empathielabs/imbd_dataset_v0 huggingface dataset:
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
i wish i could find some good things to say about this animated sequel(but not really a sequel)to "Atlantis:The Lost Empire"but this would be a very short comment.the magic that the first one had is nowhere to be found here.the animation is pretty poor all over,the characters themselves are not very well drawn.the backgrounds and the foregrounds are also not good.there's very little attention to detail here.and instead of a compelling and engaging story,we have 3 short stories which are boring and don't make a lot of sense.i swear,even the characters sounded like they were bored,and would rather be somewhere else.which says that the voice actors were bored and wanted to be someplace else,at least that's the impression.some of the same actors return for this dismal effort,but an integral par of the success of the first one was Michael J.Fox as the main hero, Milo Thatch.i get the distinct impression this movie was just thrown together to capitalize on the success of the first one,without much thought or care.but at least Cree Summer returns as the voice of "Kida".that's probably the only good thing about this movie,and even she doesn't seem to have her heart completely in it.mind you,i guess you couldn't blame any of the cast for not giving their all,considering what they had to work with.or rather not work with.this is a straight to video movie(and i use the term loosely)which should have went straight to the nearest landfill.anyway,shame on Disney.consumers deserve much better than this.this one gets a 0/10 and a well deserved one at that.p.u


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 horrible, and it doesn't even deserve to be called a movie. The way I look at it, it's more like three mediocre day-time Disney cartoon episodes strung loosely together to make a single video that pretends to be the sequel to the first Atlantis movie, which was way more well-made and enjoyable. And where do i even begin with the problems of this DVD? The story? The characters? The pictures/animation? To me they're all bad and unwatchable. Firstly, the story in this direct-to-video DVD is ridiculous and pointless. The only good thing about it is that it is consistent--that is, consistently bad, from the beginning to the end. After the film's over i still don't know why Milo has returned and how the incidents occur in the three small stories are related to each other or to Atlantis itself. And all I could remember about this movie was how bad it makes me feel after seeing it. The characters feel wooden and lack personality, and the drawings look a lot different than that in the first. You can tell they're obviously not from the hands of the same animators from the first one. As the DVD played on, i found myself caring less and less about what might happen to the characters and just hoping the film would end soon. Besides the story and the characters mentioned above, the picture quality is poor in this one too, probably one of the worst in those direct-to-video products that Disney has ever released. As a fan of the the original Atlantis: the lost empire, I couldn't be more disappointed in Milo's return, which is a total waste of time and money. Thank goodness I rented it first instead of buying it. Even so, I still wish I'd never seen this crap or even known its existence.


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


user
My main criticism with the movie is the animation. I totally agree with everyone else it was very poor. Some of the characters seemed to have darker skin tones than they did in the first film, which is much better. Also the background colours looked rushed and somewhat static. It is also a shame that Michael J.Fox didn't voice Milo, he did such a good job, and James Arnold Taylor wasn't sure whether he was supposed to sound like Milo or Aladdin. I have also taken into consideration the lack of a good storyline. the third story was confusing and clumsily told, and the second story suffered from poor scripting. To make things worse, the first one I can't even remember, other than a fishing village being haunted or something like that. However, there was some nice music, and good voice talents from John Mahoney, Cree Summer, Clancy Brown and Tom Wilson, that saved the film from total disaster. All in all, a disappointing sequel to a surprisingly good film. 4/10 Bethany Cox.


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 finding that I get less and less excited about Disney's sequels to movies. Yes, I do understand that the budget for the direct to video movies are not the same, but these movies don't even try. Some examples are Hunchback II and Tarzan and Jane. If anyone has seen the previews for Stitch-The Movie, you will see my point. But I digress, this movie reaffirms my point. The animation is sloppy, the story lines resemble Saturday morning cartoons, and not all of the original voices are there. I was very disappointed not to hear Michael J. Fox's voice. It was so glaringly obvious that the person doing Milo's voice was trying to sound like Fox, but didn't come close to succeeding.
If it says anything, my children ages 10 and 6 didn't even sit through the whole movie.


