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
A four-and-a-half-hour O'Neill play gets boiled down to a little under two, and much of that running time is devoted to actors with frozen expressions on their faces as they read their characters' thoughts in voice-over. It can work onstage, but it looks hilariously stilted in this soap-opera adaptation, which soft-peddles its heroine's bad behavior and never explains why she has so captivated so many men. Norma Shearer and Alexander Kirkland, overacting ludicrously, are outclassed by a naturalistic Clark Gable--he's the only one who makes the frozen-face technique work. It gets even funnier when Shearer's and Gable's son, a surly moppet, does the frozen-face shtick. There are also Frank Morgan's brother Ralph as an unsuccessful suitor, given to soliloquizing "poor Charlie!" over and over again, and a young Robert Young and Maureen O'Sullivan. By the time they show up, the voice-overs have largely been abandoned, and it plays as a ripe soap, with a sentimental fadeout that actually plays "Silver Threads Among the Gold" as background music. Robert Leonard's direction is stodgy and he shows little facility for reining in hyperactive actors. It's certainly entertaining--there's nothing else like it, unless you count Groucho's satirical parody in "Animal Crackers," or an old Mad Magazine satire that rendered Shirley Booth's sitcom "Hazel" a la "Strange Interlude". But it isn't good.


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


user
I can only guess that this movie was an experiment that misfired. Years earlier, it would have been moving images accompanied by music. Later, it would have been sound added to silents. Eventually it would have been Technicolor, Cinemascope or Imax. This movie must have been a misguided attempt to introduce a new element to the talking picture. During all the emotional scenes, the character stops in mid dialogue and their inner thoughts are narrated while they gaze off into the distance or appeal to the camera. This interruption is painful at it's very least. Imagine these top tier actors trying to look busy while the narration drones on. Painful. I have no idea who came up with this gimmick, but it was the only time I ever saw it used - and for good reason. In every scene the actors were forced to roll their eyes, wring their hands, or overact to such a degree, I actually wondered if this was really a comedy.
The story is a hopeless soap opera that takes place over a couple of generations. Norma Shearer, disappointed in love, searches for a reason to live. She has a friend, played by Ralph Morgan, who worships her - but she takes him for granted. She is attracted to a doctor, played by Clark Gable, but he is self absorbed and isn't interested in her. She settles for a weakling that needs her desperately. She marries him only to find that there is insanity in his family and she can never have a child with him. Along comes the doctor who selfishly pops a bun in her oven, only to find out later that he loves her after all. The child builds confidence in her husband who becomes a success, but she realizes that it's really Clark she loves after all. Confused yet? Forget the rest, just watch a couple of episodes of "As the World Turns" and it'll all become clear.
If your are ever forced to watch this movie, hold out for the final scene. The gyrations of the actors put Harold LLoyd to shame. It is not to be missed.


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 piece of Hollywood product that should have never left a film can. Dialogue without a plausible thought, plot without a point, staging without skill, directing without direction, and acting without the worth of some backwater high school's freshman class play. The entire cast should have been arrested for over acting.
But otherwise, okay!


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


user
This film is supposed to be about the frustrations of film making. It certainly frustrated me with its endless boredom. The setting is an attractive Spanish seacoast resort with his usual large cast. The script is very poorly written or maybe there was no script. Just all ad-lib.
A far superior film about the frustrations of film making is Francois Truffaut's "Day For Night" made in 1973. It shows all the delays and how the cast can misbehave in an intriguing manner. It doesn't bore the viewer and you gain sympathy for the director who somehow must complete the film.


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


user
I have loved the book "A Little Princess" for most of my life, and was very excited that there was a movie. But I was appalled at this adaptation. Not only is the acting wooden, and the plot a convoluted mish mash of various incidents in the book, but the theme is all wrong. The real theme of the story should be that a girl can be a princess only when she behaves like one, as Sara does when she gives 5 of her 6 buns to a beggar child, even when she herself is very hungry. The theme of the movie seems to be that all girls are princesses, which cheapens Sara's actions considerably, and seems more like it should be written on a Hallmark card than applied to this story.
There are many other things wrong with this movie- too many to list, but here are just a few of the larger ones: This story should be set in Britian in the mid 1800s, not America during the first world war. Miss Minchen is harsh to Sara from the start, making her actions when Sara is left penniless much less startling than they would be if she was syrupy sweet at the beginning, as she is supposed to be. Nowhere is it mentioned that Becky is black. Sara's father does *not* come back, he is dead. It is his closest friend, and collaborator in the diamond mines who finds Sara, and restores her to her proper place. In fact, the diamond mines are not even mentioned at all, though they are the source of Sara's wealth.
All through everything that Sara has faced, she always acts like a Princess, giving what she can, and forgiving those who hurt her. She would never have called Lavinia a "snotty two faced bully". Such a thing is completely out of character for her, and undermines the entire philosophy that she is to be well behaved no matter what.
This is by far the worst adaptation of a book to the screen that I have ever seen (with the notable exceptions of "Ella Enchanted", and "Anne of Green Gables the Continuing Story")The plot of the book is wonderful, and skillfully written, so I do not understand why the director felt that it needed to be changed to make it interesting. I would suggest that anyone wishing to know this story should watch the 1987 version, which is far superior. Or better still, read the book. It will be more worth your time than the hour and a half wasted on this version on the movie.


