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 acting was horrible. The special effects, while exceptional, dominated the movie. The writing was pathetic, and the dialogue was unbelievable. And the silly little love story between Liv Tyler and Ben Affleck was out of place.
But the worst offense of "Armageddon" was the total lack of scientific reality. "The asteroid is the size of Texas," says Billy Bob Thornton. Er, that's 800 miles wide! No one in NASA even sees the asteroid until a midday meteor shower wrecks havoc in New York? Suuuuure. NASA hires a drilling team to join the astronauts and trains them in a week? Yeah, right. Someone brings a sidearm on the Space Shuttle with them? Yeah, that's realistic. And Bruce Willis blows up the asteroid with three seconds to spare. How Disney-esque!
How bad was this movie? I rooted for the asteroid!


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


user
Being an unrelenting non-stop over-the-top explosive melodrama, this movie is one of the worst action flicks ever produced, and utterly unbelievable in every way. The pace is constantly fever-pitched, and all the action and the actors are gripped by total hysteria. It is nigh unwatchable, and a stain - nay, a blotch - on the careers of everyone involved.
The wildly exaggerated attempt at excitement undermines itself, resulting in a movie where you just go "Come on!" all the time. The setting and the events are impossible to take even remotely seriously. I can only rate this abomination a 1 out of 10.
If you want to see a good asteroid movie, see Deep Impact, which is intense, sensitive and thoroughly engrossing. Everything Armageddon is not.


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


user
Dear Readers,
I've found in my studies of movies that whenever Michael Bay makes a movie, people pan it and hate it, yet they still go to see it and it makes somewhere around 100 million dollars. Why? Because Michael Bay is one of the top five directors of all time. Standing alongside Ridley Scott, Spielberg, Kubrick, and Miyazaki, Michael Bay has cemented himself as Hollywood's best action/adventure director. That point is proved with his most panned film, Armageddon.
An Asteroid the size of Texas is hurtling towards the planet and the only way NASA can think to take it down is to land a team of men on the asteroid, drill to its core, and drop a nuclear warhead inside then blow up the asteroid. Only one person is qualified enough to do it: Bruce Willis. Willis portrays Harry Stamper, a grizzled hardened oil driller trying to keep what's left of his family together. Not helping that fact is his daughter, Grace (Liv Tyler), having an affair with his best driller, AJ (Ben Affleck). Hired by Dan Truman (Billy Bob Thornton), the head of NASA, Stamper and his team of roughneck drillers train to become astronauts and save the world.
Armageddon is a two part movie. First there's the funny parts where we meet the gang and wackiness abounds. Then they get into space and all the comedy gets sucked out the window and is replaced by mind-blowing special effects, cool music, and great serious acting. Murphy's law goes insane in the second part, meaning that everything that can go wrong, does in fact go wrong, increasing the tension of the film to outstanding levels.
With a cool cast and crew (Michael Bay as Director, Jerry Bruckheimer and Gale Anne Hurd as Producers, and J.J. Abrams as one of the scriptwriters.), tons of special effects, great humor, awesome music, plus an intro done by Mr. Ben-Hur himself, Charlton Heston, Armageddon rocks big time.
Signed, The Constant DVD Collector, Matt Macleod
Parental Warnings: This is not a film for kids. The F-bomb is used a few times and lots of other swear words are used as well, plus there's a Strip bar scene and the extremely intense second part might be too hard for a kid to handle.


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 this movie about six years ago and I recently did so again. If I remember correctly I did not like it at all the first time and I appreciated it slightly more this second time.
This movie is obviously on a big budget. The effects are mostly top notch (except for one or two "impacts") and the cast is impressive. However, there are some elements that destroy the overall impression of the show.
Firstly, whoever decided that Peter Stormare should act as a crazy Russian astronaut should be fired. Being a Swede and a fan of Peter, I'm pretty sure he can play a Russian character well. But his performance in this case is plain stupid, both with respect the lines uttered and the acting. So... something must be wrong with the script. I'd like to see Peter as a professional Russian astronaut instead.
Secondly, the action scenes that take place on the surface are so intense that it is nearly unbearable to watch. It is a total chaos that lasts over thirty minutes with too few moments to catch one's breath. In addition to this, the events that unfold are simply not credible. I'd like to see a much more sensible and stripped down version of this part of the movie.
Finally, the scenes that involve flying space shuttles are too action-biased. The shuttles are maneuvering like if they were a couple of MIGs, at zero safety distance, while bouncing off car-sized ice blocks like ping-pong balls. The director should watch Apollo 13 to learn the limitations of spacecraft like these.
I like the music score because it is dramatic to a degree making it very touching. The overall performance of the actors is great. Apart from the things mentioned above the story is interesting and quite easy to follow.
With some minor changes this would have been a 8/10 movie. I'm sorry it isn't!


