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
Did I step in something or is that bad smell coming from Daybreak 1 + 2? God was behind everything? What has God got to do with Sci-Fi? God is only the answer when you can't think up a sensible explanation for something. In fact, this is exactly the problem with the series finale - they obviously couldn't think up sensible explanations for the multitude of big questions that were raised throughout the series such as how Kara Thrace come back from the dead in a brand new viper, how her old viper and charred body ended up on Earth 2, why Baltar has an imaginary 6 in his head, why 6 has an imaginary Baltar in her head, etc. so they explain it with "angels" or just don't explain it at all.
The plot of the last 2 episodes had holes big enough to fly a Basestar through. For example, why does Galactica and its crew go on a suicide mission to rescue one girl (Hera), particularly after Adama said there was no way he'd attempt a rescue? Because they found out the location of the Cylon base? That's not a good reason to sacrifice the crew's lives. And how did Anders know the location? And what was the point of the flashbacks to the major characters' lives before the war? It's like they forgot to do it earlier so they threw something in at the last moment.
The people who wrote the last two episodes could not have been the same writers who created what has been so far a sensational series. Feels like the script writing was take over by evangelical Christians on a mission to spread 'The Word'. Forget trying to tie up the loose ends in the plot, the important message the writers wanted to get across is: don't put your faith in technology as it will lead to your destruction; God is your ultimate salvation (tough luck if you have an illness that needs medical treatment).
Imagine in the final movie of the Star Wars series they tell you there is no "force"... instead, a Jedi actually gets his power from Jesus. Then they fly their spaceships into the nearest star and go live in the forest with the Ewoks. Would this be a good ending? No it frakken' wouldn't.


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


user
The fight scenes were great. Loved the old and newer cylons and how they painted the ones on their side. It was the ending that I hated. I was disappointed that it was earth but 150k years back. But to travel all that way just to start over? Are you kidding me? 38k people that fought for their very existence and once they get to paradise, they abandon technology? No way. Sure they were eating paper and rationing food, but that is over. They can live like humans again. They only have one good doctor. What are they going to do when someone has a tooth ache never mind giving birth... yea right. No one would have made that choice.


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


user
Horrible ending - and I can't believe Moore spent a year coming up with it. Smacks of L. Ron Hubbard and Dianetitcs, which Hubbard claimed to pen in just three weeks. This was actually disappointing enough for me to toss my discs from the first 3.5 years. Now, the first 1.5 hours were action packed, though absurd in the premise, and then it deteriorated into a slow, painful, sophomoric dissolution of the series. Unbelievable how slow and drawn out that last hour was. Were we to think more deeply? If I wanted a lesson in a-materialism, I would reread Daniel Quinn's Ishmael. Absurd to think 38K people would give up everything for a "fresh start". Absurd to throw in a disappearing Kara, and a reappearing Baltar and Six. Absurd to throw in the Mitochondrial Eve. Just absurd.


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


user
I loved the first season. The quality went down a little bit in the second season, which however had a great middle (Pegasus!). Third season was fairly novel and original and was OK. Fourth season started going downhill fast, because they never even began giving us any explanations, when by now we were really starting to need them. What the hell was the Cylon plan? Why were there two Cylon factions? What was the point of Angel-Kara leading the fleet to a devastated Earth-1? What kind of a past did the last five Cylons have, and how did they survive, or were they reincarnations? Questions everywhere, answers nowhere.
And then comes the end. Earth-2 (our Earth) in the past. Well, okay. But destroying the fleet?! Giving up technology and giving up any kind of urban life, and spreading a few thousand people paper-thinly across the planet?! That's not only anti-science, it's anti-reason and anti-life. And the philosophy of the show then seems to be that humanity is forever trapped in a cycle going from nature romanticism to a decadent capitalist society inventing destructive A.I. that ruins everything. It is without vision, without hope for a grander future for humanity, and it is antithetical to proper science fiction. And don't even get me started on the angels! Religious claptrap of the worst kind! The ultimate disappointment!!
The whole "all this has happened before and will happen again" thing should have related to the previous incarnation of the series, not just to Earth as we know it. Making the new show somehow consistent with the old would have been the definitive stroke of genius. Frakkin shame.
1 out of 10.