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


user
I absolutely despise this film. I wanted to love it - I really wanted to. But man, oh man - they were SO off with Sara. And the father living was pretty cheesy. That's straight out of the Shirley Temple film.
I highly recommend THE BOOK. It is amazing. In the book, Sara is honorable and decent and she does the right thing... BECAUSE IT IS RIGHT. She doesn't have a spiteful bone in her body.
In the film, she is mean-spirited and spiteful. She does little things to get back at Miss Minchin. In the book, Sara is above such things. She DOES stand up to Miss Minchin. She tells the truth and is not cowed by her. But she does not do the stupid, spiteful things that the Sara in the film does.
It's really rather unsettling to me that so many here say they loved the book and they love the movie. I can't help but wonder... did we read the same book? The whole point of the book was personal responsibility, behaving with honor and integrity, ALWAYS telling the truth and facing adversity with calm and integrity.
Sara has a happy ending in the book - not the ridiculous survival of her father, but the joining with his partner who has been searching for her. In the book, she is taken in by this new father figure who loves and cares for her and Becky. And Miss Minchin is NOT a chimney sweep - that part of the film really was stupid.
To see all this praise for this wretched film is disturbing to me. We are praising a film that glorifies petty, spiteful behavior with a few tips of the hat to kindness? Sara in the book was kind to the bone and full of integrity. I don't even recognize her in the film... she's not in it.
Good thing Mrs. Burnett isn't alive to see this horrid thing. It's ghastly and undeserving to bear the title of her book.


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


user
I was looking forward to this so much, being a big fan of the book. However, when it came out I remember thinking it was one of the biggest wastes of money and time I've ever spent at the cinema.
In principle, the acting, the sets and the music were excellent, and are the main reason why I'm rating this a 4.
In this version, Sara is a little too self-sacrificing for my taste. There is no way she would have deliberately lied to Miss Minchin just to stop her punishing the other girls; in the book she makes a point of describing lies as "not just wicked, but vulgar."
There's also far too much of a Disneyfied ending for me; Sara's father coming back from the dead and all of them trotting off into the Indian sunset. While the book does have a happy (and critics might say equally improbable) ending, it doesn't leave you thinking, "Oh puh-leeze."
About the only things true to the book were:
1. Sara's father being a soldier 2. The lines between Sara and her father ("Are you learning me by heart?"/"No. I know you by heart. You are inside my heart.") 3. Sara's friendship with Becky, and her 'adopting' Lottie (although this last one wasn't developed as much as it could have been) 4. The changing of her room by adding various luxury items. That part was brilliantly done. 5. The basic core - a rich girl being flung into poverty suddenly - is there, but that's about all that is.
People might say that this adaptation is more for the younger audience. Possibly. All I can say to that is I have two cousins - aged 7 and 12 respectively - who were big fans of this film until they read the book.
If all you want is a 'feel-good' family film, then this delivers. If you're looking for a film that actually tells the story of A Little Princess (in fact, if you've read the book) don't waste time with this one. It's such a shame; with a cast like this, if they'd stuck to at least the basic story it could have been fantastic.
Am I harping on about 'read the book' this and 'read the book' that a little too much? Very probably. But if someone attempts to adapt a book - especially such a classic - into a movie, then they should at least have done the same thing. Preferably 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
Milla stands out in this movie because of her personal sense of style and the way the clothes hang on her. I have learned to hate that crumpled little three-year-old face she makes whenever she pretends to cry. It makes any points she is trying to make as a serious actress drop off quickly. Of course, in a movie with a BALDWIN and Denise, she still shines as a mature actor person. David seemed to be doing Woody Allen by way of Howdy Doody. Not a single word or gesture in the entire movie seemed sincere or even sincerely acted. "How Harry Met Sally" and "Two Weddings and Funeral", even "Sleepless In Seattle" had scripts, locations and ACTORS. The script seemed to be a string of bad and crude gags separated by a LOT OF TALKING. The locations seemed to be within a few blocks of each other. There are only two actors in this dishrag of an indie flick, Milla and the lady who played the chick who was into the stars. I watched most of this through the first time with the sound off, just watching Milla. That subscript gag was old the first time I saw it and it's a silly rip off of a song in "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying".