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


user
Hi there. I watched the first part when it came out, and I don't remember having left such a bad impression on me as this one.
First, the animation is choppy, wooden, not worked on, lacks naturality - I understand the drawing style was to be of some 'atlantean' kind, but, it could be done with the usual Disney finesse... see "Tarzan" to see what I mean. If I didn't see the DISNEY logo in the beginning, I would never say it was a Disney movie.
Second, the plot was more like a PC game style, like a good old quest. Not that it was bad, but it lacked a story that binds the viewer to the characters and their goals. It was inconvincing, at least. The film was meant for children, but this was waaay to childish at times.
Third, the music... I would say it was improper, but it just fits the whole scene with the plot and animation...
Overall, I think this was some kind of an amusement, just by-the-way kind of project by several apprentice animators, just to fill in the count for Disney movies. Sorry to hear that from myself, a big Disney lover...


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 sorry to say this but I didn't enjoy this movie at all. It was just too boring. So boring that I couldn't watch the rest of it. It's not as interesting as the Lion King or Aladdin. That's why I hate this stupid days because these days are just not what they used to be. The movies that Disney have released lately really sucks! I miss the old days when they used to produce good movies like the Lion King, Aladdin, Pocahontas, Cinderella, The Aristocats, and Robin Hood. This movie is really awful. I really tried my best to be interested in this movie but I just couldn't. I don't think I could recommend this film to anyone. I would recommend the ones that I just mention above.


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


user
The only reason this show did not get a 0 is because one is not available. This show has gone from informative news to sensationalized claptrap. I tried to support this show in its decline, because I like human interest stories and Primetime used to have some very good ones. Unfortunately, April 21st has forever changed my mind about this show and the unethical newscasters that participate in it. ABC actually recorded a brutal case of child abuse and then refused to show it until the statute of limitations had run out and the parents could not be arrested on the charges they should have faced. What made it worse was how ABC swept the whole incident under the rug; instead of taking charge and seeking true professional help for these disturbed individuals, they had some pop psychologists send stern warnings TO THE AUDIENCE about how they shouldn't judge these poor angels too harshly. I was truly sickened. I hope this review stops one person from watching this investigative trash in the future. If it does, I will be happy. These days, all you can expect from Diane Sawyer and the good folks from Primetime Live are butt-kissing sessions with A-list celebrities and criminal acts covered up and praised to the stars. Don't waste the hour of your life; you'd be better off watching an old sitcom on Nick at Nite.


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


user
HANA-BI has many quiet moments and fairly slow pacing. Unfortunately, during the many thoughtful interludes the viewer is left to ponder about the recent scenes just watched and many questions surface and annoy.
For example, why didn't the wheelchair guy drown in the ocean when he was stuck in the sand and the tide came up around him? There was no rescue seen or hinted at.
Can it be true that Japanese police are so inept and unskilled at arrest procedures as to not first remove the suspect's ability to reach for a weapon? These detective-level Japanese police seemed to have no experience dealing with a suspect.
Why doesn't the right eye of the lead character blink? Having one eye blinking was distracting and it went unexplained.
What exactly was the lead character spending all his money on to have to borrow so much from loan sharks? He was not seen gambling. Being a non entry-level government employee his wife must have had full health insurance.
What was the single man doing all by himself in the middle of nowhere in the nature park? What was his reason for being there?
How in the world could the gangsters find the lead character and his wife up in the far off nature reserve? It made no sense.
And again, how could the gangsters later find the lead character and his wife up in the remote Mt. Fuji resort? There were absolutely no clues available for these gangsters to even know which country the lead character and his wife were in, let alone the correct specific location at the correct specific time!
And a third same question, how could the junior detectives know which few feet of the Japanese coast line to find the lead character and his wife? The Japanese coast line must be vast. Were all of these characters supposed to have psychic powers?
Two final questions: The cute girl trying to fly a kite on the beach -- WHERE did she come from? She seemed to have no transportation or companions with her. And why in the world did she still keep attempting to fly what was left of her kite after it was ripped in pieces?! This was weird. Unintentionally Python-esque.
On the positive side, I loved the background music. It was dramatic and flowing and added much to this movie. The photography, imagery and art were pleasing to the eye.
One final point, the wife was overly pleasing to the eye. Not once did she ever come close to looking like a dying sick person. She looked very healthy. If anything, these people seemed depressed and mentally ill and not physically sick. The husband treated his wife as perhaps a newly outed gay man would treat a respected wife... a love of friendship, but not close tenderness.
A mixed movie for sure.


