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
Not well done at all, the whole movie was just the Grudge going around and killing random people out of nowhere. Random people that have nothing to do with the story get killed, like the 3 school girls for example.
The family at the beginning has nothing to do with the story either, I believe them to be a random family that never went in the house, and never had anything to do with the killings of the Grudge.
Did not impress me at all, I was not scared, I didn't jump at any parts, and the whole movie was just a random piece of crap to get more money off of. Makes the Gridge 1 look like crap also, which was actually an alright movie.
I believe that The Grudge 2 is like a leading movie to The Grudge 3, if they ever make one. They shouldn't have even called this the Grudge 2, they should of called it the prologue to the Grudge 2, and you will see if you watched it, because I am not going to spoil anything. Not that it would have mattered anyway.
1/10, not scary, bad story, and is just completely random.


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


user
Mr. Brento wonders if this movie was produced by the same who produced the Dragonball Z TV series. Of course not.
This is a Hong Kong real action movie based on the first episodes of the Japanese original cartoon (which was also based on a comic book series). And I really don't know if it was produced under the license of the Dragonball creators...
However, the story of the monkey-boy with special powers is an ancient tale known all over Asia (in Japan, the name of the boy in the tale is Songoku; in China, it is Sunwukong; in Korea it is Sonogong; etc) and the story in Dragonball has much to do with that tale.
By the way, as I said, this movie is based on the first episodes of the Dragonball series (which was followed by Dragonball Z, although I think the US version had a different airing order). And all the scenes related to sexuality were also contained in the original cartoon series (without so much overacting and so much insistence on it!), but because of your comments I may suppose they were completely removed in the American dubbing.
Anyway, I agree with you about the overacting in the film and about how poor this adaptation of the original cartoon is. But maybe because of that nobody can forget it after watching it...


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


user
Just an hour ago I finished watching this my friend. As a fans of Dragonball we think that this movie is so bad that is good. We will say one thing : without a sixpack beers there is now way you can survive through this movie. This movie should be watched with a many Dragonball fans to laugh their ass off. The best character in the movie is the lord Horn, his makeup, his laugh, and behaviour crates the unforgettable experience. What we liked in this movie, was the fact that the island of Turtle Man was the same as in cartoon version. We believe that the only character similar to the one in the cartoon is the Turtle Man. He is also a sex maniac and kind of idiot too.


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


user
When you first sit down to watch this movie, keep in mind that you are about to see something you've probably never seen before. Keep in mind that this is a movie where they obviously spent INSANE amounts of cash on explosions and not enough on acting or anything else for that matter. The crazy thing I noticed is that every character is completely over-portrayed, and it seems (most of the time anyhow) that the film had been 'sped-up' to make the characters move faster! (I wonder if the Hong Kong version was dubbed too?) I understand the cartoon had this, but it doesn't work for live-action. It just looks odd... as if the camera crew decided to act because they couldn't afford real actors.
The English version is horribly dubbed, and the character's words do not match the mouths at all. I would have preffered subtitles, but since this is a kids movie, and since some kids cannot read well, I'll let it go. But there is something extremely odd about this movie. It's supposedly a kids movie, but there's a lot of material about SEX, RAPE, and STRIPPING which isn't exactly for young Western audiences. (In the Orient, they have different laws and sexuality in children's movies is much more accepted). But parents be warned! There is a scene where two characters talk about rape, multiple scenes where people say 'sex maniac' and a scene where this insanely young japanese girl does a sexy dance for one of the 'sex maniacs' and shows him her breasts! Who was this movie made for anyway?
Oh, and the special effects are laughable. You can tell the spaceship-like things that bomb the village are cardboard cutouts (or animation, I wasn't sure) that look unconvincing, even to a kid. The makers of this movie left out a lot of cool things from the cartoon, simply because they couldn't budget the kind of money they'd need. I didn't like how the names of all the characters were changed... it made me wonder if this movie was made by the same people as Dragon Ball Z.
I don't really recommed this movie to anyone. Kids, adults, or Dragon Ball Z fans. It's just a poor representation of the cartoon, and obviously, one will be able to tell that this movie was rushed and no care whatsoever was put into it. I won't even get into the camerawork... just wait until the end credits at the still picture that sits there for 2 minutes... most of the shots are not framed correctly AT ALL and the movie just seems made by amateurs. Grainy film quality too.
Just all around horrible!!!!