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


user
This 'schlock-buster' should carry a government health warning. If you play it in your DVD machine, you are in serious risk of opening a rift in the space-time continuum and disappearing without trace into it - so bad is this 'movie'.
The fact that this movie was so successful is evidence of the true desperate state of modern Hollywood cinema, and the continual commissioning of films that appeal to the 'lowest common denominator' - although I truly dread to think of the 'lowest common denominators' that this film actually appeals to!!
I think Hollywood were just conducting some kind of proving trials when they made and screened this film! I can imagine the executive boardroom meetings at the studio ... "Just how bad a film can we actually get away with making - and STILL make loads of money!??! Holy cow, I didn't realise we could go THAT bad!! Woooo hooooo!!"
The only films worse than this that I can think of (and trust me it is close) are Die Another Day (RIP the Bond franchise as I knew it) and Independence Day!
AVOID - AVOID - AVOID!!!!


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


user
I agree with Jessica, this movie is pretty bad. I'm surprised anyone took it seriously. Characters are one-dimensional, even the good guys and especially the bad guys. The only merit here is that it's so lame it's funny. Actually for me, there is the added benefit that it was shot in a state park not far from where I live, so seeing some local sights on the big screen is a hoot.
The lead character is a off-duty cop, and makes a big point of lecturing a good guy that vigilante justice is not just a bad idea, it's against the law. Imagine how long that lasts ...
Most of the movie's Northern California characters are blown-dried Hollywood cheese-balls, looking like they've never actually been in a fight. The story line is totally predictable. This film is ripe for a MST-3K lampooning. CAMP value only. I'm pretty forgiving of films in general, but seeing the old positive reviews I had to speak up. This is a dog. I give it a 3 out of 10, and then only for laughs.


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


user
Like its near contemporaries "The Great Race" and "Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines", I always associate this film with my childhood especially at New Year. On New Year's Day we'd visit my granny and after lunch, while the adults talked, the kids would watch TV where invariably one of these three crazy race films would be on.
For that reason alone, I really wanted to mark "Monte Carlo Or Bust" well but I fear I can't, the child not being father to the man on this occasion. By which I mean I can see all too clearly its faults and while I was tempted to smile occasionally, in truth I really wanted all the competitors to get to the end of the race long before they actually do.
Of course it's dated by its stereotyping of nationalities and woman as the weaker sex and I also didn't much care for one or two stray, admittedly mild vulgarities which occasionally surfaced. More than that though, the cast, despite hamming it up outrageously just don't sell the film enough. Tony Curtis, in a trial run for his "Yank Abroad" turn in the TV series "The Persuaders", seems too old to be playing the young gallant, Terry Thomas just isn't dastardly enough, Eric Sykes is unbelievable as a dirty-minded Lothario while Gert Frobe as an overdone Teuton, is just weird doing camp comedy when you remember he was Bond's best villain Goldfinger. If anything the Englishers come off best - Susan Hampshire is at least engaging as a "bright young thing", suitably gamine as a posh flapper and although chained to the leash of the script Pete and Dud offer the most amusement as stiff upper lip army types, although even then the "Carry On" team did this so much better in "Carry On Up The Khyber Pass".
Director Annakin tries everything to evoke the "Golden Silents", with lashings of slapstick, mistaken identity capers, speeded up camera shots, would-be dramatic stunts and some light romance, but there's no real tension for such a famous race and anyway the race-off at the end seems like another swizz.
Actually I'd have given it another mark if they'd stuck to the alternative title "Those Magnificent Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies" but in truth the animated series "Wacky Races" did this so much better.


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


user
A Lassie movie which should have been "put to sleep".... FOREVER. That's how I'd describe this painfully dreary time-waster of a film. So mediocre in every aspect that it just becomes a dull, uninteresting mess, this is one of the most forgettable movies I've seen. It isn't even an achievement as a "so-bad-it's-good" or "so-bad-it's-memorable" movie. The idea of Lassie turning bad is intriguing but so little actually happens, and so slowly, that you feel your life slipping away while sitting there, watching the non-actors read their lines off cue cards waiting for their measly paychecks.
It's an empty, hollow shell of a movie. Seriously, it's not worth wasting your, or your kid's time on. Unless you're both heavily medicated. That's all I have to say.
Avoid, avoid, avoid! It will drive you barking mad! Hahahah, get it? BARKING! Hahahahahahaha!
Sorry, I've had a rough week.