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


user
So, it has come to this. In the top-rated comment on this flick, somebody says "Nishi is an honorable man". Really? This is a guy who mainly kills and maims people in the movie. He takes a short break to rob a bank. Honorable? How would you like your kids to go to school with the kids of someone who calls that honorable? Wait, there's more! The person also says "we can tell he's constantly thinking." How can we do that? Well, do you know that joke "How can you tell when a CEO/politician/lawyer is lying?" ... "His/her lips move." Well, Nishi's lips never move, so I guess that means he is thinking.
Of course, this is existentialism to warm the hearts of the cult of victimization. Existentalism supposedly stresses that an individual take responsibility for the consequences of one's acts. Not Nishi. Borrow money from the yakuza. What, they want it back? Kill them. The cops find out. Kill yourself and your wife.
Really honorable.


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


user
I really don't see how anyone could enjoy this movie. I don't think I've ever seen a movie half as boring as this self-indulgent piece of junk. It probably would have been better if the director hadn't spent most of the movie showcasing his own art work, which really isn't that noteworthy. Another thing I didn't really like is when a character got punched in the face, a gallon of blood would spew forth soon after. I don't know how folks bleed over there in Japan, but I hope they have plenty of blood donors.


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


user
Infamous horror films seldom measure up the hype that surrounds them and I have yet to come across a worse offender than Wes Craven's The Hills Have Eyes. Having held back from watching this for years, I was really pleased when I got it for Christmas and waited for an evening when my girlfriend was out to settle down and watch it - knowing her extreme dislike for anything genuinely horrifying. I needn't have bothered.
After a promising - if familiar - start, that firmly sets the film in the 'Desolution USA' world of survival horror, things rapidly go to pieces when the protagonists and antagonists meet in the deserted wasteland.
Looking like it was shot on a budget of $5, with the cannibal clan's costumes hired from a dodgy fancy dress shop that specialises in faux caveman and Red Indian attire, the story follows an annoying bunch of unsympathetic WASPs who take a detour on a road trip to California, to look for a silver mine in a nuclear testing zone (!). When they break down they are set upon by the local family of flesh-eaters and have to fight to survive.
While hoping for another Deliverance, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Wrong Turn or Devil's Rejects, I actually realised I'd stumbled across something that should have remained dusty and unwatched in a backstreet video store's bargain bin.
With gallons of tomato ketchup for blood and a couple of gruesome wound close-ups, I can kind of see how an 18 Certificate (in the UK) is justified, but with those close-ups trimmed this wouldn't have looked out of place as a Saturday afternoon thriller on ITV.
The whole silver mine/nuclear test site subplot is just a McGuffin to justify pitching the 'civilised' family against the primitives, but given how easily the savages get their asses whupped it stretches credibility to think that they had survived for a generation preying on passers-by.
And then there's the ending ... or lack thereof. The Hills Have Eyes seems to be missing either a third act or, at the very least, a satisfying denouement. Instead, I was just left wondering: "Yeah, and ... ?"


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 recommended to me by several people, and after reading all the positive comments from this site I went ahead and bought a copy of the film off ebay. The acting in the film is average and a bit hammy, especially by the family of cannibals, one sequence comes to mind when Jupiter is ranting and raving to the burnt corpse, speaking right into the camera. Its one of those performances where you just cringe and feel bad for that poor actor. Its also evidence of some of the worst editing I've seen, theres a terrible jump cut right in the middle of his "speech". There are a few creepy moments though, and at times the music works well...but overall the film isnt that great and I dont know why people think Wes Craven is that great of a director. Thus far he hasn't showed me anything that I believe to be brilliant, the only thing that improved with Cravens films, production to prodution was his budget.


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


user
Tagline: the lucky ones died...before watching this.
I've never watched a Bulgarian movie from 1920's, so I can't say this is the worst movie ever made, but it surely is the worst movie I've ever watched. I can't almost remember it.
All I can recall is a family of stupid people who don't do anything right. Their car has one wheel out of four stuck in the sand, so they decide that there's nothing to do and prepare to live the rest of their lives there. Then there's an old man who is aware of the existence of a band of cannibals in the whereabouts but has never considered the idea to report the fact to the police.
And, speaking of the police...if those freaks have lived around there eating humans for years, lots of people must have disappeared...how come the sheriff didn't suspect anything?
But I gave up asking questions after the first five minutes or so. The rest is bore. An hallucinated unbelievable bore.
I will be merciful and won't speak about the dialogues. And the acting. And the effects.
I will only mention the final scene, where the freak girl eliminates a snake (the snakes! they come out in the end, what the hell do they have to do with the story?) with a sniper-precise throw of a stone, demonstrating the full disregard of Mr. Craven for reality and for things that happen on planet Earth in general.
I believe there have been riots when the film was first released in 1977.
Even being eaten by a cannibal wouldn't be a fair punishment to the director for this attack on intelligence.