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


user
Live action version of Dragonball via Taiwan.
Evil lord comes to earth to get the seven magic dragon balls...er pearls which when brought together will cause a dragon to appear and grant your wish. Lots of action and bad comedy ensue.
What can I say that "the best way to watch this film is with lots of drunk but witty friends" doesn't? I don't know. This is a really bad but funny in the way that really bad movies can be. Come on this is one of the few martial arts films I've ever seen where you actually see the wires. Its a live action cartoon and not so far removed from what I've seen of the show that it makes me fearful for the big budget American version now filming.
If you have some drunk friends and feel like picking on a movie see this film. If you're going to see it sober (like me) avoid it.


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


user
A low-rent, cheaply made police thriller that's kept bearable by some fair humorous bits, the nice chemistry between the two leads and, especially, by James Remar's satisfying turn as a narcissistic, psychopathic (and, naturally, indestructible) villain. Obviously a low-quality picture, both visually and dramatically, with a rather resigned Burt, but not unwatchable. (**)


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 sick one day and was skimming channels and I came upon this terribly rank movie. The plot and even the subplots (if you can find one) have been done to extinction. BUT, as bad as the story was, I reserve a special comment for Liza Minelli. Her character was absolutely one of the most annoying characters I have ever has the misfortune of seeing on film. Her only two competitors in this category are John Leguziamo in "The Pest" and Julia Stiles in anything she's done (or half-done). Maybe she performed exactly as the script suggested or maybe (groan!) that is the limit she has to her acting range. Either way, they should have had a rewrite and killed her off in the first 30 seconds of the film (eg. Like the girl that fell off the balcony in Lethal Weapon (I) (but at least she had nice breasts))
Most Humbly Submitted...Douglas Neidermeyer


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


user
This 1988 movie was shown recently on a cable channel. We wanted to see another film, which supposedly was starting, but because a mix up, Rent-a-Cop, was shown in that time slot. Never having seen it when it was commercially released, we took a chance at it. Bad decision.
One wonders what possessed the people behind the picture to go ahead with "Rent-a-Cop", or how they sold it to the studio behind the distribution. It appears this movie misfired big time. This film doesn't add anything new to its genre. It's totally predictable, as once the basic premise is shown, we know how it will end.
Burt Reynolds plays a wooden Church. This actor can do better, but who knows what was going on behind the scenes, or perhaps the direction given to him by Jerry London, had the opposite effect. Mr. Reynolds has one expression throughout the movie. He just doesn't register any emotion at all.
Lisa Minnelli, as the hooker who witnessed the original slaughter at the Chicago hotel, makes no sense at all. The romance between her Della and Church seems phony from the beginning. She and Mr. Reynolds play one dimensional characters.
Don't waste your time with this turkey.


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


user
Being a fan of Marlene Dietrich's films, I was very anxious to see this "documentary." I also got sucked in by reading rave review after rave review from the national critics. That should have tipped me off.
The movie is just plain boring and obviously extremely overrated. You don't even see Dietrich. She is heard in the background, discussing her movies and this video. She does almost nothing but complain about everything. What a drag!
The filmmaker, Maximilian Schell, constantly complains himself and pleads with her to be on camera.....all to no avail. She just keeps refusing to cooperate. After awhile, this sort of thing gets really tiring. With her attitude, why would Schell continue with this project? He should have just told the prima donna to "shove it."
Regardless of what you read, do not waste your time 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
My poor Tank Girl, they ignored everything great about you. Why does it have as little to do with the comics as possible? I would have loved a movie that followed the plot, or at least had the characters right.
WHY WAS TANK GIRL American? She's Austrailian, dammit! And she's not living in a post apocalyptic war zone either, she lives in the outback with Booga like a savage. She does it because she wants to live that way, not because she has to because Malcolm Mc Dowell is acting the git. And why's she looking after those kids? The only children in the comics end up violently being choked by her, it's terrible that they made her into a lame mother figure.
And my poor Jet Girl and Sub Girl! In the comics, Jet is a sarcastic wisecracker and Sub girl is... another sarcastic wisecracker with a weird sense of humour. In the movie Jet is this mousy little thing and Sub is this ditzy middle aged hag. And Booga doesn't look or act anything like what he's meant to be either. Though maybe hot roo/human love was too much for the USA box office? The humour was so lame too. Whatever happened to all the stuff about the Smiths and that brilliant slang they used all the time? What sort of line is "Will this take long? I don't wanna miss Baywatch."? Even programmes for tiny children can come up with better material than that.


