about 20 minutes.
Maybe it was the DVD, or maybe it was my laptop, but I could not hear the dialogue, even with the volume turned all the way up. Sound effects were fine, so with the volume turned up to hear the dialogue, I was blowing out my eardrums with the effects. As much as I wanted to see this thing through, I wasn't going to sacrifice my hearing for it.
From what little I could tell about the plot, the movie was one big flashback by the main character's daughter. It seems the mother, a military pilot, had to flee her ship because the one person on her ship she trusted turned out to be one of the enemy and now he is pursuing her across a desert planet.
The only thing I liked about the movie was the look of the main character; there was something I liked about her hairstyle.
Oh well, looks like this one is going into the dumpster...


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


user
Nothing to spoil here at all but this could be a SPOILER so beware.
Special effects were on the level of a video game -- about five years ago, or perhaps of the original Star Trek. The acting was just pathetic -- some cheesy looking blonde treking across the desert while a voice in the background droned on. And on. And on. This was the trek and drone half that I actually made it through. Progress is interrupted by a few fights. Ships blow each other up for no real reason that is apparent episodically. Again, it's not that there is a real fight that you would expect from a movie, more like a cheap video game. Boi-ing! Boi-ing! Ship explodes. Next ship. Apparently some of the ships are looking for the blonde. Here in the far future, ships must be nearsighted and astigmatic because many of them pass directly overhead of the stylishly dressed futuristic babe in black but never see her.
Then there are a couple of choreographed fights that look like something put on by high school kids. Again, the crude video game mentality is prominent. The combatants shift to "Fight Mode" by flipping something on their wrists, and a loud computerized voice echoes and flashes "Fight Mode". That must be a dandy design if you are trying to sneak up on somebody. Then you go to a big power station which looks just like a current day power line tower and plug in to charge back up. LOL, I'm not kidding, you can't make this stuff up, it's like watching a freaking video game from about 2000 only the acting is better in the game.
More trekking. Then she shows up at "The City". (Lame sound trek gets even lamer here.) She gets into a fight with a mech robot of the future who cannot hit her with his big gun, even though she runs right in front of him, about five feet in front of him. Obviously robots of the far future are about as useful as toaster ovens in a fight. She throws sand in its eyes and beats it to death by throwing rocks at it. rofl, I was at about 95% of tolerance by that point, my nausea circuits flashing red.
In the next scene she ends up strapped to a rocket with some rope. I kid you not, tied right to the outside of a rocket. This is supposed to be an advanced form of transportation. At that point I bailed.
This movie is an utter disgrace for a movie made at the present time. Just a freaking disgrace. There was a drippy story but the movie distracted from it -- somebody droning on about "mother" constantly.
I gave it a two because there were a few scenes which displayed some pretty nice artwork of a science fiction nature as background. Unfortunately the plot, acting, action, cinematography, and narrative distracted from this artwork and degraded it. No kidding.


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


user
You just cant touch NRFPTP! The new crop is just awful. The jokes are not funny. Some of the troupe make me want to stop watching TV all together. Lorne - you have let your creation go down the toilet. The guests sometimes are good, the bands are mostly garbage. Weekend update, Seth has to tell the audience when to laugh.....Seth would get a proper reception in a Baghdad cafe though...Make sure Andy goes with him... The show has about 10 jokes in all and they just keep rehashing them over and over. Even the segments that are obviously not funny. Offending people has become the name of the game, but they cant even do that right. Just offensively. I am so disappointed with what has happened to the show, but now I also know it is safe to go OUT on a Saturday night!