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


user
There are many good things about the new BSG: There's the multiple Cylon roles for Model 8 and 6, for example, which the two actresses played superbly. There's the old school feel of industrial design aboard Galactica ("My ship will not be networked, over my dead body!") Also, all the space battles, the special effects (even though the seasoned sci-fi watcher will acknowledge the cartoonishness of it all) The darkness of the characters, their essentially flawed nature.
That makes it all the more bitter that the ending was so childish.
Yes, the first part, the scenes in space, the raid on the Cylons and all that was very good. But the mushy ending? I always watch films and shows these days with the timer hidden, so I never know how much time is left until the end. So for me it was a special kind of torture, to see the end happen over and over again. Every time I thought, oh this is the final scene, the final shot, I got one more. Every frakking character got its complete ending! That wasn't really necessary.
What really highlighted the schoolboy amateurishness of it all: The young Roslin scenes. Why is important for us to know that: {a} she lost her sisters and father in a horrible accident and {b} that she has a one night stand with a former pupil/student? What does that bring to the story? Where was the linkage? Now, I'm all for a more European-ish style approach, and a random acts of whateverness in films and shows, and all that, but this was just ridiculous. This didn't bring anything meaningful to the story.
Also, I've seen the "Last Frakkin special" and in it Ron revealed his own cluelessness about the plot: he couldn't come up with a good ending for the story, so .... he just didn't! It's never as much about the characters as they made the last episode to be. The whole "this was thousands of years in the past" idea, the mitochondrial Eve thing, was also used in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, and believe you me, there are a lot of BSG watchers who know that particular H2G2 storyline. And speaking of Hera, now there's a storyline that WAS NOT worked out well, AT ALL. Instead we get Roslin is doing her former pupil who's 20 years younger. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for older women with younger men. The more power to them. But this ... just made no sense.
All in all, (the writing in) this series is as flawed as they intended its characters would be. That goes even moreso for the last episode. I hope Lost and 24 do better, with their series finales.


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


user
The first half was OK, but the last half really, really disappointed. It's funny the producers even admitted they didn't have a clue for the ending, and it really showed. Whats really sad is i have to write ten lines of comment minimum to be able to post this. I really didn't want to include spoilers to qualify my remarks since the show isn't really worth that effort. When Battlestar galatica first came out I was really excited with the prospect of a better remake, it didn't happen that first season border on being space porn. They eventually cleaned it up a bit and actually had some pretty fair drama, so I started watching again. But to end the series with kara being a cyclon god angel, same with baltar and six was pretty dumb.


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


user
Did anyone else feel as betrayed as I did? The first hour or so was pretty solid but the last. Oh my god. It seemed like it was predictable and cheesy. Not grandiose and epic like the entire run of the show has been. Most reviews have read have been glowing but I really can't understand why. I had seriously predicted that general ending WAY earlier on but then retracted it because I thought "No, they would never do that, that's FAR too lame." I can hardly stand it. I feel so unsatisfied. I think i'm about to walk out the door to go sell every season I own. Someone please. Change my mind. I want to love this. SO bad. Someone tell me why I'm wrong. Great show. Terrible ending.


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


user
Well, they say nymphomania leaves you unsatisfied. I don't know if Stella James (Sean Young) qualifies as a clinical nymphomaniac, but she certainly is in to sexual relations with men. She's still exploring, trying to find "more data" so she can see what she wants from life and the men in it, though it seems like at her age she should have a pretty good idea by now. (I can't agree, however, with anyone who says Young is too old for the role. If she is, we should all age so nicely.) For the most part this film left me cold, though it's by no means the worst of its type you'll ever see. And unlike the recent 'Eyes Wide Shut,' at least something happens in this one.