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


user
The film is very fast-moving, bizarre and colorful, it's like Mad Max on speed whit tons of colorers and make-up. Also very Cartoonish, as that said; cartoon sequence pops up here and there. The plot is also very saucy, but I'll believe it's meant too be. The thing that really drives me crazy in this movie, is the characters, they are painfully irritating, especially Rebecca played by Lori Petty, she's really annoying (I'll believe she is the most annoying creature I've ever seen). The editing is also annoying, very MTV stylized. Another thing that's missing from Tank Girl is an exciting adventure. The humor isn't much funny either. It has some nice visuals though.
However a lot of people love this film, most of them are women, and that's not weird at all, because this movie is all about girl power.. Tank Girl this is a real chick flick, and the best example of an hate/love 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 made the mistake of buying this since I collect comic book inspired movies. Even at 6$ it was too expensive. I thought there might be some campy fun in it, a "so bad" it becomes good vibe perhaps, I was wrong. I had watched it once long ago and didn't remember any of it. Now I know why. I was bored out of my mind and was looking for distractions to do something else. I'm all for grrrrl power, punk attitude and absurd humor but Tank Girl does not work on any front. The script is bad, you don't care about the characters and the humor is mostly lame except for a few amusing one-liners. The special effects or locations are poor or often replaced by comic panels or animations that are just too jarring compared to the live-action. It's like they didn't have the money to shoot the cool stuff and so resorted to drawings, however cool they might be (an uncensored animated feature would be way better for Tank Girl now that I think about it). The action scenes were cheesy but not in a fun b-movie way. The tank itself was far from impressive or dynamic although it was interestingly decorated. As a matter of fact, the best action scenes involving the tank were in animation.
It does have some interesting songs by known artists such as Bjork, Hole and Portishead but instead of improving the atmosphere, they just don't fit most of the time. Once they even break into a ludicrous song and dance number that was just senseless and horrible. I think that's when I totally tuned out. I suppose Tank Girl, played by Lori Petty, looks the trashy punkette part but beyond her "attitude" and sometimes barely amusing retorts, is more two-dimensional and superficial than the worst comic book characters. Jet, played by Naomi Watts, is probably the only saving grace of the film and it's amazing how such a good actress was involved in this mess. Malcolm McDowell wasn't too bad playing his usual villain role. It might be a cult movie for some but please consider that it's really different from the original independent comics and the original creators were disappointed with the movie themselves (check out the entry for Tank Girl on Wikipedia).
Rating: 3 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
Maybe it's because I'm no fan of the comics (but if the comics are of the same "quality" as the movie, it's hard to believe there are any), but this has to be one of the worst movies ever made. Non-existent plot, laughable acting, dumb dialogue... This movie is so bad that it hurts. A lot. That some people actually gave this one 10/10 is an insult to any good or at least mediocre (or at least bad) movie. If you hate yourself, then watch Tank Girl! On another thought, if you hate yourself THAT much, maybe you should just commit suicide... My rating: -34/10


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 doesn't know what it wants to be: is it making fun of action movies in general? Is it satirical? Is it supposed to be a black comedy? This is truly one of the worst films ever made.
Lori Petty is annoying. There, I said what everyone else is thinking. It's bad enough that she's such a terrible actress (Route 666, Bates Motel), but she doesn't even qualify as a mediocre b-movie actress. Her screechy voice, strange mannerisms, and poor comic timing dot this film from start to finish, until you just want to put your head in a vise and end the pain.
Do yourself a favor and avoid this movie at all costs. You'll be glad you did.


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


user
Sometimes a movie cannot easily be classified. Such a film is "Tank Girl", part cartoon, part comedy, and part action flick. I'm sure somewhere there is an audience for "Tank Girl', but it is extremely small, perhaps punk comic book readers. Most viewers will be looking for an early exit or living with the fast forward button. The only redeeming quality are short bursts of humor "find me a microscope and a pair of tweezers", but these tiny moments of comic relief are far outweighed by the sophomoric action sequences. There is no character development, which is not surprising, since the source is a comic book. Do yourself a favor and avoid, avoid, avoid. - MERK


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


user
Why Lori Petty was cast as tank girl, I'll never know. Her acting performance is lack-luster. Her voice is grating. It's almost impossible for me to put into words how bad this movie is.
There are several "modern-pop" references in the film, which I found to be very strange, given that the movie was supposed to take place far in the future. It wouldn't have been hard to make this premise interesting either. Some better writing would have helped loads.
Naomi Watts makes an appearance in it as a mild mannered techno-geek. I think they should have probably switched roles.
I'll never know why anyone would like this movie, unless they were a Petty fan.
Try not to see this movie. Total waste of time.