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


user
Owen (David Krumholtz) and Chloe (Denise Richards) are a youngish couple living in Manhattan. Owen is a moderately successful magazine writer while Chloe is an aspiring actress. Happily for her, Chloe gets big role on a sitcom and temporarily moves to Hollywood. Missing her, Owen books a flight to LaLa Land, as a surprise. When he arrives at her set trailer, however, the "house" is shaking, as Chloe and her hunky co-star are having a little romantic tryst. The writer and the actress are through. Hurt and mad as a hatter, Owen goes back to NYC. Sympathetic friends decide to set him up on a blind date with Nadine (Milla Jovovich) to get him out of his sulky funk. But, it goes badly, as the duo mix like oil and water, mostly due to each having a strong personality and Owen's huge shoulder chip. Yet, over the next few months, astonishingly, Nadine and Owen become pals, who confide in each other and hang out. Can it turn into something more? Well, who the heck cares! This film is so STUPID that most folks will yank it out of the DVD player after the first ten minutes. The script is pathetic, dismal, and, oh, stupid, too. Then again, Krumholtz gives a very obnoxious and offensive performance as well. Jovovich is not much better but who could look good with the lines she has to spout? William Baldwin, too, reaches a career low with his crude and sex-crazy role as Owen's brother. The only cast member who is any good is Richards but she must cringe when she looks back at this one. Okay, the costumes and production values are adequate. Then, too, there is ONE clever element in that, occasionally, the characters will speak their lines but cartoon bubbles will appear above their heads with the words of what they are truly thinking. That doesn't save the film from "bomb" status. Don't be stupid, dear film and romcom lovers. Do not rent, buy, or borrow this gigantic turkey. I am the stupidest person on earth, today, for watching this THING until the bitter end.


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


user
Writer/Director Brian Burns has obviously seen a few romantic comedies, and he seems to think that he's discovered the formula for success: plenty of location shots in New York (preferably in the winter), allusions to old Hollywood films (especially musicals), enjoyable musical soundtrack. Alas, all of this is mere compensation for Burns' lack of talent as a writer. (The great mystery of many writer-directors making independent films is not why they cannot get on with major studios, but how they get any backing at all for their films.)
Normally our interest in romantic comedy is motivated by the lead characters, but the couple in this film simply has no appeal. This is not the fault of either David Krumholtz or Milla Jovavich; their characters are just poorly written. What we respond to in such classics as When Harry Met Sally or Annie Hall or older films such as His Girl Friday are quirks and flaws of the lead characters' personalities. Lacking the ability to create individuals, Burns gives us an after-school special inspired by Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus.
How anyone can see Burns as the successor to Woody Allen is beyond me. I did not laugh once during this film, and the screen-play is full of echo chamber dialog ("I want to paint the town red." "You want to paint the town red?"), which is the most tell-tale sign of someone who has no business writing for a living. In one of the early scenes, we see Krumholz's actress girlfriend filming a mindless TV sitcom. It's the only moment in the whole film that the dialog feels right; maybe that indicates what Burns talents are really suited for.


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


user
Seeing that this got a theatrical release nowhere around the globe, it only serves as a reminder of were the careers of those talent-free ladies Denise Richards and Milla Jovovich went. It also is a particular grating kind of movie, the kind that think they are smart, funny and original while being poor in every aspect. Full blame can go to Brian Burns, who wrote and directed this potboiler. His script takes a quite unoriginal situation and goes exactly nowhere with it. The situations develop completely without any inner logic, besides that of a desperate scriptwriter. Characters are thinner than cardboard cutouts, behave stupid and without any real motivation. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the inclusion of Mrs. Richards. We don't believe her relationship with David Krumholtz's character for one minute and the way she is brought back into play after the one-hour mark is particularly pitiful. Why would anyone fall for a egocentric, self-obsessed, arrogant b**ch like this in the first place, much less a second time? Especially after having supposedly found his..erm...true love? And if any of these things aren't enough to completely sink this movie, than the central couple is. The coupling of Krumholtz and Jovovich is only slightly more believable or developed than the Richards-one, but it is to no avail. There is no chemistry, no spark, nothing that we might loosely accept as a credible couple. Worse, these two central characters are particularly annoying and irritating, doing annoying and irritating things the viewer finally has no interest in, whatsoever.
Overall, a very poor showing. Even die-hard rom-com fans might want to pass on this one, as there are dozens of movie made with more skill or more charm.