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


user
the hills have eyes is not a great film by any stretch of the imagination.for one the villains look almost normal,not what you would expect deranged lunatics to look like.for another the pacing is very slow at times and there are many scenes of the characters repeating themselves.by that,i mean there is a lot of filler in the movie, with a lot of running around aimlessly.the film didn't have a clear direction.the plot of the movie is hardly original,even for its time.the Texas chainsaw massacre came out a few year earlier and is a much more effective film, as far as horror goes.the film has little in the way of scares, and the pounding soundtrack just served to be both grating and distracting all at once.i suppose the music was used to cover up the fact that not much happens through much of the movie, though it failed in its intended purpose.i basically kept looking at the time every few seconds hoping something would happen or it would end .when something finally did happen any promise the film had was ruined by mere chaos and loud noise.i sat through it because i like to give a film the benefit of the doubt.yes, there is some loud screaming,and yes people die,but who cares.much too slow getting to any sort of pay off,if you can call it that.my buddy enjoyed it, so at least one of us got something out of it.the hills have eyes isn't the worst film we could have watched, but i doubt i will watch it again.this film was remade in 2006 and i will also have review of that version.anyway, this movie was painfully slow at times, while other times was chaotic and repetitive.unless you like watching paint dry, occasionally interspersed with someone running around your block, screaming their head off, stay away from this movie.a better bet would be the original Texas chainsaw massacre(1973)1.5* out of 10* which is being generous


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 never really been interested in cannibal movies before and up until a couple of months ago i had avoided this genre of movie.
I recently had to undergo knee surgery and found i had a lot of time on my hands as i was unable to work, so i decided after seeing almost every horror movie our local video shop had to offer i would take a chance on this.
Christ was it a mistake! I have never seen a movie this bad in all my years of being a movie addict. This is just a pile of s**t pasted to a D.V.D disc and sold as a horror movie.
I have a lot of respect to other horror fans who can switch their brains off long enough to enjoy this crap, They are more brain dead than i ever will be and that is some achievement! 0/10 and thats generous.


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


user
Flipping through the TV and saw that The Secret Life of was on; gave George Duran a shot at being the host. I know that Jim O'Connor was very energetic and that nobody could be as much as him, but George was well dull. He really didn't seem to want to be hosting; his voice-overs were monotonous, didn't get involved with the guests. It seemed like he was interviewing guests for Unwrapped, and he just happened to be in the shot. I don't know if George is going to get "better" hosting this show, I doubt it because he has hosted his own show now. The show did seem to pack more info in, but only because we saw less of the host. The formula of this show was very delicate, and I fear it has now been disrupted for good.


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


user
Lord, this sucked. There's a particular sort of sexual revolution flick from the 60s that manages to confuse sexual assault with sexual liberation. This film is an example. I lost track of how many times women are slapped, hit, whipped, or spanked in the film. And then there are all the times that women in the film fantasize about being slapped, hit, whipped or spanked (you know they want it, right?). Sometimes it is ostensibly part of safe fetish play-acting. Other times it plainly isn't, but you will wait in vain to see the heroine report to authorities that she has just been raped. Instead we get to hear her being lectured by her rapist about her inability to "let go".
Every scene of this film reeks of misogyny (speaking as a straight, white, married man in his late 30's, not a teenage lesbian women's studies major with a chip on her shoulder, lest you get the wrong idea).
Perhaps the one good thing about this film is that it provides a stark reminder of just how bad things really were for women only a few short decades ago.


