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


user
I am a Shakespeare fan, and I can appreciate what Ken Branagh has done to bring Shakespeare back for a new generation of viewers. However, this movie falls short of conveying the overall intentions of the play with the ridiculous musical sequences. Add that with Alicia Silverstone's stumbling over the dialogue (reminiscent of Keanu Reeves in Much Ado About Nothing) and other poorly cast roles, it all equals an excruciating endurance of viewing.


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 hate most end of the world movies. They show what jaded Hollywood people think of the rest of the world, and they clearly think we're a bunch of sadistic idiots (or at least that watching sadistic idiots react to things is somehow entertaining). I've been to L.A. many times, I have family that works in show business, and I just want to say that these are the *last* people we should be looking to for a reality check. Some disaster movies at least paint a clever picture: Children of Men, 12 Monkeys, but usually the message is just "people will do anything to survive, all is dark and sad and purposeless, we should all be ashamed of ourselves".
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of a story that explores throwing off the system of social order and testing people's mettle in the face of horror, and I do believe some people would act like this film portrayed, but sadistic idiots aside, I seriously doubt society would just dissolve into every man for himself, that's just insulting.


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


user
Do not be mistaken, this is neither a horror, nor really a film. I firmly advise against watching this 82 minute failure; the only reason it merited a star was the presence of Chris Pine.
Nothing happens. You wait patiently in the hope that there may be a flicker of a twist, a hint of surprise, a plot to emerge - but no.
The characters take erratic turns of pace in their actions and yet don't have the time to develop - thanks to the thrifty editors and frankly ashamed writers - before returning to an idyllic and playful (bring on the teen rock montage) state. The only thing that could have made it worse would be adding the perishable token ethnic 'companion'.
Their encounters with obstacles (be they human or physical) are brief, confusing and entirely pointless.
Chris Pine fights to keep himself above the surface whilst being drowned by a misery of a lightweight cast. Lou Taylor Pucci couldn't be dryer if he spent the summer with Keanu Reaves combing the Navada desert.
Watch 'The Road', watch '28 days Later', watch day time TV...anything but this; I implore you. Suffer the boredom, unlike you may be led to believe in the film, this film is no cure.


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


user
If you've seen other movies like this, they're probably better. The Omega Man comes to mind. To the studio's credit, they avoided the sprawling, unnecessary, big budget technofest that typifies movies of this ilk. Additionally, the set-up and premise were excellent: four people whose past is virtually irrelevant to us are trying to get away from an overwhelming infectious fatal disease. What's bad is EVERYTHING else! I get tired of endlessly stupid, careless, wimpy, ineffective, arrogant characters in a movie. That pretty much describes everyone in the movie at some point. I rented it, and found myself yelling at the TV repeatedly, "no, don't do that!", "why are you so stupid", "look out!", etcetera. A true lack of character development is evident about halfway in. A movie SHOULD give you a strong personal connection with at least some of the characters so that you actually care what happens to them. This one does not. Also,there should have been a longer, more involving end to the movie as well.


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


user
There's a good movie lurking here, but this isn't it. The basic idea is good: to explore the moral issues that would face a group of young survivors of the apocalypse. But the logic is so muddled that it's impossible to get involved.
For example, our four heroes are (understandably) paranoid about catching the mysterious airborne contagion that's wiped out virtually all of mankind. Yet they wear surgical masks some times, not others. Some times they're fanatical about wiping down with bleach any area touched by an infected person. Other times, they seem completely unconcerned.
Worse, after apparently surviving some weeks or months in this new kill-or-be-killed world, these people constantly behave like total newbs. They don't bother accumulating proper equipment, or food. They're forever running out of fuel in the middle of nowhere. They don't take elementary precautions when meeting strangers. And after wading through the rotting corpses of the entire human race, they're as squeamish as sheltered debutantes. You have to constantly wonder how they could have survived this long... and even if they did, why anyone would want to make a movie about them.
So when these dweebs stop to agonize over the moral dimensions of their actions, it's impossible to take their soul-searching seriously. Their actions would first have to make some kind of minimal sense.
On top of all this, we must contend with the dubious acting abilities of Chris Pine. His portrayal of an arrogant young James T Kirk might have seemed shrewd, when viewed in isolation. But in Carriers he plays on exactly that same note: arrogant and boneheaded. It's impossible not to suspect that this constitutes his entire dramatic range.
On the positive side, the film *looks* excellent. It's got an over-sharp, saturated look that really suits the southwestern US locale. But that can't save the truly feeble writing nor the paper-thin (and annoying) characters. Even if you're a fan of the end-of-the-world genre, you should save yourself the agony of watching Carriers.