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


user
Occasionally on talk shows a good topical debate sparks some interesting opinions from the audience, unfortunately there is always some desperately sad person seeking acceptance who will end any interesting debate instantly by getting up and saying the proverbial "Everyone should get along and love each other" as they know they are guaranteed to get applause and affirmation, as no one would dare disagree.
Well they are the same people who marked this film as good, why did they do that? INSECURITY. Anyway that's all I'll say on that matter.
The Film, it starts of reasonably interestingly so you hope it will build, and if like me you've settled in with a nice couple of glasses of wine and some cheese then you will give it even more of a chance simply because you can't be bothered to move.
But then you daydream, you wander, your mind drifts of onto other things, why? because the Director did too! he took his foot off the gas, and then he realized 'ooops' so to compensate he accelerates hard, but then he drifts again, and again so do you, the story slows, the plot thins and almost disappears, you even wonder to yourself 'so what happened again?' as you ponder your screen will show Nick Nolte running around with some supposed purpose, but you will have long since cared as to what he is doing and he will appear as nothing more than a screen saver in the background to your day dreaming.
Michael Moriarty who plays John Converse has an amazing ability to speak without moving his lips or indeed his face, somewhat like a ventriloquist, he must have gone to the Nicolas Cage school of expressionless facial acting, or he was attacked by the Phantom Botox injector.
Tuesday Weld was to play Marge Converse, but instead she played Mia Farrow to perfection.
In all there are hundreds of thousands of films to see, so leave this one to one of the last, you see I've just wasted an evening watching it when I could have watched or done something else, learn by my mistake, nights off relaxing are precious so don't waste one watching this boring tale, do anything else, dust off that old game of Cluedo, practice gurning for the evening or have an argument with a loved one, trim your nose hair, get rid of unused files on our laptop, it will be time better spent what ever you should choose.


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


user
Just plain terrible. Nick and Michael are WAY better actors than this. A "C" rated flick at best. The plot was weak and the characters totally undeveloped. Even the film and sound quality was terrible. I suppose that these were all young actors at the time and this script just filled a job nitch.


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


user
Start with the premise that you will do anything to replace your lost love with a look-alike. Throw in your scientific knowledge of a deforming disease (isn't this the stuff that Leo G. Carroll contracted from the spider venom in "Tarantula"). Throw in the fact that the main character, instead of finding some way to attract the young woman, engages in heavy-handed stalking, until he totally draws attention to himself and has to hatch this insane plot: If he can make the girl's father sick, then help him recover, she will marry him. The problem is that most of the events are random and unpredictable. Anyone with half a brain would have seen through things. There's a third party, a woman that the doctor, played by J. Carroll Naish, has treated with great insensitivity. You know she is going to be a factor. There's also a gorilla kept in a cage who is used occasionally for heaven know's what. Oh well. There is so little sense to this who thing that it plays itself out and people get their just desserts.


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


user
"A scientist has developed a serum which grotesquely distorts the victim's hands and heads. The scientist decides to use his serum on a concert pianist to extort money from him for the cure as well as take the man's daughter for a wife," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. J. Carrol Naish (as Dr. Igor Markoff) plays "The Monster Maker" in the low budget Bela Lugosi mode.
Mr. Naish's serum causes a real disorder, "acromegaly", which American Heritage defines as, "A chronic disease of adults marked by enlargement of the bones of the extremities, face, and jaw that is caused by overactivity of the pituitary gland." Ralph Morgan (as Anthony Lawrence) plays the afflicted man with some dignity. Pretty blonde Wanda McKay (as Patricia "Pat" Lawrence) is the daughter desired by mad scientist Naish; in early scenes, Ms. McKay and Naish emote hilariously.
Watch for Tala Birell (as Maxine) in a surprisingly good supporting performance; she plays the somewhat Garbo-like, and long suffering, assistant to Naish. Ms. Birell definitely steals the film; and, you've got to question Dr. Markoff's sanity in casting her aside. Glenn Strange (as Steve) and a crazed gorilla (Ray Corrigan) add to the fun. The monster makeup (Maurice Seiderman) is very good.
**** The Monster Maker (1944) Sam Newfield ~ J. Carrol Naish, Ralph Morgan, Tala Birell