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


user
I hate this movie. It is a horrid movie. Sean Young's character is completely unsympathetic. Her performance is wooden at best. The storyline is completely predictable, and completely uninteresting. I would never recommend this film to anyone. It is one of the worst movies I have ever had the misfortune to see.


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


user
This movie is great, mind you - but only in the way it tells a very BAD story. Stella is so terribly crude, and never learns better. Her husband is incredibly snobby and small-minded. Neither ever learns better. Is this realistic? Somehow, Stella understands that her daughter is ashamed of her gaudy manners & dress, yet cannot understand that she just needs to tone it all down? I don't think so. Stella is a GOOD woman, and a VERY GOOD mother. Giving up herself, so her daughter can be associated with a bunch of bigoted snobs is disgusting.
Much of what we see might have been normal for the times - people having a beer or two, enjoying a player piano, dancing - but it is made out to be some sort of moral inferiority. "I can't have our child living this way!" Spare me.
This story tells me one thing: that the Unwashed Working Class cannot ever hope to aspire to the heights of the Upper Classes. And that is simply a load of hogwash.


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


user
i should love this movie . the acting is very good and Barbara Stanwyck is great but the the movie has always seemed very trite to me . the movie makes working class people look low and cheap .the fact that the daughter is ashamed of her mother and that the daughter does not rise above it has always made me a bit uneasy . Barbara Stanwyck as the mother worships the daughter but the daughter forgoes a mothers love to find happiness with her well to do fathers family . i wonder how many others who have seen this film feel this way about it.again the acting was very very good and worth watching . i really don't like the story line . just a personal preference .thank you


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


user
so... it's really sexist, and classist, and i thought that it might not be in the beginning stages of the movie, like when stella tells steven that she would really like to change herself and begin speaking in the right way and he tells her not to change. well, he certainly changed his tune, and it seems that the other reviewers followed suit. what at the beginning appears to be a love story is really about social placement and women as sacrificial mothers. the end of the movie does not make her a hero, it makes the whole thing sad. and its sad that people think it makes her a hero. perhaps that is the comment of the movie that people should take away. positive reception reflects continual patriarchal currents in the social conscience. yuck.


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


user
Firstly, I am not easily scared by... Anything except for my few phobias, but this movie is absolutely horrific. This is not appropriate for children at all! I had my mouth open the whole time it just shocked me I. Couldn't believe how gory it was for a children's movie, bunnies being brutally murdered! It's just unnecessary to be so horrifying and be rated G. I recommend being over 8 to see this. But don't get me wrong, it was probably a good movie if I wasn't scarred mentally as a child. I cannot believe a parent would allow a, let's say, 4 year old child to watch this. It's just to intense and complicated, not to forget gory, for young kids. I'm wayy over 4 and I was shocked by the violence. I don't recommend


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


user
I saw this movie as a very young girl (I'm 27 now) and it scared me witless for years. I had nightmares about every aspect of this film from the way it was drawn to the music to (obviously) the violence. My parents still argue about who allowed me to watch it and both of them say that they would never let me watch such a movie. I think they only say that knowing that I have such strong feelings about it ;0) I am currently reading the book (out of morbid curiosity and the fact that it's a classic) and it is really a great story. However I don't think that it should have been made into a cartoon. Ever. Well, maybe kids nowadays would find it quaint but it gave me nightmares for weeks and weeks and I still have a hard time seeing rabbits drawn in a similar way. Gives me a little heart palpitation every time. Yah I am a wuss but I strongly suggest that any parent looking to show this movie to their kids, read them the book instead or watch it first to make certain that they approve of the content. Not everyone finds it as disturbing as I did but we are out there ;0)