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


user
In one instant when it seemed to be getting interesting, it never got there.
The people are going from one point to another point, with really no point (if there was one it was very dull). There was no action, suspense or any horror and the characters were pretty heartless, so there was no caring what happened to them.
All together the movie was pretty boring.
I give it a 3/10.
I like that it wasn't shaky choppy camera-work and if there was music it didn't annoy me like some really bad movies and the acting was not horrendous.


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


user
while being one of the "stars" of this film doesn't necessarily give me sage insight, i do know quite a bit of what was first there...and what ended up on the screen. i remember seeing the original cut of "incoming freshman" and being very pleased. it was funny, sexy, raunchy, all the main requirements of a drive-in film. you have to remember this was shot and released before all the rest...animal house, porky's, etc...so in its own way, this flick was truly ahead of its time. for whatever reasons, the film was given to the main distributors who editing out half the original film, and then edited in (should i say "shuffled?") THE most random scenes ever. the fat guy, the people with goat heads....what the heck was all that?! i'm sure it was put in for additional T&A, but it was so slowly paced, it caused anything going on prior to it to grind to a screeching and painful halt. but all in all, it's a fun memory for me...especially in that i'm able to say that the worst movie i've ever seen...i'm in!


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


user
I don't know where to begin. The cast is full of people who've never done anything before or since. Debralee Scott is listed on cover boxes, but does not appear in the movie at all. The writing is quite bad, even for college films. It's obviously very low budget, with one scene at the sorority house having extremely choppy editing.
The characters are pretty typical for college films - timid guy, nerd, suave black guy, tough guys, guy with mustache, attractive girl, small town girl, etc. The featured teacher is about what's you'd expect... middle aged heavy set guy who gets sidetracked easily.
If you wan't to see a college flick, stay clear from this one. It's so bad, it's not even funny.


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


user
All Hype! What better way to describe a movie about people who are upset because they can't release their film through a mainstream distributor? Consequently, they do it themselves. Otherwise, the hype of the film doesn't justify the content in the film. The story is absent and could easily be a short. The acting is poor, but the animation and music is pretty good. Otherwise don't waste your time - don't believe the hype! However, if you have the chance to see the film for free, do so. Then you won't have to waste money. Still, the filmmakers do a good job of pressing their story and creating cliffhangers with their self-indulgent mini-series. Otherwise, they're one hit wonders who never had a hit.


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


user
I think I should start this in saying that nearly any style of work can be entertaining in parts. The true test is whether it is good from start to finish, which is the reason I gave the analogical title for this review. Most of us would agree--even those like me, who enjoy reading many blogs--that blogs can't compare with good novel writing for a number of reasons. Likewise, FEM can't compare with good film making for a number of reasons, and I actually believe it's a poor example of independent filmography. From start to finish, FEM feels like a pieced together vlog. (Heck, even MySpace gets some pimping.) If I wanted to see an hour of lonelygirl15--I don't--I'd go watch it. FEM, while certainly grittier than the bubble gum atmosphere of the aforementioned media, is so personal that it is without an interesting story. It's like watching the mundaneness of life, which I think most would agree is very naturally boring. And yet the creators of FEM want us to applaud it, their very postmodern film about making a film. Cue my yawn.
Ultimately, I come away not caring the least bit about any of it. I'm shocked that I'm actually interested in taking time out to write this review, even. It's not that FEM is downright bad, because it isn't; it has a few moments where I crack a smile or think that maybe--just maybe--something of interest is about to happen. It's rather that it's just downright...mediocre. I feel so indifferent about it that it's almost fitting of an oxymoron: passionate indifference.
I hope the creators/"actors" in the film get out of debt from their efforts. They'll probably need it for when one of them moves out and moves on with life.
See this movie if you've got time to waste and nothing much you want to do; otherwise, pass it by, and don't worry that you've missed some great, undiscovered talent. You really haven't.