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


user
I decided to watch this ultra-low budget film from the "Poverty Row" studio, PRC, because it co-starred the exciting character actor, Lionel Atwillplus I really liked the title. Even though Atwill often played in these cheap movies, his excellent style of acting always made the films seem a lot better, as his screen persona was great (his real life is also quite interestingsort of like a bizarre soap opera). The reason I use the term "Poverty Row" is that this was a nickname given to the very cheapest and worst production companies of the era. Many of these weren't even real studios, but production companies that rented space and sets from the major studios at night! Yes, there is a good chance this was filmed after normal working hoursa common thing for such studios.
The story begins with Lionel Atwill telling his friends a story about something that he was involved with years ago. A doctor falls in love with a lady but he's afraid to tell her about himself. That's because his job is putting people to death on Death Rownot exactly a glamor job! The Doc asks his friend (Atwill) for advice on how to break it to her, but regardless she won't have the man. Later, you realize it's because her own parents were criminals.
Later, a man is killed and the lady is implicatedthough it's obvious to anyone with a brain that her sister was involved (and is a bit of a nut) and the evidence against the lady was poor. But, apparently the jury was filled with brainless people and she was convicted and sent to Death Row. Even more brainless is that her old boyfriend was the man who was responsible for her execution. Don't you think someone else might just be able to handle this case?! Until this fateful hour, her friend (Atwill) spends much of the film trying to prove her innocenceand prove that the flaky sister knows far more about the case than she'll admit.
Overall, the movie is only mildly interesting and a bit silly. While it is watchable and Atwill is good (as usual), the rest of the film never really rises above the mundane and some of the acting is pretty shabby. It's sub-par and about what you'd expect from such a low-budget flickand nothing more despite the cool title.


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


user
Finally, I can connect the dots between Return of the Jedi and Phantom Menace. We see here where Lucas lost touch with what made the original Star Wars films great and began to descend into the plot less tripe that ruined episodes 1-3. This film is more like one of those cheesy low-budget 80s swords and sorcerer films than anything worthy of being associated with the Star Wars saga. As with the Jar-Jar character, this seems targeted at children (and the toy market). The battle scenes are particularly bad. It was depressing to see Sian Phillips' incredible talent go to such a waste, after her classic performance in I, Claudius.


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


user
What a stupid idea. Ewoks should be enslaved and tortured. Utterly useless as a species... Fine you want ten lines of text regarding my unending hatred of Ewoks? Fine, here it is, fool. First of all, they are an inferior race that would be slaughtered en mass had Lucas not pussified the entire series with their foul presence. They're little bears with large asses, and they probably smell like donkey crotch. Yeah, I said it, donkey crotch. They have little to no technology whatsoever, resorting to using sticks as makeshift weapons. I'm surprised they even had access to fire. Their guttural language makes my skin crawl. Can't...suppress...anti-Ewok...RAGE! AHHH!!!


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 officially vomited in my own mouth, thanks to this movie.
I expected the absolute worst with this movie, but I expected a heartwarming and pleasurable absolute worst. This is just terrible. Absolutely terrible. Terrible like Nazis spreading the black plague. Let me explain: Ewoks are speaking English. It's horrible.
The villain girl looks like she travelled from the future set of Power Rangers. I really really want her to rise up from the ground and say "At last! After ten thousand years I'm free! It's time to conquer Earth!" The putties... er, I mean the big bad whatever the heck they are... they growl a lot. Many of them look like an even lamer version of the Cryptkeeper. The Cryptkeeper was pretty cool, but these guys were not.
The only merit to this movie was Paul Gleason. This movie might have been better if he'd went to the bad guys and said "If I have to come in here again, I'm crackin' skulls." It would have been even better if one of the Ewoks was played by Judd Nelson, who mouthed his words as he said this.
Also, that speedy little creature is pretty badass. Word to that.
No word to the movie, though. I want to give this movie a two. I want to, so badly. There's a passage I have memorized: The path of this movie is beset on all sides by the inequities of terribleness and the tyranny of spin-off awfulness. Blessed is nothing, for this movie blows.


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


user
This movie is awful. At first I thought it may appeal to children, due to the cuddly Ewoks, the fury little people from Stars Wars. After sitting through this monstrosity of a movie, I am certain that not even a 4-year-old would find this movie interesting. The special effects are by far the best of this movie and compare well for other 80ies TV movies. The script is bad, the actors, especially Aubree Miller and unbelievably bad and the flick is so predictable that I still can't believe I was able to not touch the forward button on my VCR. However, I came close to switching this mess off more than once.