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


user
"Tank Girl" was, I suppose, meant to be the "Buckaroo Banzai" of the 90's and was marketed as such. The comparison is, admittedly, appropriate; both movies have so many things going on in any given frame of film that, as impossible as the story is to sort out, it certainly isn't boring.
"Tank Girl" is a fun enough ride if you turn your brain off before the movie starts. Otherwise you'll end up with a skull-cracking headache like me.


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


user
It's as if the editor and screenwriter only had 40 minutes of real running time. This is supposed to be a remake of a Chinese film, which is obviously far superior to this trash. It's clear that some brainless Hollywood suit or writer decided that this movie would be mano a mano, man against man, instead of just letting the story play out with the personalities of the characters that were built in the first 40 minutes. At this point in the film, the characters just don't act like regular people and not even like their own personalities. It makes little sense. It's quite clear why this film flopped. It's just not believable at all and that's too bad - it started out with promise. Don't be fooled.


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


user
On the scale of 1 to 10, I gave this a 4. I thought the film was not very good, with too much violence and not one character to like.
On an erotic scale, I give this a 6. Many of the sex scenes were tinged with an underlying ugliness. I always enjoy nudity, and Nancy Travis and Faye Grant come through, but the sex scenes were more humiliating than erotic.


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


user
This has to be one of, if not THE greatest Mob/Crime films of all time. Every thing about this movie is great, the acting in this film is of true quality; Master P's acting skills make you actually believe he is Italian! The cinematography is excellent too, probably the best ever. This movie was great; and I have the brain capacity of an earth worm.


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 one entertaining flick. I suggest you rent it, buy a couple quarts of rum, and invite the whole crew over for this one. My favorite parts were.1. the gunfights that were so well choreographed that John Woo himself was jealous, .2. The wonderful special effects .3. the Academy Award winning acting and .4. The fact that every single gangsta in the film seemed to be doing a bad "Scarface" impersonation. I mean, Master P as a cuban godfather! This is groundbreaking territory. And with well written dialogue including lines like "the only difference between you and me Rico, is I'm alive and your dead," this movie is truly a masterpiece. Yeah right.


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 saw this movie I think I was a freshman in high school and I still feel like charging Master P for the hour & 20 mins or so that he took from my life that I'll never get back.
The guy who already posted is completely right. Master P is a wannabe mobster. He, like all the other rappers in this country made his millions off of selling rap cds to young impressionable white kids in this country. It's widely known that the mob was not a black thing and blacks were not allowed to be part of it. Unfair as that might be rappers can't deal with. This movie paints Master P as a mobster named Nino? The script is terrible with the acting to match. Completely unbelievable. While searching I came up with a link or something that said he was planning on making another movie called "The Black Sopranos"!!!!
Please spare us that and stick to Nickalodeon. You are not a white mobster, your not even a good actor Master P, please stick to your music for the sake of whoever listens to it these days...


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 rips off of every mobster/gangster film ever made. MP Da Last Don has a reference to every movie. The acting was by far the worst i have every seen. Who the hell is John Mario anyway? His acting was by far the worst I have ever seen. He makes bad actors look good. As far as Master P goes, he's selling out quicker than an N*sync concert. I really wish I was there to tell the whole production company: WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING WHEN PENNING THE SCRIPT?" Obviously these people are so fixated on the gangster image that they decided to make a movie and live out their gangster lives for real in their minds. One thing I do know is that there wasn't anyone who wanted to distribute this film so it seems (and how predictable) that the guys at NO LIMIT had to start; NO LIMIT FILMS. I've said enough! This movie is terrible and it does not deserve to be called a movie!


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


user
Well, I don't normally think there's such a thing as a HORRIBLE movie, but this is pretty damned close! The best acting performance in the whole thing was Snoop Dogg, who has one line in a 10 second scene. I agree with the "glad it was short" review. The music videos at the end were cool though.


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


user
The moral of this show is that bad eating habits give people bad hair, bad taste in clothes, bad posture, bad jobs, and on and on. They are obviously miserable and loathe themselves. However, if they learn to eat broccoli, they will be wealthy, successful, and attractive.
TLC ought to be ashamed of themselves for this blatant exploitation of parental fears and guilt. If nutrition is really that important, they should be able to develop a show using honest and truthful methods. If they really believed in their computer simulations, I'd like to see them do a double-blind test by finding some 40-year-olds, finding out what their eating and exercise habits were as children, and age-progressing the kids' photos. Then compare to the real things. Hey, that sounds like a project for Mythbusters! Discovery Channel--are you listening?
TLC must stand for Tabloid Lies and Cons.