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


user
Definitely the product of young minds, this piece may very well appeal to the 20s crowd, who is still trying to find their place in the world, while obsessing over every neurosis. However, I can't imagine that the heavy amount of narcissistic navel-gazing, trite humor, or banal subject matter would be particularly engaging to anyone over 30. Another problem is that the peripheral characters, whom the filmmakers obviously have nothing but contempt for, are hyped up to such absurd caricatures for comic effect, that they fail to be relatable in any real way.
However, one has to give some style points to the filmmakers, who obviously grew up in the video generation, and use every conceivable editing trick in the book in order to spruce up an otherwise non-existent plot. There are 2 points to remember here. First, beware of festival darlings. Second, even though we live in the age of youtube, not everyone's account of their mundane lives deserves big- screen treatment. But these young filmmakers have every right to make their film, and if others 20-somethings can find something in it to identify with, then all the better. Yet I could not help but think at the end of this film how this latest generation, just now coming of age, will fare in the real world that presents so many challenges and complications. In the age when every child is constantly reassured of how special they are, and that they all deserve their 15 minutes of exposure, resiliency and the ability to deal with adversity does not exactly appear to be this generation's strong point.


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


user
Four Eyed Monsters follows the relationship of a shy, reclusive videographer and an equally estranged struggling artist, who, both living in the Big Apple, develop an unlikely romance with the help of an internet dating site. This in itself is not so unusual, but what is, is their method of communication. Foregoing the verbal, they take to writing notes and later communicating through video.
The film is based upon the creator's (Arin Crumley & Susan Buice) own relationship, who besides writing and directing, take to acting as the lead characters as well. With elements of avant-garde, anti-plot, and docudrama, the film scatters itself to the wind with an undecided structure nestled neatly between narcissism and self-indulgence.
As the movie wears on, a brief separation and deterioration of their once intriguing form of communication grow old as the couple face the hardship of reality. Focusing solely on inner conflict, or the woes of relationship, the film struggles through a stagnant narrative that is neither original, nor poignant. This could have been easily circumvented with the addition of subplot and external conflict, and a third act, to which there is none - just a montage of melodrama that leads nowhere.
What is even more aggravating is the film's descent from story into reality that abruptly concludes with an open ended and unsatisfying finish. This would have been all fine and dandy, but there is no question asked and no meaning to be discovered or pondered.
(On a side note, the film contains beautiful animation and a vivid and moving soundtrack, one of the more interesting aspects of the production.)
But as always, watch the film and decide for yourself.


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


user
At the time of writing this review it would seem that over 50% of IMDb voters had given this film a rating of either a 10 or a 1. I can only surmise then that those giving it a 10 were either cast or crew members.
They say that given enough monkeys and enough time and enough typewriters, those monkeys, just by random proddings at the keyboard, would eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare. However, I seriously doubt that given the same number of monkeys and time, you could find a single one to give this movie a rating of 10.
I patiently watched the first half, foolishly assuming that the film would, on some level, develop either the plot or the characters, or maybe make some kind of social comment or provoke barely intellectual thought. Failing that, I was quite prepared to accept action, suspense, comedy, horror or even gratuitous sex as a way of holding my attention. Ultimately, I was disappointed and consequently, much of the second half was viewed at double speed as I searched in vain for some small snippet of cinematic redemption. Sadly, there was none.
If "The Choke", was put up against an episode of Scooby Doo then I'm afraid the cartoon would win hands down in terms of mystery, intrigue and unpredictability. And speaking of cartoon characters, the acting abilities of the various cast members varied between acceptable (at best) and embarrassingly poor with Brooke Bailey's portrayal of the freaky, death obsessed pseudo goth, London, being so bad I almost felt sorry for her.
I would have liked to have finished on a positive note but even the soundtrack, a second rate feast of contemporary punk rock, failed even to entertain, let alone serve to enhance a very poor flick.


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


user
Released on DVD in the UK as Axe, The Choke is a teen slasher that fails in pretty much every department: the story is almost non-existent, resulting in a film which comprises mostly of people wandering around a dark building; with the exception of two characters (who are quite obviously destined to be the film's survivors), everyone is thoroughly objectionable, meaning that the viewer couldn't care less when they get slaughtered; the deaths aren't gory enough (unless a brief shot of a pound of minced beef covered in fake blood turns your stomach); and the gratuitous sex scene features next to no nudity (an unforgivable mistake to make in a slasher flick!).
The wafer-thin plot sees members of a punk band locked inside what appears to be the world's largest nightclub (there are endless abandoned corridors and rooms, unlike any club I've ever seen) where they are picked off by an unseen assailant. For a low budget effort, the production values are okay, and the cast are all seem to be fairly capable actors, but with not nearly enough genuine scares, a reluctance to get really messy (this is a slasher, so where's the graphic splatter?), way too much dreadful dialogue (particularly from the not-dead-soon-enough drummer) and some ill advised use of tacky video techniques in an attempt to add some style, the movie quickly becomes extremely boring.