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


user
Pretty bad. This film about a grizzled(and frankly rock stupid) old prospector and his dog'Shep' i.e., Lassie, as well as an annoying kid whose name I can't recall at the moment. At the beginning of the movie, the old prospector has DELIBERATELY buried himself in some sand so that the poor dog will have to dig him out. Why? Did he hate the dog? Anyhoo, somehow or other this idiot has managed to strike gold, and goes to tell his partner. But the man has died, and his sleazy other partner is happy to assist old Jonathan in digging up the gold. The geezer tries to leave is dog with the dead guy's son, but not even the retarded mutt wants to stay with this kid. There's quaint old preacher(for quaint read smelly), and the oily guy finished off the old guy(surprise, surprise) and tries to steal all the gold. Plus he poisons the dog and tries to kill the kid, too. So I suppose its okay that a devilish and crazy Lassie..err...SHEP does this the guy in at the end, although its pretty disturbing in what is basically a children's movie. There are extremely stereotypical(to the point of racial slur) 'Native Americans' who speak without using verbs(as in, Me Make Camp Fire type speech). And that's pretty much the extent of the cast, because apparently Lassie's salary was too big for them to hire anyone else. Kind of dull. not very interesting, and a tad too dark. Not a great movie in any way.


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


user
All but the youngest Americans are probably familiar with the iconic call of "Laaaaaa-sie!" from little Timmy, or whatever the kid's name was, wailing his little tow-head off for his border collie friend. These same Americans may or may not be familiar with the fact that Lassie made the leap from television to movies (or was it the other way around? I'm clearly too lazy to do any research here), and The Painted Hills is one of those. It is irresistible to make a "this movie has gone to the dogs!" pun, so I won't (even though I technically just did). But in a way, it has. Lassie (playing Shep, man's best friend) gets top billing. THE DOG GETS TOP BILLING. Now, I'm not familiar with how actors or their agents negotiate contracts, but here's how it plays out in my mind:
MOVIE MOGUL: Okay, Lassie, in the credits, it's gonna be, "and with Lassie as Shep!" LASSIE: Rrrrowf! Grrrrrrr. MOVIE MOGUL: Ha, ha, kid, calm down, calm down! LASSIE: Rrroo rrrrooo roooo. MOVIE MOGUL: Okay, I think I see. Co-lead billing? LASSIE: Rawrf! Rawrrrrff rawrf! MOVIE MOGUL: Oh God! Let go of my arm! Top billing! Top billing for you, now let go of my arm!!!
So, the dog gets top billing, and with the rest of this shell-shocked cast, I suppose it's understandable. We get lovable old grumpus Jonathan the prospector, his young, whiny and apparently orphaned friend Tommy, sketchy loser Lin Taylor, and lovable old religious grumpus Pilot Pete. The meat of the plot here could be summed up in a few sentences, so I'll save you the actual pain of watching the movie. Jonathan is a prospector with a dog named Shep, and his partner dies while he is at his claim. He gets a new partner named Lin who becomes obsessed with the gold, and Jonathan for some reason gives Shep to whiny little crybaby Tommy. Lin kills Jonathan, Shep sees it, and Lin tries to kill Shep. Then Lin tries to kill Tommy. Then Tommy whines, it gets cold, and Shep carries out an elaborate plan to get revenge on Lin, which he (or she?) does. The end.
Unless you have a deep, unsettling need to see a Lassie movie (even then, there's got to be a better Lassie movie than this), just avoid The Painted Hills. When it's not dragging on, marveling at Lassie's limited ability to 'act' (similar in style, perhaps, to Keanu Reeves - always the same facial expression, only the body moves), setting up the obvious using several minutes of film, or insulting Native Americans everywhere with its white-actor-in-facepaint "Ugh! How! Me Running Bear!" stereotypes, The Painted Hills is fit only for Lassie fetishists or people who have some kind of connection to prospecting through their days as a grizzled old prospector lookin' fer that consarned vein of glittery gold!


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


user
Definitely not a good film but nowhere as bad as some would paint it to be. Nightmare in Wax tells the story of a man, having had his face disfigured in a typical flashback scene, wreak his vengeance on those directly responsible and those indirectly for the losses in his life - most notably the love and companionship of a beautiful young actress. Cameron Mitchell plays the artist with his typical flair, albeit limited flair. Actually, I thought he gave one of his better performances. What exactly does that mean? Mitchell wears an eye patch, endlessly smokes cigarettes, wears a motley tunic, and talks to his creations in wax. They are not your ordinary wax dummies, but rather people still alive controlled by some serum that makes them lose control of all neurological function. They become zombies in effect. I thought the premise here was inventive if nothing else. It has some ludicrous explanation, but does serve the plot. This is a film of the 60s to be sure with some psychedelic camera-work by Bud Townsend and company. The acting is mediocre but Mitchell, Scott Brady, and Barry Kroeger give interesting turns. The wax figures of Hollywood's bygone era are done very effectively and most of the location shooting was very credible. The end of the film dissipates into something not quite real - either another example of 60s cultural cinema or the end of the scriptwriter's creativity. I'm banking on the latter. Despite its many flaws, I enjoyed the film. The opening scene showing an actor being needled was effectively done as was a police chase on the waterfront.