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


user
In trying to keep up with the hipness of youthful audiences as the 70s approached, OaCD,YCSF was the product of odder and odder material selected for musicalization. Here it's past life regression, ESP and hypno-therapy... pretty loopy! The real problem with the concept (music or not) are the extraordinarily low dramatic stakes; just where can a movie go, and what can happen, when a man falls in love with a previous incarnation of a girl he can't stand? It can't go any place new, but strangely, it can't even go any place old! Indeed, if it could, audiences would still have no interest in the union of Yves Montand (playing a much older, arrogant, French ass) and Streisand. (a much younger girl). We never become invested in them, their situations or outcomes. Montand is miscast and his strong accent makes many of his lyrics unintelligible.
It's all been given a shallow 60s veneer that makes it eminently disposable; despite efforts here and there from Minelli that are respectable. It's not even adapted from a non-musical story that met with any previous success... that's just too passe! Streisand occasionally has some funny business to offer, as when she's trying not to fall asleep on her roof and improvises an energetic dance. But she over-relies on her ingratiating (translation: irritating) kooky, Jewish girl shtick. She can however sing very well, at both the "gentle" and "powerhouse" ends of the range. Amidst a score of musical dross, she gets 3 or 4 amazing songs* of much higher caliber than anything Fanny or Dolly had to offer. 'He isn't you' is a sweet trifle as sublime as Lorenz Hart's 'My Funny Valentine,' but the movie isn't able to realize any impact from it; because the lyrics don't seem to be referring to anything in the movie, and nothing remotely suggests a great love is blossoming between Chabot and Melinda.
The only cut we can view is a poor hatchet job of a much bigger film. Strong research shows a longer, better-explained and more decorative, but not necessarily a better film at: http://barbra-archives.com/films/clear_day_streisand_2.html. You can be sure there's be more Babs in that version but more importantly, there'd be more thoughtful work from Minelli.
In the end Montand sends Babs off to sing the title song, after she discovers he's a total dick who feeds her a self-esteem homily to allow himself off the hook. And she takes the bait. So, uh... hooray for that.
(*Hurry it's lovely up here, Love with all the trimmings, He isn't you, & the title song)


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


user
"On a Clear Day You Can See Forever" is nothing more than a New Age update of the "Pygmalion" / "My Fair Lady" story: A professor attempts to turn a common girl into an upper society woman. This time, however, instead of using language skills, the professor tries to do so by hypnotism and past life regression.
You know a musical has problems when reviewers constantly mention the sets and the costumes before they mention the plot and the music. The songs are instantly forgettable. (No "Get Me to the Church on Time" here, I'm afraid.) And the plot goes nowhere. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, there is no "there" here. The characters wander through the story without ever getting from point A to point B. Professor Chabot claims several times that he will get to the root of Daisy's troubles, but he never seems to do so.
All meaningful conflict is avoided. For instance, there comes a time when Chabot's university demands he either stop his research into reincarnation or resign his position. Now there is conflict! Will he give up his career for Daisy? Alas! Nothing comes of this development. A scene or two later the university changes its mind and tells Chabot to continue on with his work. So much for conflict.
The talent was certainly assembled for this movie: Directed by Vincente Minnelli. Written, in part, by Alan Jay Lerner. A cast of Yves Montand, Bob Newhart and Jack Nicholson. And, oh yes, starring Barabara Striesand who was nearly at the top of her game at this point in her career.
But it all falls flat. Lerner's attempt to reincarnate his greatest success, the previously mentioned "My Fair Lady," is as doomed to failure as Daisy's attempt to revive the greatness of her own past.
If you enjoy movie musicals, there are far better choices than this.


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


user
Just listen to the Broadway cast album and to the voices of Barbara Harris and John Cullum, who do wonders for the wonderful Lerner and Lane score. Then, with that beautiful cast recording fresh in mind, watch the movie, with Streisand as Streisand, and Yves Montand reading his lines with such a heavy French accent that a chain saw couldn't cut through it. The best part (for those who need something to look forward to) is what Montand does to the introductory part of the title song. Listen as he sings/says: Could anyone among us have an inkling or a clue, what magic feats of wizardry and voodoo you can do? (That one part sums up the problem that results from casting "name stars" in movie musicals instead of the appropriate talent for the various roles.) I can just see Rex Harrison entering that scene and suggesting Montand, too, could learn to do justice to the beauty of the English language.