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


user
I watched this film not really expecting much, I got it in a pack of 5 films, all of which were pretty terrible in their own way for under a fiver so what could I expect? and you know what I was right, they were all terrible, this movie has a few (and a few is stretching it) interesting points, the occasional camcorder view is a nice touch, the drummer is very like a drummer, i.e damned annoying and, well thats about it actually, the problem is that its just so boring, in what I can only assume was an attempt to build tension, a whole lot of nothing happens and when it does its utterly tedious (I had my thumb on the fast forward button, ready to press for most of the movie, but gave it a go) and seriously is the lead singer of the band that great looking, coz they don't half mention how beautiful he is a hell of a lot, I thought he looked a bit like a meercat, all this and I haven't even mentioned the killer, I'm not even gonna go into it, its just not worth explaining. Anyway as far as I'm concerned Star and London are just about the only reason to watch this and with the exception of London (who was actually quite funny) it wasn't because of their acting talent, I've certainly seen a lot worse, but I've also seen a lot better. Best avoid unless your bored of watching paint dry.


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


user
The photography on the DVD is so dark I thought the screen had died. I think I missed seeing half of the movie. Still, it was poorly crafted and not interesting. I did not find the story related to the title "The Black Widow". I was hoping for a mystery or a thriller but did not get involved enough to care after the first few frames. I rented the movie especially for Willem Dafoe and was sad it wasted his talent. I do not believe Giada Colagrande has studied movie making long enough to develop a major motion picture. She is attractive and might develop into an actor but she took on too many tasks in this movie. Although they are married in real life, they lack chemistry on the screen. Their relationships did not seem believable. I do not understand why the other characters were even introduced into the plot.


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


user
The only reason I watched the movie till the end was the "hope" to see something interesting. The movie is really bad and the performance of the girl it is really, really bad, honestly, I am not a movie critic neither an expert but you just need common sense to notice that this work it is incredibly bad.
The first thing that came to my mind as soon as she started to talk was: "She has an affair with Willem Dafoe and he accepted to help her with the screenplay and appear in her movie since she is the brilliant director"... surprise, surprise, next day after I watched the film I found out on internet that Giada Colagrande is his wife. Awful story and terrible performance.


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


user
I just rented (yes! I paid money to see!) this film. OMG. It is one of the very worst films I have ever seen. As another reviewer put it, Ms. Colagrande, get out of films, PLEASE! Please never make or appear in another film! The lady has the charisma of a cantaloupe. No, that's not fair to the cantaloupe, which probably has more going for it. She does not know how to act; she affects a disgusted look ALL the time (reminded me very much of my always-disgusted young sisters-in-law from Europe). She is not charming; she is not pretty. There is no real story. And the editing! There WASN'T any, that I could see! It's pretty bad when you are watching a film and, just to get through it, you press "forward forward" on your remote, and STILL nothing happens! I mean!..... I kept involuntarily screaming, "Cut! Cut!" What WERE they thinking? Well, obviously, they thought they would make a film together and get PAID to make love on screen! Pretty good deal for THEM; pretty raw deal for the viewer! I think I'm going to throw up now....


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


user
I am not an artistically inclined individual. I am a science minded woman and I felt that this movie was maybe one of those campy artsy type films on a budget. I watched part of it with my fiancé and my future step daughter. We tried very hard to find something in this film to keep our interest. My fiancé and his daughter voted it off and we moved on to Ocean's 13,but that is another story. Not to be deterred I awoke the next morning and gave the movie another shot. I began again watching this movie in earnest. I just don't get it,I thought I would get it.I thought the funniest part was the flushing of the ashes and the urn finding a spot by the fireplace being used as a vase for what appeared to be dead flowers. Interesting and still it had dead stuff inside. It was an odd and bizarre movie. Maybe this is what they were after,however I won't be tricked a second time!