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


user
Dr. Markoff is a mad scientist who is experimenting , trying to find a cure for a viral cause of acromegaly. When he attends a piano concert, he is stricken by the beautiful daughter of the pianist and sets out to woo her. But when she wants nothing to do with him, he infects her father with the acromegaly virus in an attempt to extort money and his daughter in exchange for a cure.
That is the basic premise for this B-grade low budget thriller. I have to say I was underwhelmed by this movie. Not that it was terrible-it wasn't, but there was nothing particularly noteworthy about it either. It was entertaining enough for a viewing but is not one that will stay in my memory.
The dialog is a bit corny at times and the acting is just mediocre. The story is fairly predictable and doesn't really give us anything new. Of course, I can't complain too much about a movie that has a guy in a gorilla suit who serves almost no real purpose and a doctor with a Svengali-like stare that fails to mesmerize his victims.
It may be worth a watch if you like this sort of movie, but don't go into it with too many expectations.


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


user
(Some Spoilers) PRC quickie that has J. Carrol Naish playing Dr. Igor Markoff who's not really Dr. Karkoff but an impostor who took over his identity back in Europe.
The real Dr. Karkoff had a affair with Dr.Markoff's wife that lead to him to murder the real Dr.Markoff and then having his wife Lenore infected with acromegaly that made her look like the "Elephant Man's" sister. This was done so that no one would ever want to look at her and he could keep Lenore all to himself; but the disturbed Lenore later got even with her insane husband by killing herself.
This nut, the fake Dr. Markoff, then spots Patricia Lawrence, Wanda McKay, one evening at the theater where her father Tony Lawernce, Ralph Morgan, a world famous pianist is giving a concert. Enchanted by the lovely Patricia who's a dead ringer for his dead wife Lenore Dr. Markoff becomes obsessed with her and goes to extreme lengths to marry her even though she's want's nothing to do with him.
After getting ridicules in his efforts to get Patricia to fall in love with him, by sending her flowers with syrupy love notes attached to then as much as five times a day,Tony goes to see the crazed Dr. Mankoff to tell him to stop annoying his daughter. It's then that Tony ends up getting knocked out by the good doctor who has him injected with a dose of acromegaly that turns him into a somewhat unsightly fellow. With his hands and body swelling up and not being able to play his beloved piano Tony is told by his Doctor Dr. Adams,Sam Flint, that the only one who can cure him of that dreadful disease is non other then Dr. Markoff! the person who gave it to him.
The movie has the usual sub-plots with Dr. Markoff's assistant Maxine,Tala Birell, who's also in love with him jealous of the phony doctor making a play for Patricia. There's also Dr. Markoff's hulking butler Glenn Strange who, like his pet gorilla, is just a big clumsy oaf who can't even subdue Maxine who's less the half the size. Strange ends up getting bopped on the head and knocked out cold by Patricia's boyfriend Bobby Blake, Terry Frost. As for the Gorilla he turns out to be but a big hairy wimp when he also tries to do in Maxine and is chased away, and locks himself back up in his cage, by the pet dog Ace. Dr. Markoff in his desperation to get Patricia to marry him promises her to cure her dad only to have her father break out of his chains and in the ensuing struggle with him ends up shooting Markoff dead with his own gun.
There is a happy ending to this whole mess with Maxine, who knew as much about Markoff's cure for acromegaly as he did, injecting Tony with a secret serum that made him as good as new. The movie ends, like it started, with Tony playing the piano to a packed and cheering house at the local theater.


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


user
No one in this movie has very much to do. This is probably the longest 65 minutes I've ever spent watching a movie. The makeup effects on the pianist with macromeglia are pretty good, but that's the only thing that keeps this from being rate a 1. The doctor's assistant goes through extreme mood swings from passivity to hysteria in seconds and then seems to forget where she was in the next scene. The director assembled a lot of the right ingredients for a mad-doctor movie, but somehow forgot the skeleton of a story to hang them on. Unless you know someone in the cast or crew, I wouldn't recommend even sampling this one.


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


user
J Carol Nash and Ralph Morgan star in a movie about a mad scientist in love with a pianist's daughter. When his advances are spurned he injects the father with a disfiguring disease so that she will be forced to come to him to get a cure.
God this is awful.Its dull and boring and you'll nod off before the pianist gets uglified, I was on the verge. Yea it picks up once things are set in motion but this is one of those old movies better remembered then seen again.
If you must see it come in late
4 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
Oh God, Why? I am aghast at the sheer ineptitude of this delicious blathering nonsense..as if all that makes sense. Well, like this film from bottom rung poverty row of 1940s Hollywood, nothing in this door slamming horror - made on three sets - makes much sense...except the horniness of Dr Markoff (jerkoff?) who lusts uncontrollably after some plonky piano-player's daughter who has big melons and a flouncy hairdoo. It is just terrible ...and even has a gorilla and a big dog for pointless added distractions. More Elephantine than Elephant man and that is just at 62 minutes!. ....THE MONSTER MAKER is the sort of film kids in 2005 just howl at with disbelief and wonder what the hell their grandparents saw in their youth that made them the lovable movie kooks they are today. I guess you just had to be there. In 1944 or whenever the hell this mad drivel was shown to impressionable 13 year olds in glorious 3000 seat velvet movie palaces on a wet day. Somehow. It was made for no reason, by botchville crapshooter movie scammers PRC Pictures in the war years by escaped German refugees who knew who to make a film since they got out of Europe as the Nazis advanced on UFA studios...the monster in this film, like the mad scientist is actually a Nazi nightmare.