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


user
This is a treat for fans of Z-grade movies. Here you will find writing and acting bad enough to rival anything Ed Wood ever produced. Veteran bad movie actor Cameron Mitchell is a former makeup man from "Paragon Studios" who, after a nasty acid-in-the-face incident at a social gathering, becomes an embittered Mad Scientist (tm) with a rubber scar on his face who takes revenge by kidnapping Paragon actors and turning them into living statues in his Secret Laboratory (tm) handily located in the local wax museum. Or are they zombies who do his bidding? He's not sure.
Happily, many of your favourite movie clichés are here. Check out the villain's lab! Are those mysterious steaming vats of liquid? Test tubes of coloured water with no explained purpose? Yay! And what ho, do we see spare arms and legs arranged kinda casual-like on a wooden rack? You betcha! Marvel at the bumbling detectives acting with straight out of Plan Nine! Now, enjoy a stupidly tame car chase, and hear more dizzy bimbo screaming than you could possibly want. Raise an eyebrow at the screwy plot line, made even more opaque by the totally meaningless ending that seems to have no connection to the rest of the movie.
Cheesy trash and much fun for the bad movie connoisseur.


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


user
Legendary Cameron Mitchell turkey about an actor/makeup man who is burned by the head of a studio when a drink is tossed in his face as he is lighting up a cigarette. Reduced to a scarred mess and wearing an eye patch Mitchell works at the Movieland Wax Museum . He also kidnaps and kills people using a solution which paralyzes them so he can turn them into displays. Genuinely bizarre bad movie that defies description. Watch as the various wax figures try not to move, watch as the entire tobacco out put for several Southern states is consumedwatch as things just get weirder and weirder. Its an awful train wreck of a movie and you won't be able to take your eyes off the screen. A classic bad movie that will amaze you even as it leaves permanent scars on your psyche.


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


user
Cameron Mitchell plays an actor who is dating a young actress who used to date the head of a movie studio (she's too young for both of them!). At a party, when he's lighting his cigarette, the studio boss throws a high alcohol content drink in his face, and he catches fire. In the hospital, his face is entirely bandaged and he still lights up a cigarette! He becomes the resident sculptor of the Movieland Wax Museum and Palace, where he also lights up cigarettes!
Mitchell recovers, more or less, having really poorly done burn makeup on one side of his face that looks like gray spackle and tape, and an eyepatch. When Mitchell isn't smoking, he's killing people. Well, he only kills people sometimes, since he prefers to inject them with something that puts them in a sort of waxy coma. If he doesn't administer it regularly (and he never seems to remember), they start to move again a little, although they're in a sort of hypnotic zombie state. Not all his sculptures are people, though. He evidently does have talent as a sculptor.
The ending, which seemed to have been struck from a much poorer print than the rest of the movie, is really absurd. They seemed not to know what to do, and went back to the title for an idea. Apart from the oddly grainy final shots, the rest of the movie is in fairly good shape, except for the audio in some scenes which sounds like it was run through a blown speaker. Definitely not one of the better wax museum movies.


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


user
Well, I've read the book first and thought: wow would this be cool to see in a movie, than I started searching and found there was already a movie made of it... I bought the movie a week ago on DVD and watched it.. they did it awfully wrong! at first this kid Hapi,who isn't any character in the book, then the mix between the two books ('the river god' and 'the seventh scroll') than Nicolas needing funds while in the book he himself is actually the funder, the whole thing about the Hyksos is wrong also.. Taila is supposed to have invented the lightweight-chariot.. the whole thing about the tomb is also very wrong.. there is supposed to be a channel that has some kind of vacuum-suction around it.. the tomb itself was made in a maze with only a possibility to pass if one knows the rules of the ancient boa-game. There was nothing in the movie about Nicolas being English and Royan was a Coptic-Christian in the book, not a Muslim..This list is endless.. There were only a few things good about the movie, the actors which played Royan, Nahood, Taita, Boris, Mick and Tessay were well-chosen, the rest were just parodies of the characters in the book, Rasfer was the worst, it didn't get even close to the character that was in my head while I wrote the book.. It is such a shame that such a great book is mutilated in such a bad reproduction... I wonder why Wilbur Smith ever gave his permission for this..