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


user
As I watch this film, it is interesting to see how much it marginalizes Black men. The film spends its time showing how powerless the most visible Black man in it is (save for an heroic moment). For much of the film, the other Black men (and dark-skinned Black women) in the film are way in the background, barely visible.
Vanessa Williams' character was strong and sympathetic. The viewer can easily identify and sympathize with her. There are also some fairly visible and three-dimensional support characters who are light-skinned, and some White characters of some warmth and dignity. But 99% of the Black males in this film are nothing but invisible men. Voiceless shadows in the background, of no consequence. Such a horrible flaw, but anything but unusual in the mainstream media.


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


user
Caught this movie on the tube on a Sunday. I thought it was so bad I looked it up on IMDb to see what others thought of it. I was not surprised at the amount of silly people who enjoyed this fluff. I was however surprised when I looked into the comments to read the Hated It categories only to find that their were none. I was shocked at this; I always look at the hated it's as their are always those who hate a movie no matter how good it is. Somehow this movie made it through unscathed by the haters I say nay to that and proclaim proudly that I HATE THIS MOVIE! I know I should go into detail about why I hate this movie but to do so would only grant this movie more respect than it deserves.


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


user
In his brief 40 years on Earth, author Jack London managed to cram as much adventure and incident as would seem possible. This 90-minute film, purportedly a biography of the man's life but patently fictionalized, doesn't even scratch the surface, and remains a story very ripe for a modern-day retelling. Here, Michael O'Shea, in one of his first roles, portrays London, and his performance is both rugged and sympathetic. He is not the problem here. Nor is a young and very beautiful Susan Hayward, playing his future wife, Charmian, whose biography on London is the "basis" for this film. London's life has here been broken down into a series of episodes, which the film skips lightly through. So we have brief incidents with London as an oyster pirate, a sealer in the Bering Sea, a gold prospector in the Yukon and a correspondent during the Russo-Japanese War...colorful events, for sure, but hardly given anything like in-depth treatment. And Alfred Santell's direction (he also directed one of Susan's first films, "Our Leading Citizen," in 1939) is lackadaisical at best. Making things rougher here is a very poor-quality DVD, with a crummy-looking print source and hissy sound. Perhaps the best thing about this movie rental, for me, was one of the DVD's extras: a catalog of all the Alpha Video films, featuring hundreds and hundreds of full-color movie posters. Let's just hope that these films are in better shape than "Jack London"!


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


user
Hollywood's attempt to turn Jack London's life into a "Jack London" adventure film isn't a bad idea; certainly, he led an interesting, and sometimes adventurous, life. This film, however, winds up flat and unsatisfying. Most importantly, it lacks integrity. Michael O'Shea (as London) has some Londonesque speeches; and, it's nice to see his bearded Jack receive "The Call of the Wild" after spending some quality time alone, in the snowy mountains, with his dog, "Buck". Virginia Mayo and Susan Hayward are both very pretty. The film draws unfortunate "Yellow Peril" parallels between London's life and World War II, which are both strained and insulting.
** Jack London (11/24/43) Alfred Santell ~ Michael O'Shea, Susan Hayward, Virginia Mayo


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


user
OK, aside from the psychedelic background imagery, the info presented here was good. The music I could have done without (not that it was bad music, just that it didn't fit this film at all).
As for the content of the film, the director brings up the often-lacking Pagan perspective on Christ's existence and a startling comparison of the deeds and events of Christ's life vs. the lives of mythological figures/deities such as Mithra and Dionyses. Then he brings up the chronology of Christianity's origins and presents an 'ok' case, but not one that blew me away.
If the director had stuck with the facts and continued on with them, this film would have been good. However, at this point in the film, it disintegrates into a group of personally-gratifying attacks on Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" and a Christian private school which the director attended in his youth. During an interview with his old principal, (which during the course of, it comes to light that the director set up under false pretenses) I felt that the director was acting sort of childish. He was asking good questions but, like the film itself, the interview crumbled into an attack on this particular private school's rules, not Christianity.
All in all, if you're just interested in some info, watch the first 30 minutes or so and then shut it off.