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 another of Hollywood's anti-communist polemics of the golden 1950s. Stalwart American Gene Barry, lovely Englishwoman Valerie French, and three others are kidnapped by an alien and given clamshells containing fantastic--and fantastically vague--power. What will the Earthlings do with such power? Toss it in the sea or use it to wipe out all of mankind? Anybody who knows American cinema circa 1957 knows the answer to what the commies will do, but the story gets ripe when the Americans actually test the things in the middle of the Pacific. Then one scientist, alone with the ultimate power in the universe, comes up with his own theory and uses it! His smarmy attitude afterward is nauseating, and the cheery disposition of everyone else is appalling.
Here's the spoiler for this dog: the capsules inside the clamshells have a mathematical code that tells the prof that they kill only "confirmed enemies of freedom"! That's right--don't worry about the ethical conundrum of killing everyone that an alien pill decides is an enemy of freedom; just do it! Hurray! No commies! Silly female--and you threw yours into the sea! Ha ha! Kiss me, baby!


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


user
I made sure to see this film because it is a 1950s sci-fi film--one of my favorite genres. Unfortunately, while I was looking forward to either bug-eyed aliens or power-mad conquerers, the aliens in this film were a MAJOR disappointment! First, you only see one very briefly at the beginning (and he looked pretty ordinary) and you also only got a tiny glimpse of a spaceship! Second, the alien was neither the evil conquerer or the benevolent friend of mankind--but a real odd-ball. And finally, the plot itself seemed so dumb, preachy and heavy-handed that it elicited more yawns than thrills.
As the film begins, five people from five different parts of the world (Germany, Britain, Russia, China and the USA) are kidnapped by an alien. The alien gives each of them devices by which they CAN destroy all life on the planet if they so choose--because, the alien admits that HIS race of people would love to inhabit the Earth but they themselves won't kill to get it. Then, he returns them all. While it's 100% obvious that no one would WANT to use these devices, the alien then announces on TV the identities of the five without telling that the weapons are THAT powerful! So, all the militarists in the world want to find the five and force them to reveal how the weapons work. Much of the rest of the film consists of some of the five going into hiding and one being tortured to get him to reveal how the device works--as the Soviets want to use it!!! This part of the film just seemed pretty silly. Sure the USSR was an evil and corrupt nation (sorry, but it's fact--especially under Stalin), they never would have thought of using it like they did in the movie! Later, one of the five (the German scientist), somehow figures out that the devices can also be used to kill only all the EVIL people who hate freedom. So, he uses it to wipe out all the evil Commies and presumably others who were anti-freedom and the world then becomes a paradise!! Preachy, silly and full of plot holes--this movie just isn't worth your time, though it is an interesting relic simply for the way it addresses Communism--in particular, the tensions between Nato and the Soviets.


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


user
An intelligent summation of Cold War era mutually assured destruction policy, up until the conclusion: it's a gasser! All Russians and Chinese are obliterated from the face of the Earth! Saw this one at the 27th Annual CWRU Science Fiction Marathon, January 2002.


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 quite possibly one of the worst movies ever made. Everything about it--acting, directing, script, cinematography--is dreadful. The alien (a human in sparkly suit) claims to be from a nearby universe; one assumes the scriptwriter meant "galaxy" but didn't bother to get a dictionary to check his terms. A better title for the film would be "It Came From the Planet of Plot Contrivances." The plot is excessively silly and nearly nonexistent. The humans are all given magical MacGuffins that conform to a tortuous series of unlikely restrictions just to move the bare plot. Any thought to the passage of time is ignored. Now it's a couple days after meeting the alien, then BAM! all of a sudden there's only a couple hours left until zero hour. Do yourself a favor and miss this movie. You will make yourself stupider for having watched it. The ending is particularly silly, and should have been accompanied by someone going "Ta-Da!!!!" as the scriptwriter just pulls something random out of his butt. I think the real alien plot is that this movie sucks so bad you'll get cancer watching it. If you can watch the last 10 minutes without crapping yourself ("enemies of freedom"--honestly) laughing, you're retarded.