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


user
When I watched this movie it was an afternoon after I got home from work. I love horror movies and have seen some really cheesy ones, but this takes the cake. The plot presented to the viewer in the beginning of the movie seems a little intriguing, but as the movie progresses the script makes a wrong turn with horrible cliches and bad presentation, which in turn makes the movie completely dull and boring. I don't mean to keep criticizing the script and plot, because believe me that is not the worst part. I have to say as a whole the acting was not terrible for beginning actors, and I was impressed with Taylor Locke, this being one of his first movies. The worst part of the movie was the special effects. They reeked of low budget, and really ruined the viewers entertainment, even if he had been remotely interested in the plot. I do recommend you watch this movie to understand the power of a bad script and plot. Only then can you really appreciate good writers and directors.


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


user
'Book II' isn't a film, it's a sermon. This nauseating, sickly and almost unbearably tedious misfire probably works as religious propaganda but has no entertainment value beyond a few wisecracks from George Burns. Louanne plays a little girl who is asked by (ahem) God to mount an advertising campaign that will get people to believe in him again. No really, that is the story. It's a leaden load of old cobblers that has far too much self-justifying, 'explanatory' religious waffle but barely any decent dialogue and certainly a total absence of anything even approaching magic or charm. 'Miracle On 34th Street' this ain't. Suzanne Pleshette breathes a bit of life into this rancid puddle of quick-setting concrete but the pudding-headed script and rubbish performance by the irksome Louanne quickly send this one down to the fiery depths of you-know-where.


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 bits and pieces of this on TV once, and when a friend recommended it, I began looking for it even though it seemed no place nearby had it. I finally got a hold of it in an antique store, and couldn't wait to watch it...Oh, that I had seen it a couple years earlier and could've really enjoyed it. I was surprised that this movie was only 80 or so minutes long, and I think this is what made the plot and story so lacking. The plot really does sound like a good one, both on the trailer and the movie comments: a teenager, Angus (Jesse Bradford) and his newfound stray lab Yellow are marooned on an island during a storm on a boat trip with his father (Bruce Davison). Together, they manage to survive the wilderness and wait to be found and rescued. Still, what is never mentioned is that everything is shortened and the events of the plot are very rushed. There is a possible love interest between Angus and Sara, but they're never shown together for more than a moment. Yellow is a mischievous dog the parents are reluctant to keep, but in a few days he seems to be appreciated enough to join a boat trip. The scene of the mother (Mimi Rogers) mentioning vaguely what death is like to the younger boy (Joel Palmer) doesn't go anywhere. In no time, we learn that 9 days have been spent on the island, then suddenly it's 14, then 19. Of all the animals a castaway could be exposed to in the wild, only 1 kind - a wolf - attacks them. Why couldn't something else have been a problem instead of having the same type of animal - maybe even the same one - strike twice? There are few views of how Angus prepares food, except when he discovers fruit and roots, and when he roasts a trapped rat. If he knows so much about survival skills, why weren't more scenes with it shown? The one thing that made me blank was why the dog didn't have much part alone. When he is rescued, and the dog is left behind on the island, there is no scene showing how he survives without a human's help. I wished I was more open to this when watching it, but I did enjoy some of this. The acting was good, and the score was enjoyable. Though, I found myself wondering why the father looked so much older than his family, and why he and the main search and rescue conductor share names. This is a good movie for kids, but though the protagonist is 14, nobody over 10 would be interested with this.