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


user
What the hell is this!? That was my first reaction to this film (actually, my first reaction contained more swearing). This isn't Star Wars! Star Wars is space battles, this movie has none. Star Wars is the Force, this movie only has a retarded witch with a magic ring. Star Wars is lightsaber battles, this movie hasn't got any battle worth mentioning. Star Wars is humor, this movie isn't. Star Wars is a galaxy far, far away, this movie has HORSES in it!!! Besides all of this, how did Lucas get the insane idea to let a five year old baby do the leading role !? Big, big disappointment. Do you like Star Wars? Don't watch this! 1 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
Honest to God, the Outline pretty much says it all. The planet Andromina (not to be confused with Aunt Jemima) is represented by a cheap L.A. stripclub. There's no strippers, so the most recent male visitors go off to recruit strippers.
The men get mistaken for kings or arrested for spying on women (although despite the fact its a planet of women we only get two women who participate in any girl-girl sex scenes), and eventually, as always happen in science fiction cliche movies everywhere, the women become convinced that men are good for something. Well, not the men who made this movie, at any rate!
But boy, do we get to see a lot of that something, in prodigious amounts of softcore sex and nudity. This one has less plot then usual for such flicks, so change the channel if you don't like this kind of movie, and grit your teeth if you're into this kind of thing.


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


user
What can I say about THE PLEASURE PLANET that I haven`t said about umpteen other tedious soft core porn films ? Very little . It`s just another movie with a very weak plot used to set up very unconvincing set scenes between male non actors who spend too much time in the gym and bimbos who have obviously had silicon implants . Actually the sex scenes in this movie are somewhat less convincing than you usually see in this type of film as the cast members grind their hips together giving pained expressions like they`ve got constipation or something . No wonder a lot of people claim sex is over rated , they`ve probably watched too many of these films on late night cable stations


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


user
I've never been a huge fan of Almodovar, but, generally, I've always found something to enjoy in his films. Unfortunately, I had more trouble finding something to enjoy in Broken Embraces then I would normally think I would.
I find the biggest failure in Broken Embraces to be the characters and the lack of depth they display. The film is essentially a love story, one that is tragic, and one that wants to involve the viewer in their stories. I found this problematic from the beginning.
In the opening scene, our 'hero' the director/screenwriter, Mateo, is having sex with a very attractive young woman whom he just met. His agent comes in as the woman bashfully leaves.
In the opening scene, our 'hero' the director/screenwriter, Mateo, is having sex with a very attractive young woman whom he just met. His agent comes in, and rolls her eyes, as the woman bashfully leaves. Mateo babbles something about needing to enjoy life as the only thing he has left. Having been blinded in a tragic car accident that also killed his 'true' love Lena, played by Penelope Cruz, the viewer might buy into to this notion except the rest of the film really never illustrates why Lena was the love of his life or any depth to his character or any other.
Cruz plays Lena the mistress to an industrialist named Ernesto Martel. From the outset, their union is rather a pathetic one, as Martel clutches jealousy to Lena, and Lena avoids uncertainty of being on her own by staying with the much older Martel. To skip ahead, Martel finances a film for Mateo so he can keep tabs on the star of the film, Lena. Naturally, without any back story, Lena and Mateo fall in love. And, in Almodovar's world it really is that simple. Mateo, in the opening scene, has sex with a sexy young woman, now Mateo falls in love with Lena, later it's revealed he had a son with his agent after their love affair. Her son responds to this information with a laugh and an, "Oh, well." Again, no depth, no understanding for any of these characters, it all just happens. From the beginning of the film to the end, I got no depth of emotion from Mateo. He is flat, and doesn't act much different from one scene to the next.
The one scene I did enjoy was when film producer, Martel, is watching video footage his son recorded under the guise of doing a documentary of Mateo. There are nice a moment of Martel watching obsessively as a lip reading confirms his worst fears. Later, Lena confronts Martel as he's watching the footage and speaks her part out loud matching the video footage of her lips as she talks. Some quite brilliant moments. Rather contrived, but still really fascinating.
Unfortunately, for me, the rest of the film left me rather bored. I couldn't care about these characters or their situations, so no amount of cleverness on Almodovar's part can make up for this lack of depth. I think if you're a fan of his work you'll enjoy this movie, but if you're like me, in between, then you'll find it lacking.