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


user
OK, I know that a lot of people will probably resent this review as Watership Down is a "classic" and a standard part of most people's childhood, but seeing this film for the first time at the tender age of 18, I must admit: I really hated it.
We watched this film because my sister had read the book and really enjoyed it, and many people who whimpered at the very words "Watership Down"- their memories of seeing the film as children and having their emotions torn at the seams- recommended it. To be honest, I wish I hadn't bothered. I gave it the benefit of the doubt; generally I don't like to stop watching a film half way through. This was an exception. It was really, really, excruciatingly, sickeningly dull. This film was possibly the slowest thing I've ever watched (imagine a doped-up snail in space), and really didn't "do it" for me. The art was alright; the backgrounds were nicely made if not a little bland and twee, yet the rabbits themselves were not very endearing and the animation was quite jumpy and poorly produced.
I'm not going to go into huge details about the storyline; basically it is the tale of a group of rabbits who leave their warren due to the infiltration of humans in the area. Generally a moralistic story about the perils of human interactions on the environment, it uses anthropomorphic rabbits to put the message across. For me, I kind of wished that they would get gassed, not because I'm a horrible sadistic person, but because the characters were uninspiring, annoying, dull and generally quite rude (oh I'm so terribly English). I found that I was constantly looking at the clock whilst watching the film, and it took a whole 20 minutes or so before anything actually happened, and even that was a terrible anticlimax.
If I were to praise it in any way, I'd have to admit that the concept of showing children the perils of building on the countryside and hopefully unveiling the arrogance of humans etc etc is quite well-meaning. Maybe it is all in general sanctimonious and preachy, but the message it's trying to put forth is good in its nature. The musical score was not bad, too.
So, to conclude, this film is pretty poor. I couldn't watch it the whole way through, or I'd probably be forced to eat my own legs in sheer boredom. Granted, it isn't "Torque" bad, but it still doesn't rate highly in my eyes, so I've given it a 2/10.
Hope this helps.


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


user
Probable reasons why so many people on this site have enjoyed this:
1. They might not have read the book. 2. They might enjoy gore and violence in a film. 3. They might be very young and therefore not understand the violence. 4. People might not understand how somehow more scary and more violent it is compared to the original book. 5. There are sure to be many other reasons not covered here.
The only thing I liked about this film is the song "'Bright Eyes".
If perchance, you happen to be one of those people who has read the book, enjoys calm and peaceful films without violence and are quite old and understand scariness and violence, you are sure not to like this. Otherwise you will almost definitely enjoy this.
Like in the book, a rabbit called Fiver in an unsuspecting warren warns of terrible danger to come. Only a few rabbits - including his brother Hazel - believe him and they set out on a dangerous journey to find a new place to live...


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 NOT A CHILDREN'S MOVIE!!!
This movie is like a "bad acid trip" for kids under the age of 5. For a month my 4 year old from time-to-time would ask me "Why was that rabbit bleeding from its mouth" or "Why did the bulldozer bury all the rabbits?". (And that wasn't the worst of it). We stopped it about a 1/2 hour in but the damage had been done. Intensely morbid, oppressive, violent. Fortunately he's finally forgotten about the whole wretched thing. Whomever decided this movie should be marketed to children should be brought up on charges. ... (Go ahead censure me, my conscience is clear.).


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


user
This would've been a *great* silent film. The acting really is good, at least in a Look Ma, I'm Doing Really Big Acting! sort of way.
Everything is HUGE. Every line is PROFOUND! Every scene is SHATTERED BY HUMAN TRAGEDY!
Mostly, I felt like gagging. Yet, like any train wreck, I couldn't tear my eyes away. This dialogue might've worked on the stage, although I doubt it. On the screen, it was cluttered, haphazard, hackneyed and pretty much every other stereotypical negative adjective you can come up with to describe a really bad dramatic work.
If you enjoy your melodrama in huge, heaping doses, you *might* enjoy the movie. Be prepared to wait, however. For all that melodrama, this thing sure plods along at its own pace.
This script must've sounded a lot different when the actors involved were reading it to themselves. It simply doesn't work once they get around to delivering it in front of the camera.
IMDB does us a great disservice, at times, when it uses its goofy computer-controlled "weighted score". Curse of the Starving Class deserves less than a 1.
Character-driven fiction is great, but when you develop your characters by simply pushing them through hoops with no plausible explanation for their maturation or evolution, it isn't character development! Your characters must have a motivation. Being drunk for a while and waking up in a field is *not* character development. That's a plot contrivance.
Stay away from this movie. Or at the very least, watch it muted. Perhaps you'll get some amusement from all the arm-waving the characters do.
Oh, and word to the wise -- to prove that this is truly an artsy film, you see James Woods in all his dangly male "look-at-me, I'm-the-figurative-and-literal-representation-of-the-naked-vulnerability-of- man" glory.
Don't say you weren't warned.