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


user
After reading both _River_God_ and _The_Seventh_Scroll_, I can't begin to express how disappointed I was with this film. While I agree some poetic license may be admissible, this movie is at constant variance with the books, doing an incredible injustice to the exciting, plausible and wonderful stories written by Wilbur Smith. I can only believe that the writers, director and producers of the movie have never even heard of Mr. Smith, let alone read his work. Smith's vibrant characterizations are converted into wooden stick figures, all historicity is ignored or discounted, the realism of the books has been changed to include phantom monsters more appropriate to a cartoon. And why is an Egyptian henchman speaking Spanish? Geesh, no wonder the movie was made into a TV miniseries! Did Wilbur Smith have any input into the making of this movie? I can't believe that he did. Terrible, terrible movie. If you've read either or both of the books, don't waste your time or money watching this money. You will be sorely disappointed, I assure you.
Only a moment of supreme generosity persuaded me to give this movie a ranking of '2', and that only because of the beautiful, sometimes spectacular, photography.


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


user
It is a truism that it takes a lot of effort to make a bad movie - this one is no exception.
I am no lover of yanks but their amazingly simplistic view of the world and their ability to reduce everything to black and white as well as make events (even fictional ones in novels) fit an agenda that bears little or no relationship to complexity of any kind is irritating in the extreme.
Wilbur Smith is descriptively verbose but weaves intricate tales that deserve more than has been delivered by this awful mishmash of a movie.
Sad really for those who will never read Smith. They will be left with a less than decent portrayal of his Egyptian series, which has to be said is gigantic in its exposition.
The Indiana Jones movies were snappy. To attempt to replicate that by manipulating Smith's novels into this production misses out by a country mile.
Pathetic except for the photography and Art Malik.


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 that Full Moon, or any other film studio for that matter, could never recapture the fun and cheesy sci-fi feeling that was the original `Trancers.' And with the last two entries in the series having Jack Deth in medieval times instead of futuristic Los Angeles, it became quite obvious that there really was little hope in reviving the Trancers series. Breathing new life into a film is one thing, but taking our main character out of his element and putting him into the past, well, it didn't work! So now with Trancers 6, Full Moon has breathed so much new life into the series that we don't even deal with Jack Deth any more. We now deal with his daughter, Jo. Jack is in her body and must go into the past and fight the Trancers one more time.
*MINOR SPOILER: FIRST SCENE OF THE FILM REVEALED*
To prove how bad this movie is, you only need watch the first two minutes of the film when the original Jack Deth appears on the screen. But it's not actually Tim Thomerson. It's clips of him and sound bytes strung together (trust me, you can tell they're strung together) horribly to provide the viewer the last of the true Jack Deth humor. And from this point on, things only go down hill. Having this girl, Jo Deth, as our main character while Jack Deth is supposed to be in her body, is the worst idea in the world. Having this cute young woman act as a rough and tough man isn't the right track at all! It doesn't work and it really comes off as foolish.
I'm not going to go into the aspects of special effects and makeup because most reading this know what Full Moon has become: A really, really, low budget enterprise. I don't know what to say about this movie, except I really wish Full Moon could be like it was in the days of Demonic Toys, Puppet Master, and Trancers 1. Back then, while the special effects weren't great, the story telling was. They made serious b-movies for serious B movie and horror fans, and that just doesn't take place today with the new Full Moon Studios. I yearn for the good ol' days, and truly hope, that Full Moon can pull itself out of this horrible slump that they're in right now.
Trancers 6 gets a 2 out of 10.


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


user
Okay, granted, I am a fan of low-budget horror, which along with it, does come the occasional piece of garbage that even the most diehard fan of campy flicks can not bare to stand witness to...TRANCERS 6, directed by DEMONICUS's Jay Woelfel.
First of all, the TRANCERS series, started back in the mid-80s by Charlie Band and his Empire Pictures, is basically the franchise that it is because of Tim Thomerson and his excellent portrayal of Trancer hunter Jack Deth. Well, low and behold, due to the sinking budgets of Full Moon features (which, despite what people have said, have actually brought along very high quality features, such as HELL ASYLUM and DEAD & ROTTING), Thomerson did not return for the sixth installment.
Full Moon writer Courtney Joyner returns once again and delivers another below-average screenplay, which features Jack Deth (played by Thomerson...in flashbacks, which are extremely poorly inserted...he has a different hair style like every time he is shown, and some `shemp' laying on a table) going down the line into his daughter's body. Well, from here on out, you have "Jo Deth" acting like Jack...but its a shame that she really doesn't give off the same screen presence as Jack Deth did.
The film, shot on 16mm, is, simply put, an embarrassment to the TRANCERS name...no offense to anyone at Young Wolf Productions. I mean, I respect you guys for actually wanting to jump forth and do a TRANCERS film without Tim, but with a little more time (despite it being filmed since December of 2001), it could have been better.
However, check out Full Moon's DVD of it, which is a double feature with the original TRANCERS, and features trailers for the last 10 plus Full Moon features.
Overall, I would probably have liked the feature more if it wouldn't have the TRANCERS name, but like anything, you can judge it by someone's opinion and you must check it out for yourself!