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


user
This movie has lots of action and little heart. Let's forget for a minute that it gets just about every aspect of the Russian Revolution wrong - after all we only have only under an hour here to tell our story. In fact, the czar abdicated after World War I proved a disaster for the country, and a provisional government tried to rule as a pseudo-democracy until the Leninists took power nine months later, mainly because they promised to immediately withdraw Russia from the war. Now, back to our story.
Here we have the revolution being "rumored" in Russian newspapers in what appears to still be a functioning country until violence erupts suddenly and upends the life of nobleman Baron Nikita 'Nikki' Krasnoff (Douglas Fairbanks Jr.). He flees his home with his former servant girl Tanyusha (Nancy Carroll) in tow, and they start to make a new life in Constantinople. Before the revolution the Baron made a regular habit out of making a play for the girl, not out of any real passion, but out of boredom as a diversion of sorts. The revolution doesn't change this, and he continues to try to take advantage of what is obviously a very simple girl. It certainly doesn't make the audience like this guy to see him toying with her so. Tanyusha follows the Baron because she literally has no place to go after the revolutionaries take over the Baron's home, and she has known no other life other than waiting on Nikki hand and foot. Once in Constantinople, Nikki quickly wearies of life as a penniless laborer, and that is when he meets up with his former lover, Russian aristocrat Vera Zimina, who has a plan for getting them to Paris where the Tsarists have congregated after the revolution. Unfortunately for Tanyusha, Vera's plan does not include her.
This film manages to completely waste the considerable acting talents of early talkie actress Nancy Carroll. She does a good job with what little she is given to do, but that is not much. Lilyan Tashman is the standout here, even though she has only a small role as Russian vamp Vera. Lilyan was so often given supporting roles just as she is here, but her earthy voice and glamorous looks make her the center of attention in every scene in which she appears. Guy Kibbee even shows up in a humorous bit as an American tourist who is curious about the Russian royalty that has been forcefully ejected from their homeland.


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


user
Scarlet Dawn casts Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. as a Russian baron rudely displaced by the forces of the Russian Revolution and now has to fend for himself in a world not terribly hospitable to former aristocrats. He's also not terribly suited for any kind of real work.
Doug might have been caught by the Reds but for the fact that his former servant Nancy Carroll didn't give him away. Nancy's got a big old crush on Doug and they do marry once arriving in exile in Istanbul which throughout the film is referred to by its former Christian name of Constantinople. They marry and settle down with Doug now reduced to washing dishes.
But Fairbanks's former mistress Lilyan Tashman who's always playing bad girls of a sort on film spots him and offers to have him get back into somewhat the style he was once accustomed to as part of a swindle against father and daughter American tourists Guy Kibbee and Sheila Terry.
Good thing this film has the incredibly short running time of only 57 minutes, usually those were given to B westerns because it's both tedious and melodramatic. The ending is rather unbelievable. Doug knew he was in a Thanksgiving special and really overacts to cover up the defects of a unbelievable story.
What I didn't understand was that Fairbanks was trained in the military profession, why didn't he just become a mercenary soldier after leaving the new Soviet Union? That didn't make sense to me at all.
I'd only see this if I was a dedicated fan of any the main players.


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


user
Am not from America, I usually watch this show on AXN channel, I don't know why this respected channel air such sucking program in prime time slot. Creation of Hollywood's Money Bank Jerry Bruckheimer, this time he is spending a big load of cash in the small screen. In each episode a bunch of peoples having two team members travels from on country to another for a great sum of money; where the camera crews shoot their travels. I don't know who the hell gave this stupid idea for the show. It has nothing to watch for, in all episodes we see people ran like beggars, some times shouting, crying, beeping, jerky camera works..huh it's harmful to both eyes and ears. The most disgusting part in the race is the viewers finally knows each of the team members can't enjoy their race/traveling experience. Even though, to add up the ratings the producers came up with the ideas of including Gays in one shows, sucking American reality show.
It's nothing to watch for, better switch to another channels.
The Amazing Race = The Disgusting Show.