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


user
Before seeing this movie, I would've said that I loved everything Kathy Bates has done. Now it's everything-minus-one. James Woods is pathetic...not his character, his acting. Someone should've told him that "poor" is not synonymous with dirty, nor ignorant, nor cliche. Ditto for Randy Quaid's stereotyping. The only redeeming feature is Henry Thomas, who isn't a strong enough actor to carry this sodden mess. If you enjoy the country, you'll enjoy the scenery. That's the best I can give it.
I'm a serious fan of both independent and quirky films, but this is simply terrible.


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


user
2 stars out of a possible 10 - and that is being overly generous.
I thought with a cast of James Woods, Cathy Bates, Randy Quaid, Lou Gossett, Jr., and Henry Thomas - how could it miss. I was wrong.
I can only wonder what drugs Sam Shepard was on the week-end he cranked out this piece of dribble. I'd long suspected Sam S. of being kind of nuts, this film, based on his play, confirms it.
This is the kind of artsy b.s. that actors LOVE to sink their teeth into as it gives them a chance to endlessly emote. However, for the viewer who sits through this nonsensical trash, there is absolutely NOTHING to love about this movie.
You haven't seen dysfunctional families until you've seen this bunch. Pa is crazy, Ma is crazy, the son is crazy and the daughter is, oh yeah, crazy. They also have mouths on them that utter words that would make a sailor blush, especially the teenage daughter.
In addition to the above, as if that weren't enough, the plot--and it's so thin you could read thorough it--has a hole in it the size of Alaska.
Ma is conspiring to sell their rundown farm. As it turns out so is Pa. Now I don't claim to be a real estate expert, but the last time I checked, property jointly owned must have both of the owners signatures in order to be sold. If only one of them owned the property, then the other could not legally sell it, so it would be pointless for that person to do so. Mr. Shepherd prefers to ignore this basic fact, and therefore, his plot does not work.
Not that anything else was really working anyway.
The only possible reason anyone could have for watching this film is if they are absolutely desperate to see James Woods in full frontal nudity, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to.


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 an extremely silly and little seen film about slavery in the West Indies and it stars Puddy from the "Seinfeld" show! Patrick Warburton made his film debut in this contrived movie and he's noticeably slimmer here. Oliver Reed got top billing but he's hardly in the film at all. Warburton plays a white slave and its funny to see all the young and horny wives of rich old men bidding on him because they all want to have sex with him. Eartha Kitt plays an owner of a bordello and they're is so much nudity in the film. If its not drunken orgies at the bordello then its the young wives having they're turn with him. Then of course towards the end the slaves revolt and there's the bloody standoff. No real political message like the film "Burn" but just another contrived plot device to move the story along. Incredibly they made a sequel and Warburton and all the rest of the cast came back! I hope they got paid a lot of dough because this first film is pretty bad. The nudity keeps it watchable and Warburton's lack of any accent make it at times laughable. Very bad film but I got to admit that I want to see the sequel.