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 terrible...How can somebody even think that this movie was like the ones back in the "good old days" when Tim Thomerson was not even in it. And to make things worse, they used clips from old trancer movies. Thats just terrible. NO trancer movie is complete without Tim Thomerson.I love Fullmoon films, and i have been watching them since i was 4 years old. I have been through everything they have done and this movie almost made me lose it. Now i got a couple of lines to fill so i will keep going. Their way of breeding new trancers is completely stupid as well as way to send Jack back in time. What happened to the TCL Chamber. AND finally! What happened in the end of trancers 5 where lina says and i quote "Jack Has given me something special" AND her and some other broad looks at her stomach. I don't know...maybe a BABY is in there. There were so many other places of going to, but fullmoon S'd the Bed


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


user
Another Day - this movie requires you to watch it another day to understand it. I thoroughly enjoy watching Shannen Doherty and I was quite interesting in seeing how well Julian McMahon and Shannen appeared together following the roles they played in Charmed. I can certainly PRAISE the acting skills throughout the film, even the directing - but the plot...what happened? I am at a loss for words because I am still confused. I have to stay loyal to the actors who really did a good job considering the madness of the plot. I also have to recommend you watch it because despite the plot-madness I would still watch it over and over again.


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


user
The new celebrity deathmatch is terrible. They kill off the popular people and make the low budget celebs win. I mean...Andy Milonakis? Lil' flip? Lil flip and Lil Wayne should of both died.Lil' flip sucks. the fight between Lil' Jon and Lil' bow wow and Lil flip was MAD corny and short. They should of just kill off all of them. Why did Tobey lose to Jake and Christian lose to Adam? they are better actors and superheroes. They also spend too much time on talking rather than fighting which can bore the viewers. Everything seems rushed for some reason, they can't just make a long fight? the old deathmatch is way better.


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


user
World War I gets a glossy, sepia-tinted makeover in Jean-Pierre Jeunet's relentlessly whimsical "A Very Long Engagement". Jeunet's trademark style consists of mechanical, almost clockwork-like narrative construction garnished with lavish, chocolate box production values and seasoned with faux-naive humour. It's an approach that worked pretty well with his previous picture, the romantic fantasy "Amelie", thanks in no small part to the inimitable contribution of Audrey Tatou in the title role. Applied to vastly more sombre material, Jeunet's method backfires rather badly.
Tatou crops up again here in a variation on the same sort of sweetly off-beat character as Amelie. She's Mathilde, an orphan who lives quietly with her aunt and uncle in an idyllic rural setting, determined to trace what became of her child sweetheart Manech (Gaspard Ulliel), several years after he went missing in the War. Manech was one of five soldiers court-martialled for self-mutilation in 1917 at 'Bingo Crepuscule', and sent over the top into no-man's-land as a punishment. He's presumed dead by all but Mathilde who cherishes the hope of finding him. The film follows Mathilde's dogged quest to find out what really happened, and as she delves deeper she uncovers a sad, even shocking story of high-ranking corruption and inhumanity. Mathilde must filter the facts from the fictions that arise from various conflicting, overlapping or incomplete accounts of what seem to be Manech's final hours.
All this should be poignant and gripping, but it's more often simply confusing thanks to the visual and verbal clutter with which Jeunet pummels his audience. There's simply too much going on at any one time, including an intrusive narration that adds precisely nothing to our appreciation of the story and characters. Without a moment's respite from informational overload, I felt denied the space to reflect on Mathilde's quest or the room to engage with it on my own terms. Jeunet's unceasingly busy camera spirals and swoops and circles, caressing every surface contour of his exquisitely designed production, but it singularly fails to penetrate to the soul beneath the story's skin. The result is deeply uninvolving, and worse, grotesque. The First World War was a particularly dark hour in human history. Imagine it re-created as one of those picturesque commercials for a well known Belgian lager, and you have the measure of this film.