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


user
Roy Rogers (as Roy) and sidekick Raymond Hatton (as Rusty) join Teddy Roosevelt's "Rough Riders". Soon, they get suspended in order to "Round-up" the killer of partner Eddie Acuff (as Tommy) along the Mexican-U.S. border; they discover creepy gold runners in the process. Notice how, even suspended, Mr. Rogers is able to get the Rough Riders to join in his Round-up!
This is not one of the better Roy Rogers westerns. The fighting scenes look like choreographed dances. Rogers sings/yodels "Ridin' Down the Trail", one of two relatively ordinary songs; and, a stand-out moment, overall.
** Rough Riders' Round-up (3/13/39) Joseph Kane ~ Roy Rogers, Raymond Hatton, Lynne Roberts


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


user
A giant praying mantis is awakened from its sleep in the artic region and heads south causing havoc. Boats, planes and trains meet their match with the flying creature. Before unleashing its full wrath on NYC, the mantis meets its doom at the hands of the armed forces in a New York tunnel. The special effects are of course crude by todays standards, but for a ten year old boy in 1957 this was very memorable.
Starring are William Hopper, Craig Stevens, Alix Talton and Pat Conway.


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 by showing you a map and then explaining radar and it is quite awhile before you ever see the deadly mantis. Probably a better movie in the 50's this dated piece is a bit to slow moving and the pay off in the end isn't very good. Though it has its moments like when the guy from Perry Mason argues with an old man and when he says "I have narrowed the possibilities to one" excuse me, but when you narrow something down you have a couple or more possibilities not one...if you get it down to one you haven't narrowed it down, but you have in fact figured out what it is. The monster is standard 50's sci-fi fair, better than say the grasshoppers in the Beginning of the End. Acting is sub-par and the heroine is the most unattractive...in fact in some shots she does look like a guy in drag. You see plenty of fighter plane stock footage and other things, but you won't see much at all of the deadly mantis.


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


user
Other commenters have described this movie as "classic 1950s SciFi" with clever use of stock footage and documentary footage, and clever character interaction.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Yes, this is classic 1950s SciFi...but 1950s SciFi at its most blindingly stupid worst.
Consider that the Mantis's first prey is a radar station shown first from the air, then on the ground... but the station is (from the air) pictured as on a mountaintop, with snow on one side and semi-cleared dark ground on the other side, but when (on the ground) investigators visit the site, it's suddenly on a flat, evenly white plain, miles from the nearest mountain.
Consider also, the ludicrous pseudo-scientific babble of the highly-recommended expert who is brought in to examine a huge claw. He says "Well, we know one thing... it can't have come from an animal, because every known species of animal has a bony skeleton. Even reptiles and birds have bones." He then goes on to say that some creatures ...snails, shellfish, insects... do not have bony skeletons. Excuuuuuse me ? Let's define "animal", here. Not even in the 1950s could anyone over the age of six take this man as an expert in biology, since he clearly doesn't know what an "animal" is, nor have the ability to name several broad categories of animals who lack bony skeletons (sharks, rays, jellyfish, insects, mollusks, arthropods, gastropods, sponges, arachnids, echinoderms....you get the idea.) The characters are cardboard, 2D stock types... scientist, sidekick girlfriend, big bad monster. Nothing here shows any sense of creativity. No pulse, no life signs.
There're no witty dialogs, the special effects are silly even for their time, and the stock footage is employed with a reckless disregard for continuity. This is B-movie making at its dead worst, with a production crew that clearly couldn't be bothered to try even halfheartedly.
Use sparingly, as sleeping medicine or punishment for small children who're easily offended by bad science.


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


user
THE DEADLY MANTIS certainly won't scare any one, but as sci-fi programmers go it is better than most. A volcanic eruption at the south pole thaws out a giant, prehistoric preying mantis at the north pole. Military men go missing. Dr. Ned (William Hopper--Hedda Hopper's son and best known as Paul Drake on television's PERRY MASON) is called in to i.d. the creature--but by this time the creature has eaten up several Eskimo and is en route to the Washington Monument.
About a third or more of the film consists of stock footage: old government educational films, military men in radar rooms, air planes--and would you believe Eskimos putting out to sea? Which explains, of course, why a tribe of Eskimo is attacked in the movie. ("Hey, Guys! Think we can work this in?") Mix in some negligible special effects, some clunky dialogue, and some sexist attitudes and you're good to go. Not as original as THE MONSTER THAT CHALLENGED THE WORLD, but fans of 1950s "big bug" schlock will enjoy it--and the kids will have a good time throwing popcorn at the screen.
Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer