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 a huge "SNL" fan back in the days of Chevy Chase, John Belushi, Dan Ackroyd, Gilda Radner and many other memorable stars. But every time I've tried to watch it in the past more than ten years I've been very disappointed and sometimes even disgusted with it. Ten years ago I believed the show couldn't possibly survive, since it had become so utterly bereft of the sort of humor I could understand, and yet it kept plugging along, which I've always found dismaying, wondering how in the world anyone could possibly find its lame humor at all funny. Whenever I've tuned in over the past decade I've never once been glad that I did. Indeed, I've always been annoyed at myself for staying up and wasting my time. For me, the absolute low point came several years ago when a popular young male actor I liked a lot was the guest host. At one point that night he played a big star, perhaps himself, and in the skit, the character "Mongo," I think, played by Chris Kattan, again I think, ended up in the backseat of a car with him. What followed was Mongo being forced up and down and up and down on the actor's lap, with him screaming hysterically as he was presumably sodomized. The audience was laughing their heads off and I'm shaking my head, amazed that they could find that remotely funny, amazed that NBC would even broadcast such a thing. In the years since then I've repeatedly tried to approach the show with an open mind, hoping that it might regain the sly sense of humor I adored for so many years. But, up until just a week ago, for me, it hasn't done so. Not even close. One exception: During the 2008 presidential campaign, I thought that Tina Fey was fantastic, and she was the one performer who kept me tuning in. But those Sarah Palin skits, while hysterical, were still not enough to save the rest of the 90 minutes and I would always regret not turning it off as soon as I heard the familiar "It's 'Saturday Night!!!'"


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


user
This show was an amazing, fresh & innovative idea in the 70's when it first aired. The first 7 or 8 years were brilliant, but things dropped off after that. By 1990, the show was not really funny anymore, and it's continued its decline further to the complete waste of time it is today.
It's truly disgraceful how far this show has fallen. The writing is painfully bad, the performances are almost as bad - if not for the mildly entertaining respite of the guest-hosts, this show probably wouldn't still be on the air. I find it so hard to believe that the same creator that hand-selected the original cast also chose the band of hacks that followed. How can one recognize such brilliance and then see fit to replace it with such mediocrity? I felt I must give 2 stars out of respect for the original cast that made this show such a huge success. As it is now, the show is just awful. I can't believe it's still on the air.


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


user
I just spent about 1.5 hours waiting for the movie to begin. It didn't. The story is vague and uninteresting, the speed in the movie is absent and the voiceover irritating. I can't understand why movies like this one are even distributed.


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


user
Beats me how people can describe this adolescent exercise as film noir. True there's a gun & a bottle & a dame & the lead is a private eye, but that ain't what makes the genre, folks. This thing plays like reheated TV cop show stuff - lots of bloody beating & lousy continuity - with a dash of Chinatown memories thrown in. Pretty hard to watch beyond the first 10 minutes. You want contemporary feel, watch anything by John Dahl.


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


user
This show is based on the concept that loud + obnoxious + repetition = funny. The comedic writing is non-existent, in fact I face serious repercussions by even comparing it to entertainment of any sort. Here is the premise. Two girls accidentally get their shenanigans posted on the internet and hilarity ensues after their initial success, they contrive the idea that they should make a web-cast to showcase their brilliance.
OK, so where should I begin? Let's start with the laugh track, the oft used but never successful reminder that, we the viewing audience should laugh. According to the foley guys, this show is the funniest thing on the planet. We should all be dropping loads into our pants because of the brilliance of the humor placed before us. The laugh track seriously goes every few seconds. It quite possibly usurps Scooby-doo for the king of laugh track over-use.
Then the in-your-face-shout-at-the-top-of-our-lungs-the-craziest-grouping-of- words-to-seem-silly trick is also employed with little to no success. Whoa and let's not forget creating new words to sound funny trick. That is web-o-licious and poop-tastic? What the hell...
Finally, the acting. I can't entirely complain here. The actors are young and inexperienced, but this should and can be corrected by good professional help. Because of the inexperience nick should be helping the actors define their craft. Instead, in usual nick fashion, the actors are placed in front of the camera and told "act". Which for the most part is robotic recitation of lines, missed timing and overall epic fail.
The lack of anything in this show makes it a disgusting representation of how not to be funny. Don't waste your time. This show is debasing to all of humanity


assistant
0