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


user
This movie has been advertised for over three months in Greece as the biggest Greek production ever. Well, it could be, but... When you hear of a big production you expect to see something new, something different. What you get to watch here is a movie with no reason of existence. George Corraface looks like he didn't really enjoy making this movie. His acting is so simplistic, that looks almost amateur. The sound, especially when some of the Turkish actors speak English (dubbed?), is full of hiss. The, thankfully few, special effects showing Istanbul and Athens in the late 50's and early 70's are more like digital paintings than computer graphics. Finally, we see the same boy from 1959 (age 5) up to 1968 (age 14), but in a miraculous way he becomes a teenager five years later.
So much for "the biggest Greek production". At least one would think that there would be some kind of interesting script to qualify for such an expensive production. And all one gets is a love story between 7 year-olds, who meet again 40 years later. Oh, there is a political side, too. A couple of ironic remarks about the Greek "junta" of '67-'74, so childish that seem almost forced.
There are, of course a couple of good things in the movie: most of the actors are great, mainly Ieroklis Michaelidis, the very good scenery and the magnificent music by Evanthia Remboutsika; but they are so few for such an expensive production.
Bottom-line: Is it so bad a movie? To tell the truth I don't know. I just know that in no point does it justify its huge (for Greek standards) budget.


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


user
Here's example number 87,358 of Hollywood's anti-Biblical bias, so typical of them.
Early on, Ray Liotta's wife has did and women are being interviewed for the position of housekeeper. The first interviewee is an old-fashioned-looking (dress, mannerisms, speech) who immediately lays down here strict rules, stating that "there will be two hours of Bible study ever day."
This is said, of course, to make it sound like reading the Bible is the worse punishment you could ever inflict on someone, especially a kid. Once again, the Bible is equated with stuffy, mean-spirited people. That woman, of course, is dismissed immediately.
Naturally, the liberal black woman (Whoopi Goldberg - who else?) is the one who is hired and, voilà, saves the day!
Yawn.


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


user
Not bad performances. Whoopi plays the wise/warm role quite well. Still, the storyline and situations can not be believed (forced PC stereotypes). At times it is good Jews and Blacks vs. the evil White Christians (ho-hum). A typical Hollywood fantasy. The film does have its moments, but it is not one that I would recommend to go out of your way to view.


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


user
I saw this movie and was bored out of my mind! I am a fan of Peanuts, but I can't understand why Charles Schultz let this disaster be made! Spoilers ahead.
I can't believe Snoopy would let his friends sleep on the ground outside in a dangerous situation and go out to a bar and swig a few cold ones without standing watch! The story was complete nonsense, even for comic strip characters. It takes them toooo long to get to France, plus once they get to France I had a feeling that the writer (I still can't believe it was Schultz) didn't know what to do once they got there.
Peanuts is best made in 30 minute episodes, not 80 minute movies.
Go home Charlie Brown, you are at your best there.



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


user
I'm rating 'The Decline of the American Empire' just about below average since it wasn't terrible, but also not great. I liked the very open conversations from people so incredibly selfish and ugly inside and out. That was probably the most original aspect  a dialogue-laced sexual small film with people who are extremely far from models. That aside, it seems ironic that these French-speaking Canadians have a movie about a neighboring society that, well, is in 'Decline' when their own actions are their own demise. A group of women friends and male friends spend half the movie laughing it up on their infidelities and acceptance of such behavior and the other half "intellectually" speaking of how powerful they are for their speech and actions. These are the normal targets in typical sitcoms the main characters make fun of at parties occupied mainly by college professors. Sadly, it's not their "intelligence" or mastery of "history" that disturbs me. It's their pedestal made of ego and mightier-than-thou attitude that pushes me away and not one character could I relate to, nor like. When one cries, I couldn't care less  it's your bed. When one complains, I barely flinched. What made me skirmish was one character, uh, peeing red. (Another example of playing with fire.) Sure, I understand it happens to some people, but it was hard to watch. And I sincerely hoped the he washed his hands as he had no problem going right back to cooking for everyone. On the complete opposite end of the noses-up educators, they introduce a stereotypical nomad. This made me cringe as no one seemed real; everyone was as shallow as their laughter on society. Unfortunately, with no one left to root for, you're left as empty as these character's souls.


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


user
History and experience over the past couple of decades has shown us that intellectuals talking about sex is about the unsexiest and unintellectual thing anyone can do, but this wasn't quite as obvious back in 1986. Basically, the idea in this film is that these characters insatiable drive to find comfort, security, and pleasure in sexual acts is actually the unhealthy motive that makes them so unbearable to themselves--which they hide from themselves with more sex. This drive is linked to "the decline of the American Empire", as expressed in an early interview within the movie.
So the idea is that relatively detestable people talk about sex, and that that talk is supposed to reveal how detestable they are as people. Arcand at least keeps giving it drive and momentum by doing interesting things with the camera such as isolating most of the characters in single frames, revealing their ultimate loneliness, and cutting rapidly between them, showing how they are more at war with each other than they are at agreement. And to give Arcand credit, this is pretty much what intellectual life is, a constant struggle with other intellectuals to stand out, even when everyone knows that standing out means standing alone.
But yeah, the characters and action are unsexy and kind of pathetic. I think this film is much more an aspect of its time than it is something meant to last, which makes it kind of dated. It's also the exact type of mental buffing in dialog and references to people like Susan Sontag that makes art-house films so unpopular around the populist entertainment moviegoers. In all, I'll take it anyway--it has its place basically among the exact type of people the characters are--it's just that it's not really interesting or important to anyone who isn't those characters.
--PolarisDiB