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 an incorrigible skeptic and agnostic and was thus expecting to enjoy this film. After watching it, however, I honestly believe that I could have made a better documentary myself. Its arguments appear to have only four spurious sources (despite his being listed in the credits on IMDb I didn't see Richard Dawkins anywhere), it's edited together crudely with laughably amateurish computer effects, and it doesn't make even the slightest attempt to appear impartial. The narration is pervaded throughout with a sneering, almost adolescent anti-Christian sentiment, ruining any possibility that the film might actually change someone's mind as opposed to just preaching to the choir (i.e. me). Though there is some interesting discussion of the historicity of Jesus, the movie hits an unbearable snag when it begins to dwell heavily on the Christian school which the director attended as a child, an institution which apparently scarred him badly psychologically as it obsesses him to this day.
Though TGWWT obviously had a low budget, there was still an opportunity here to make an intelligent commentary on the highly questionable roots of Christianity. There's certainly a dearth of skeptically-minded religious documentaries on the market, and this film could have helped fill the void. Instead, the director chose to insult our intelligence with this piece of garbage, which in the end appears to be some sort of therapeutic exercise for him. It's too bad that his Christian upbringing traumatized him, but he needn't subject an audience to his coping mechanism.


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


user
Really no reason to examine this much further because of a few very glaring and bias misleading statements.
A perfect example is when the filmmaker claims "Saul" or Paul of Tarus (the writer of The Book of Hebrews He asserts) has no idea Jesus is or was a human being, this assertion is either purposely false as he accuses others of presenting, or he is ignorant of what "The Bible" says.
first we can examine his misleading claim about Hebrews 8.4; which he shows a quote "If Jesus was on earth, he would not be a priest", hence right here He sets up the ignorant and unlearned viewer to accept his false premise.. why? He does what most so called Bible believing people he accuses of doing, the same.. That is TAKING things out of context.
verse one of Hebrews 8 is; 1.."Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens" The context above is CLEARLY speaking of a Jesus who was on earth and ASCENDED into heaven after his alleged resurrection.
It has nothing to do with how the filmmaker wants the viewer to take his out of context scripture. Here he offers a foundation, that "Paul was not aware of a HUMAN Jesus, but only one in "heaven"
follow?
lets see if the filmmaker is being honest; Hebrews 7; 14. "For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood."
heh, didn't the filmmaker just quote from the writer of Hebrews trying to show the writer of that book has no knowledge of a "Human Jesus"? it's likely anyways Paul didn't write Hebrews, but I will not go into that here, but The film maker asserts Paul did, and that is the premise of the point given here.
It is not like this film maker does not make decent points in certain areas, he does, but he is engaging in the same blind bias of the religion he is bashing on. Once he engages in these tactics, in my strong opinion, he loses credibility as the religion he picks out, and the film is no longer a documentary, but a personal opinion, and a bias of the film maker, nothing more, nothing less.


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


user
Let me start by saying that I totally agree with the basic thesis of the film, that there probably was no historical Jesus and Christianity is a sham. With that said, this movie does a pretty poor job of proving that thesis. It makes good arguments--the gap between Jesus' theoretical life and the writing of the Gospels, filled only by the writings of Paul, who doesn't indicate a historical Jesus--and then utterly fails to convincingly argue them. It makes broad statements without presenting the evidence the statements are based on, and it resolutely ignores counter-arguments presented by Christian apologists. The intellectual dishonesty, emotional manipulation, and lack of serious argument are obvious, and stunning. The only Christians we hear from in the film are the head of the filmmaker's old school--who comes off like a reasonable, rational person attempting to deal with a twit with a chip on his shoulder--and various Christians encountered apparently at random in a parking lot. I'm sorry, but revealing that average Christians don't know much about their religion isn't exactly damning evidence of Christianity's fraudulence. You may as well claim that Jay Leno has disproved the existence of Michael Dukakis on his Jay-Walking segment. The interviews with experts can be interesting, but the film is filled with too much of, let's be honest, the filmmaker just being snarky. Within the first five minutes the film has already conflated Jerry Falwell with Charles Manson and the writers of the Left Behind series with the Branch Davidians. And by the end, the film becomes so self-centered that there's no rational argument left, just an angry former Christian lashing out at the people and places he blames for his messed up childhood. Y'know, maybe that movie could've been interesting, but it's misplaced in a documentary about the historicity of Jesus, and it's so self-congratulatory as to deflate any sympathy. This is a Michael Moore film without the humor or the film-making acumen combined with a Richard Dawkins book without the wit or the intellectual rigor. Skip it.