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


user
I got hold of a discount copy of this. I had seen it several years ago. My only recent experience had been "Mystery Science Theatre" where it was soundly spoofed. One never really gets a chance to get into these movies because of all the byplay. I love the beginnings of fifties horror movies. They give us a pompous lecture on the defense systems near the Arctic. These were there to protect us from the expected Soviet invasion, but they should come in handy, given the threat of very large insects.
This particular one flies. For some reason, despite its exoskeleton made of the stuff grasshoppers are made of, they can still fend off air to air missiles and disable fighter planes.
Anyway, it's more fun--first, the obligatory deranged case who saw the flying thing, cooling his heels in a hospital (it just teaches one--see an insect as big as a house--keep your mouth shut). I wonder if the poor guy got to go home after they found the bug.
Otherwise, this is a pretty ordinary effort. It follows the usual efforts to come up with a way of dissuading the stubborn bug--and leaves us open to other possibilities--the Russians next time. I still get a kick out of these films and this one is serviceable.


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


user
So you're a giant mantis and you've been hanging out in the arctic for a while, and you're tired of Eskimos hitting you with snowballs. What's a giant mutant insect to do? Head for the big city, of course! See the sights, maybe catch a show on Broadway. But wait! Just when you find a nice cozy tunnel to call your own, some pesky humans start attacking you!! Argh! Time to smash!
Anyhow this movie is one step up on most other giant bug movies, because it has pretty decent FX for 1957. But that's about it. Avoid unless you really need to see another big bug smash things, or see another Perry Mason actor in a B movie.
4/10


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


user
Watching this film made me wonder, just why was Universal putting out films like this? They had a wonderful string of films with all the classic horror films. The dawning of the atomic age brought on an onslaught of giant creature films. Spiders, ants, praying mantis'. With The Deadly Mantis, we have a giant praying mantis flying around the arctic, scaring eskimos, and being hounded by the armed forces. The bug reaches a tunnel in New York where the soldiers eventually destroy it. Of course, this is all made much more watchable by viewing it on MST. Who thought it was a good idea to start the film out by showing a giant map?


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


user
And I am afraid that I cannot imagine why. It really is a genuinely dire and exceptionally boring film. In some ways it is reminiscent of early science fiction when every set had been knocked up on a Hollywood back lot out of whatever was lying around. From the minuscule and unconvincing set (snipers seem to be about ten meters away) apparently made of plaster, to the actors who are also apparently made of plaster with "amusing" stereotypes painted thinly on top, to the oddly warm pool in a frozen cave, to the survival of the cast uninjured when medium artillery shells burst a few meters away on open ground, and finally the awful script that reads like a training manual more than a film.... I really cannot say how dull this is. Even the opportunity to see whether the young James Dean survived wasn't enough to keep me watching for more than an hour. This really is one to be avoided at ALL costs.


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


user
I don't think the number of blunders militarily and strategically contained in this turkey can be beaten. Everything in this mess was done on the cheap and made soldiers look really stupid. Examples: at the start the 2-star General is given strategic advice by a Lieutenant and accepts it unquestionably. The map used by the Lt. shows enemy positions but they apparently have only a single narrow valley to use in advancing on the battalion (even though the map showed a dozen more). The rear guard takes up position from which they are clearly spotted by the enemy and exposed. They pound our heroes from high ground but this superior fire power makes little difference. An single enemy tank advances near the end (at the beginning referred to as armored division), proceeded by a solitary infantry point (!) who moves extremely slowly without cover scouting the area, then waives the tank on when he deems it save to proceed - a most bizarre scene. The soldiers take cover in a cave. All around them is ice and deep snow but in the cave not a yard from the entrance is a deep puddle through which they all wade repeatedly - their feet would last mere minutes before they freeze off. Later the survivors wade pathetically slowly and chest high through a river to return to their unit. Remember it is deep winter and the ground is frozen. Yeah right!
And on and on it goes. They yell commands to positions on higher ground, they lay mines near their own position and warn each other not to trample on them (!) At the start, credit is given to some soldier who had been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. Was he blind, or did Director Fuller just ignore him?Truly the most inept soldiers I've ever seen.
One of them pokes around in his own wounded leg with a bayonet and eventually pulls out a piece of shrapnel, without a wince or a moan. He announces that that should qualify him as a surgeon. Now that was funny.


assistant
0