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


user
As a documentary, this is laughable in a campy sort of way -- a schlocky collection of re-created Biblical tableaux mixed in with solemn interviews of so-called "experts." Think of it as an infommercial which pushes Jesus instead of thigh-masters.
However, the detailed crucifixion scene is, in terms of historical accuracy, superior to similar scenes in such widescreen Hollywood extravaganzas as "Ben-Hur," "King of Kings," and "The Greatest Story Ever Told." Rather than dragging his entire cross to Golgotha, for example, John Rubinstein simply carries his crossbeam strapped across his shoulders to his outstretched arms. Nails aren't driven through his palms but instead through his wrists. His feet aren't nailed separately but one is placed over the other so that just one nail need be used. Incidentally, Rubinstein's flogging prior to his crucifixion ranks 35th in the book, "Lash! The Hundred Great Scenes of Men Being Whipped in the Movies."
Of course, Rubinstein and the two thieves wear modest loincloths, which probably isn't true to the shameful reality of Roman crucifixions, but allowances must be made. Curiously, the "good" thief is positioned on the left hand of Jesus, which goes against a long-standing tradition. Just why this thief is played by a pudgy, overweight man is, however, a mystery, especially in view of the fact that the "bad" thief is something of a "hunk."


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


user
The biggest problem with "In Search of Historic Jesus" is that there is very little search to it at all. Shick-Sunn produced these "documentary" films in the 1970s and just into the '80s, which featured interviews with "experts" and discussion of "science" and "facts" to make a case for whatever the title of the film was looking to cash in on.
Sadly, "Historic Jesus" is really little more than a third-rate dramatization of the life of Christ. Unlike Shick-Sunn's more superior "In Search of Noah's Ark" which spends the majority of its running time discussing the possibility that the ark is resting on the earth today and where that might be, this film is basically the story of Jesus with no effort made to prove or disprove his existence. The famed Shroud of Turrin is mentioned, but little other detective work is given much screen time.
For fans of these quasi-documentary films like "Jupiter Menace" and "In Search of Bigfoot", etc., this movie doesn't offer much.


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


user
This had the promise of being an interesting film. The subject matter was certainly a promising one - the excesses of the Catholic Church during the counter-reformation. However, not only was this not developed (other than a two paragraph introduction), many things were not explained - i.e. the gypsies, the Anabaptists, the inquisitors and their relationship to the one true church. Nor were the politics of the time explained, i.e. the relationship between the Catholic church and its supporters like the Holy Roman Emperor. Though these may have been apparent to an Austrian audience, the lack of explanation makes it confusing for Americans.
But perhaps it's a good thing that they didn't emphasize the history since what they showed was pretty inaccurate anyway. Instruments of torture, bloody executions, witch and heretic burnings, big shiny swords and pretty golden reliquaries are the stars of the film. It could have just as easily been one of those Conan-type sword and sorcery movies, only with period costumes...


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 the film yesterday and stopped it at half time because I felt it was a waste of time. The idea to make a film through the eyes of a headsman - one of the "evil guys" throughout most fantasy and medieval films - is great and offers plenty of possibilities but... the film couldn't catch one of them. I was not feeling for any of the characters, the plot was all too predictable (to the point that I followed it)and the second leap of time in the storyline made me quit. Those who expect a deep insight into the emotional situation of a headsman in the middle Ages, a social outcast to that time, might be disappointed.


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


user
STAR RATING: ***** Unmissable **** Very Good *** Okay ** You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead * Avoid At All Costs
The tale of the titular Adam (Mark O' Halloran) and Paul (Tom Murphy), two heroin addicts in the slums of Dublin and their daily amblings about in their meaningless lives searching for the next fix that will make their day. Along the way they try and reconcile with close family and friends who they've managed to let down and destroy over the years.
I know a lot of Irish people like to drink, but it seems some of them have problems with heroin, too by the looks of this movie. I know there is a bit of a drug problem over there, like there is in many parts of the world, so another humorous take on the subject matter is not an entirely unexpected thing.
I don't recall the last Irish movie I saw (the film is shot in a style that makes it stand out from any film I've seen lately!) And, judging from that, obviously I'm not as enlightened on their humour as I could be. The film is rather funny in certain parts, but it's obviously another comedy that isn't afraid to raise near-the-knuckle laughs. The scene in which the mentally disabled boy is robbed down the back of an alley is certainly true of what a pair of junkies might do to feed their habit but is nonetheless utterly despicable and I'm not sure if it was meant as dark humour in any way but it certainly didn't put a smile on my face! It's also in stark contrast to their previous actions where they're seen showing their soft side rocking a baby to-and-fro. In light of this, some may find the ending sad, others may see it as just desserts.
Overall, I just failed to see the point to the film. I didn't see any motivation in the 'story' it was telling. It just seems to amble along without really involving the audience in any way. Unlike Trainspotting (which dealt with similar themes!) it's an unsuccessful effort for the most part that had me on the verge of nodding off despite it's very short 83 minute running time. Really no more enjoyable than following two real life junkies around for a day. **


assistant
0