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


user
I'm actually surprised at the amount of good ratings this anti-Christian pseudo-documentary got. Now, I respect the guy's opinion and faith, I myself am not, at this state, believer of the taught Christian doctrine. However, anti-Christian propaganda is somewhat of a different issue.
This film has valid points, but they are very few and represented in a very biased context. I'm not recommending against seeing it. In fact, I think everyone should see it and decide on their own whether they believe it or not. And this is actually more of a chance than the one the director gives to Christian teachings. Rather than an inquiring approach on the subject, it looks like a personal vendetta on the Christian school that affected his childhood. It also misrepresents the Christians most of the times as either incredibly naive or fundamentalists, no moderation in between.
The director uses movie scenes from Passion of Christ without permission, sets up an interview with the headmaster of his former school and presents almost solely anti-Christian historians and writers. I actually found the headmaster to be the most down-to-earth person and think that his attitude was fully justified. I also strongly doubt that any of the Christian believers who were interviewed were consulted afterwords or even told before the interview the purpose of the inquiry.
With this being said, there are certainly new and interesting facts to be found here and some very original thoughts on the question of Christianity. But the way in which this whole think is produced is often offensive, highly unprofessional and dreadfully biased.


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


user
This documentary film is based on incomplete considerations of the evidence, in which Brian Flemming, perhaps purposely, fails to mention important evidence to the contrary. Perhaps his most crucial mistake is one of the earliest: His claims concerning the invalidity of Paul's testimony about Jesus Christ disregard key facts, like: **The existence of some formulated creeds within Paul's letters. These creeds suggest that most of the central claims about Jesus were already formulated into statements of faith possibly within a few years of Christ's death and resurrection. **The testimonies of the early Christians can't just be tossed out as mere fantasy. There were indeed many people claiming to be the Messiah during that period, but only ONE of them has remained: Jesus. Why? Because it would have been preposterous for anyone to have actually believed Christ was the messiah, and go on to die for those beliefs, if they knew that he had not been resurrected. **Even if the Gospels are dated more liberally, we are still talking about accounts of Jesus written within the lifetimes of other eyewitnesses that would have pointed out inaccuracies in these Gospels. And there is evidence that the Gospels were written much earlier.
What I am saying is that Flemming's documentary is an incredibly biased and self-serving piece of work that hodge podges different arguments and evidence to serve his anti-Christian view. Don't be fooled by poor investigation.


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


user
This will be brief. Let me first state that I'm agnostic and not exactly crazy about xtians, especially xtian fanatics. However, this documentary had a tone of the like of some teenager angry at his xtian mother for not letting him play video games. I just couldn't take it seriously. Mentioning how CharlesManson thought he was Christ to illustrate the point that xtianity can breed evil? i don't know it was just cheap and childish -- made the opposition look ignorant. Furthermore, the narrator just seemed snobby and pretentious. The delivery was complete overkill. I can't take this documentary seriously. Might appeal to an angry teenager piss3d off at his xtian mother for not letting him play video games.


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


user
I watched DVD 1 only. The program proper may have 10 minutes of good information; otherwise it's snotty putdowns of religious people. It's as if director Brian Flemming only recently discovered both atheism and sarcasm, and feels with these tools he can easily bludgeon his opposition.
Also, Flemming wanders extensively into his own personal issues, and they take over the movie. It never gets back on topic.
Religious people are prone to discount skeptics when their objections to religion are obviously rooted in abusive upbringings. Arguments from such victimized people seem irrational, and therefore unconvincing.
Anti-religious people will want more data. We don't need to be told that religious people are nutty, any more than American Jews need to be told how annoying Christmas music gets by mid-December.
In the best scene, the Superintendent of Fleming's childhood Christian school rather insightfully confronts the director on his motivations. That seems like the most honest part of the movie, and it was too short.
If Fleming were a bit more self-aware, he might have a good story in him about his own (past & current) relationship to Christianity, and the abusive institutions that indoctrinated him in his youth.
And perhaps he could lend his "Christ never walked the earth" material to a more serious documentarian. I'm not studying the writings of Saul/Paul to find out how air-tight this all is, but a quick browse of Wikipedia suggests most of these arguments are discredited.
The bonus interviews are pretty good, tho they don't bolster Fleming's thesis much. Sam Harris is a good spokesperson for the anti-religious POV, and he doesn't go light on those other, non-Christian religions. Harris also has some good (and easily Google'd) interviews on Salon.com , Amazon.com , and Samharris.org .