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


user
A lot of people in the cinema enjoyed this film, but it only made me feel misanthropic. If smug "intellectuals" bantering about their irritating sex lives, sounds ok to you, watch it. I felt bored, but glad I did know people like that. The premise of the film was that, as with all societies or great civilizations, they are eventually doomed to fail. According to the female historian character, who bores us with this fact, America is showing signs of it's decline (Admittedly she goes into greater detail than me). The next part of the film is concerned with the vacuous, fatuous and asinine behaviour of her friends and colleagues, and the various miseries caused by their libidinous behaviour, with a vague attempt at humor. A lot of people liked this movie where I watched it. I could not relate to it.


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


user
A movie that tries hard to say something and generally fails. Like the fatuous academics that populate the movie, it meanders aimlessly, substituting endless (it seems like forever listening to it) conversation for some action or plot direction.
Sadly, it's one of the best examples of canadian cinema I've seen.


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


user
Sex is a most noteworthy aspect of existence. It is perhaps the most interesting activity there is between birth and death. LE DECLIN DE L'EMPIRE AMERICAIN studies human sexuality in a dry and boring manner. Actually, worse than being simply boring, seeing nude 40-year-olds is, well, unpleasant.
I guess there is some shock value in having adults as old as our parents talk about sex, but after twenty minutes, this stops being interesting. Perhaps if the characters were all 20 years younger, the film would be more visually captivating.
LE DECLIN DE L'EMPIRE AMERICAIN is 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
I had a VERY hard time sitting through this film. Unless you really are very pro-adultery and like to hear people ENDLESSLY talking about their sexual exploits, I can't see how you could enjoy this film. Geez--most of the main characters behaved like rutting weasels and their bragging about their MANY infidelities grew tiresome. About the only element of this I appreciated was the DISGUSTING scene where the one character was urinating and blood was splattering everywhere because he'd picked up an STD---BIG SURPRISE!?! Hmm.
If you want a GOOD film, watch the sequel, Barbarian Invasions. Despite the general unlikable nature of many of the characters, the sequel is VERY involving and more realistic--well worth 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
THEIR PURPLE MOMENT
Aspect ratio: 1.33:1
Sound format: Silent
(Black and white - Short film)
Two luckless nightclub revellers (Laurel and Hardy) are unable to pay their bill, provoking violent retribution from a hot-tempered waiter (Tiny Sandford).
Typical L&H scenario, less substantial than some of their best work from this period, but worth a look nonetheless. Stan takes center-stage this time round, caught up in a financial dilemma after holding back part of his wages to fund a night on the town, only to find out - too late! - that his aggrieved wife (Fay Holderness) has replaced his stash with worthless coupons. Some of the prolonged closeups of Laurel as he slowly becomes aware of the unfolding disaster reveal his genius for characterization and mime. 1920's morality is represented by Patsy O'Byrne, playing a hatchet-faced busy-body who takes great joy in alerting L&H's respective spouses (Holderness and Lyle Taho) to their husbands' bad behavior. The ending fizzles, but the movie still has much to recommend it. Directed by James Parrott.


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


user
I saw this on the Sci-Fi Channel so I knew it would be bad to start with but I was surprised at how much worse it was than expected. The CG effects on the dragon were terrible, even for the Sci-Fi channel and the writing was pathetic. I couldn't tell if this was supposed to be that stupid as a joke or if it just came out that way. The only redeeming quality of this movie is that it's so terrible it's almost funny, especially the part where Patrick Swayze's knight character goes home to his Knight father who has retired after losing his legs and is now bed-ridden in his armor for the sole purpose of letting the audience know he was a knight. The majority of the movie focuses around an enormous dragon egg that hatches into a not-so-enormous baby dragon with some of the worst CGI I've ever seen. This was just awful.


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 starts out great, and sucks you in. Most acting is good until Patrick Swayze (with his Texas Twang- everyone else sounds British-like even the Muslim) shows up, and proves that he can't act. You can live with that until the first fight scene where all they all fall to pieces. Why does Patrick Swayze fight baddies with an ax when he just stuck his sword into the ground 5 minutes ago.
There's further misplacing of swords a few minutes later, and people knowing about other people they shouldn't know about. Other reviewers mentioned "Troubled Production" and it shows.
At the end I just didn't even care about the fight scenes, sure, the CGI Dragon was weak, but the storyline was the biggest letdown.


assistant
0