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


user
I liked some of the characters, but our lead relied too heavily on a charming smile. I didn't care two whits about him. He makes bad choices and I really didn't care since he did not seem to either. He seemed rather unintelligent. There were a couple of moments that provided a chance at some human insight (the scene with the whale was interesting), but these are lost in the general malaise of the film. The love interest was acceptable and the other various characters were mildly interesting, but the plot meanders around too much and left me wanting at many points in the film. In the end, I wondered why I stayed so long.
There are some tepidly humorous moments, but ultimately I did not care. I cannot fathom rating the film higher. - 3 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
Films like this infuriate me simply because they don't deserve the funding that enables them to end up in my DVD player. This movie is ambiguous in its jacket blurb and even more impenetrable in its casting choices (why is Ms. Song a romantic interest? Did they just want an Asian woman in there, or does her unconvincingly wise character actually lend this "message" movie's story a fresh perspective)? One has very little to go on in approaching this film, and even less as the story unfolds. But a good hour into the proceedings, I realized the dull casting is all the casting agent could dredge up, the unconvincing character studies are the result of writers' brain-fart, and the story is amorphous and plagued by unsubtle references to the woes of capitalism, materialism, and getting ahead in the postmodern world. Towards the end of this film, just before I nodded off and missed the last two minutes, I got the sense that "Everything's Gone Green" is a product of "connections" in the world of film - someone with very little talent knew someone with very little directorial skill, knew someone with absolutely no marketing sense (but plenty of disposable ego) and out popped this dull and inefficient attempt at whimsy and humor-with-a-conscience nonsense. And this is what is most maddening - how many infinitely better scripts were passed over in favor of this almost unwatchable tripe? Skip this film, and feel good about yourself for doing so.


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 textbook example of how Hollywood didn't (doesn't) trust moviegoers, and panders to its big name stars. The character of Christian is completely re-written, the anti-semitism Noah faces from his own army unit is virtually eliminated, Michael's story is changed significantly, and the end result is to decimate the power and terrible beauty of the book. I almost wish I hadn't even seen it, because of the ability of movies (sounds and images) to resonate so powerfully in your brain; I would have much rather just been left with the impression of the book. The book could have been written today, it is that honest and brave. The movie, neither. My advice: SKIP the movie; READ the book.


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


user
This is a fine concept piece and the acting by Brando is a fine piece of work. Dean Martin isn't bad and Montgomery Clift is quite good as well. Unfortunately, it's a very disjointed, very long piece that really should have been edited down to something closer to 2 hours (it's almost 3 hours).
We follow the lives of 3 men from 1938 through the end of WWII and watch as they discover who they are and what they might become as they discover both the world about them and what they're made of. For some, it's the women in their lives that brings about this realization, for others, it's the broader general circumstances. All too often however, I found myself asking what had just happened or what the import of a particular scene was.


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


user
After the book I became very sad when I was watching the movie. I am agree that sometimes a film should be different from the original novel but in this case it was more than acceptable. Some examples:
1) why the ranks are different (e.g. Lt. Diestl instead of Sergeant etc.)
2) the final screen is very poor and makes Diestl as a soldier who feds up himself and wants to die. But it is not true in 100%. Just read the book. He was a bull-dog in the last seconds as well. He did not want to die by wrecking his gun and walking simply towards to Michael & Noah.
So this is some kind of a happy end which does not fit at all for this movie.


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


user
This film was strongly recommended by a friend and, being a great fan of Brando, I ordered this film from Harrods and eagerly waited for it to arrive. I have seldom been so disappointed by a film. Brando was good as a German officer but the rest of the film was simply unbearable. You never get to like or care for any of the characters (except Brando, maybe). The acting was OK. Story, what story? Maybe that's the point. It's war after all, but I've seen far better war films. (Lawrence of Arabia, Apocalypse Now, even Star Wars) It was so boring I kept checking my watch...
Overall this is one of the worst films I have seen. Please don't waste your time and money on this. May I also add that this is the first user comment I have written, I just had to let my feelings about this film known.
By the way, my all time favourites are: Casablanca, The Godfather 1 &2, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Pulp Fiction and Amadeus. If you haven't seen them yet, please spare the time to do so. And Amadeus MUST be in widescreen 2.35:1