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


user
In my opinion this movie advances no new thought. seems to me like taking a spear to a spear without looking to the side! the director seems to have an agenda! Duh! I find that his rational is lacking there does not seem to be room for the alternative view. I for one am usually on the side of the naysayer but this movie lacks credibility as it relies on the fantastic observations of the man/woman on the street. really now if you wish to cr5eate a credible alternative to a creed held onto for 2000+ years you have got to make more of an effort allowing the other side to voice their beliefs. I'm not sure but at the beginning of the movie it felt like an attack on the Cristian faith, I for one am a non believer, but allow for the beliefs of others, and would not wish no ridicule them but try to understand and tolerate.


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 spiritualist and non Christian. I thought i really was going to be holding onto my faith, but what a load of i seers. I thought the film would have great arguments, but only got one sided views from Atheists and Jews??? And who are all these street people he's interviewing who don't know the back of their arm from their head. Where are the proper theologians and priests and stuff he could have got arguments from. Not retired nuts who wrote books and finished their studies in 1970. Personally this DVD was a waste of time and not worth my time to check if the facts are right or wrong or if i should or should not believe because an anti-Christ told me so. Please to think he came up with the conclusion of not finding God because his own ego and demons got the better of him. No im not going to say the movie was stunning to help atheists reading this feel better about themselves. But if you really want to show the world you care about us poor souls who believe in Jesus then entice us with your worth, not your beating off the drums.


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


user
I personally found this movie to be terrible, first it was hardly objective, and provided one side of the debate. The only people who were presented as the side saying he did exist being a bunch of people coming from a Billy Grahm Revival. Secondly it deviated heavily from its supposed topic did Jesus (Yeshua) exist, to talking about how violent Christianity is, and showing scenes from Mel Gibsons "The Passion". In the end it has the director con his former Principal of a Conservative Private School into being interviewed, and attempts to trap him about teaching the kids there faith. Oh and also the Techno Music just made the film harder to watch.


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


user
This documentary begins with an interesting premise -- it makes an intriguing and convincing argument that the history of Jesus as is commonly believed is probably a myth. Sadly, though, after priming us with this, the movie completely shifts gears and becomes little more than a non-stop attack on Christianity, and pretty much focusing on the easy targets.
The writer/director clearly has some issues with the Church (he is a former evangelical Christian and has some legit anger) and this film seems to be his form of release. It'd be interesting to see the first 20 minutes expanded, but as a whole, the movie is disappointing.


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


user
First let me state that I do not believe in god (if you want to use the word atheist, fine, but I don't like that word since it describes what I'm not, not what I am) but I hated this "documentary." The production values were damn near non existent, the premise extremely shaky and whole thing seemed to be an exercise in Brian Flemming's insecurities.
The production values were terrible and Brian Flemming is clearly an amateurish director at best. The narration sounded like he just narrated over the film all in one shot, and he didn't practice at all. There were way to many umms and pauses when he should have been talking in the movie. animation was also pretty damn bad.
The whole idea that Jesus is a mythical character is not taken seriously by historians and biblical scholars. As I stated before, I do not believe in God, and I don't think that whether or not Jesus was a real man says nothing about the existence of God. My personal view, Jesus probably was a real man but he lived in a time where there were many massiah's (look up apollonius of tiana) and that the stories of his life and preaching were blown out of proportion the farther you got from his death. According to the Wikipedia article on the historicity of Jesus (and there's a good citation for this so it's garbage) "virtually all scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[1]" I was left wondering at the end of the documentary if this was more about the director's insecurities than anything else. I was left wondering if he was trying to convince himself more than anyone else. The most telling example of this is the final interview he was with the religious school principal. He's not even coy about it. The way he bombards the teacher is unfair and while I agree with the director partially, that teaching kids about hell fire is a bad thing, the way that Flemming confronted the principal was just awkward to watch. Flemming had a chance to perhaps get a good discussion going, if he was more tactile with his interview. Instead he comes off aggressive with "isn't it bad to teach kids this stuff." The guy cuts the interview short and I mean, what did he expect, the principal to say "oh yes, I see it is, I have seen the light, this will now be a secular school?" It seems that Flemming is getting revenge for what he feels was a wrong done to him in childhood. This isn't about the documentary, this is about Flemming's insecurities, and has nothing to do with the supposed topic of the documentary. Flemming shows what he's really doing here, and that is the real downfall of this so-called documentary.


assistant
0