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


user
This glorified discovery channel documentary, part biblical study, part treasure hunt, all misappropriated, might have sat well in it's television origins but falls flat as a feature film. Right from first glance of it's cheesy looking cover art, one may cast doubts upon the integrity behind this serious subject, shown on front case relegating the search for Jesus's tomb to a generic action font that looks more National Treasure or Tomb Raider then any informed debate and examination of the historical burial site should. Such is the underhanded way in which the entire proceedings revolve.
More curious child then worthy researcher, Simcha Jacobovici's explorations come across as self-indulgent while his research comes across as manipulative. For all the fascinating revelations this filmmaker tries to impart on his viewers through supposed evidence, a flood of repetitious statements reiterating the same research and findings over and over proves The Lost Tomb of Jesus has very little information to back up the bloated, albeit entrancing claims. What this amounts to is a very frustrating attempt to beat the audience over the head with the same small factual evidence in support of this tomb's authenticity, which ironically detracts from it. While tirelessly linking together many of these mini-coffins found together to support the Jesus of Nazareth theory, this research forsakes a well-rounded approach to continuously pursue this romanticized archeologist's singular obsession. There may be some impressive factual data which helps shed some light on many traditional dogmatic Christian-held beliefs, but essentially the shady nature of this project made it come across as merely an exploitation piece, financed at a time when The Da Vinci Code was all the rage.
In the end, the cheesy cover art was right. Despite my appreciation for documentary form, The Lost Tomb of Jesus takes an always interesting topic and turns it into overlong and unvaried geriatric adventure hunt, substituting any relevance and sacredness for the uninspired motivations behind this team. By the time these tomb raiders have finished their explorations, reluctantly having to stop research because of social demands, viewers are left with the sense the director was insistent on forging this mystery whether it was there to begin with or not. There are a few genuinely potent moments where the halls of history come marching through this documentary in unassuming ways, but all the decoding, exploring, and theorizing in the world still left this misguided vanity piece in an uneasy void of apathetic response.


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


user
The theatrics and the drama included in the movie is fantastic, but the facts and the research is far from solid. When quoting Dr. Bovon, where the documentary tries to establish a connection to Mary Magdalene from Mariamene, Dr. Bovon later clarifies it should be used for literary purposes (ie: fables of that time) not for a historical figure. In fact he states, he does NOT believe the Mariamene ossuary in Talpiot is Mary Magdalene. He further comments on his public letter, that he was not informed that his words would be used for this documentary but rather for information regarding Acts of Philip (a literary work in the 4th century).
So what we have here is a director that took one clip for a 4th century Acts of Philip fantasy and used it specifically to support a 1st century ossuary inscription. A very sad stretch and Dr. Bovon calls the Jesus/Mary Magdalene connection as "science fiction" -- as this documentary should be rightly labeled.


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


user
Contain spoilers! These guys are total scam, they did the Lost scrolls of Judas, saying Judas was a huge friend of Jesus... And now this? This is clearly a tryout to destroy a religion, and should be illegal. They have no proof, it could be clearly a setup. How can we know and trust these people? What if they carved the tomb and "said so"? And at the end they SEAL the tomb forever so no one can go there investigate? How stupid they think we are, really? Are we supposed to trust that they are trustworthy people? Who really found a tomb of Jesus? And how can you stab all the Christians like this? I think this documentary should NEVER be made by a non religious man. It can ONLY be made by a Christian and I mean the DIRECTION AND SCRIPT. It should be illegal for Jews to film a Christian related documentary, specially if the documentary makes accusations about Jesus not being a "Son of God who resurrected" (nothing against this, they could be Buddhists or atheists, anything but Catholic).
To me this is a total hoax, a pure documentary-scam. They sealed the tomb so people "wouldn't" think about checking things out. This documentary is a total failure, how stupid they think the Christian people are? And what about the Lost pages of Judas... that was a total scam as well, they seriously said at the end, something like: "We know a few people that could do a fake scrolls just like these, and no one would know it was a fake"... Oh my god, they just said it.. "Dude we might have done these"... This kind of documentary should be illegal, it is a stabbing on all Christians and catholics they should be behind bars!!! I am not a fanatic, I am an ex-Jew, now atheistic, but I have valors and will always respect others people religion, The part when Israel orders the tomb to be sealed forever was PRECIOUS!! PRECIOUS!!


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 hoped for the best with this one, but it just didn't happen. Financed at a very non-dutch manner and still looking great, with a style and pace that's very much like Hollywood. What I don't understand is how-with all these great benefits- the director,writer,producer still managed to make this film a completely horrible picture to watch. Filled with bad jokes, cheap nudity and actors that just can't really talk [act] in the english language. Kudo's for pulling it off, but what was this guy thinking!


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 just filling this comment out, because I couldn't stand the fact that a positive comment was featured on the "complete information" page. I really think this to be the worst movie ever made in my country. This is not only because of the terrible plot, the crappy English and a tension-curve that is as flat as our country. No, it is because this was a serious attempt to make a good action movie, conform the Hollywood standard. It had to be "The European Action Movie of The Year".For this purpose they even hired Fejda van Huet, actor in the Academy Award- winning picture "Karakter", to do the job. I don't mind bad films, I can even enjoy them if they are pretensiousless b- movies. but I can't stand movies that are terrible, but supposed to be a-type movies.


assistant
0