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


user
There are no reasons to watch this movie. Should you have won and extreme amount of money and having spent your time discovering life's every pleasure and have come to a point where by chance you are at a loose end and have some time to kill (like that would ever happen) then get this movie from the video shop (if you can find it AND put up with the assistant laughing at you then ask for this movie. Be prepared however for you mind to be invaded by extremely wooden acting by absolutely everyone (in fact the best acting was by the people who said nothing). Oliver Reed tops off his grand career by playing a drunk - go figure. But wait I forgot there is one reason to watch this movie - Claudia Udy showing her chest! Sadly no other reason 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
this film is in the MANDINGO & DRUM type
they were both dreadful BUT they are 100% better than this tripe,
Badly acted & made Oliver Reed is the main name & Eartha Kitt also is in it. Tis a pity. Rating is 1/2* about as low as yu can get
as always
jay harris


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 funny. I've seen a bunch of Fassbinder films and I have found some to be extremely creative and interesting, while others are repellent and self-indulgent messes--like this film. For me, it ranges from great to crap--without much in the middle. I know he has a lot of fans among the "sophisticated", but I can't help but think that a lot of his appeal is pure hype. From my point of view (and I know I will get a lot of negative ratings for this), he made too many movies too quickly and was too self-indulgent. His gay or gender-bending films (like this one) tend to be really bad--sloppily done, sometimes quite boring (such as QUERELLE and THE BITTER TEARS OF PETRA VON KANT) and sometimes just gross (like this film). Couldn't his message about acceptance of a person's gender-confusion be handled better than showing him get slapped around or watching cows being gruesomely slaughtered? Show some sensitivity for the subject matter and make your characters more human and sympathetic--then, maybe, I'd care about the films.
I'm honestly at the point after watching this film that I might not bother with any more Fassbinder films--the bad seems to be out-weighing the good.


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


user
This is a confused and incoherent mess of interminable scenes of boring dialogues and monologues. That is no exaggeration: you have to make a tremendous effort to even try to become involved with it.
I sincerely thought Fassbinder would make something interesting in order to tell why does Erwin/Elvira suicides at the end, but instead of this, in every scene somebody is trying to explain: "when he was young, this happened..." and "he just came back from Casablanca and ordered to cut everything down there...", etc.
Soon in the movie, Erwin/Elvira is in a slaughter house talking with a friend prostitute (certainly a slaughter house is the best place for a pleasant little chat), and while telling her the story of Elvira's life, Fassbinder shows the killing of one cow after the other. It is difficult to choose between giving attention to the disturbing images or what the transvestite is saying. Of course we come to the very forced and coarse symbolism of "I have suffered much in my life, and am about to die".
In one of the sparse moments where actually happens something, Erwin/Elvira encounters a former lover, that only after performing a extremely gay choreography with two other guys (as if going for the necessary level of homosexuality) is that he recognizes Elvira.
There are some interesting shots and ideas, I must admit (such as when the nun tells the story of the young Erwin), but everything on the movie is wasted due to Fassbinder's self- indulgence.


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


user
As if the storyline wasn't depressing enough, this movie shows cows being butchered graphically in a slaughterhouse for all of five minutes while the protagonist is narrating her early life as a butcher. Weird stuff. Then there's the core premise of the hero/heroine who goes and cuts his dick off because a he's besot-ten with at work says he would have gone with him if he was a girl. Is this person a psycho, a masochist, just a doomed queen who takes things too far? And what sort of traumatic childhood did he have? Just that he didn't get adopted and had to live it out with nuns who at first loved him and then later hated him because he was unruly. He tries to explain to us the reasons he did what he did, but it's really really so hard to empathize. Such sad and unusual self destruction. Was it supposed to be funny? What was it all about really?


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


user
If Fassbinder has made a worse film, I sure don't want to see it! Anyone who complains that his films are too talky and claustrophobic should be forced to view this, to learn to appreciate the more spare style he opted for in excellent films like "The Bitter Tears Of Petra von Kant". This film bogs down with so much arty, quasi-symbolic images it looks like a parody of an "art-film". The scene in the slaughterhouse and the scene where Elvira's prostitute friend channel-surfs for what seems like ten minutes are just two of the most glaring examples of what makes this film a real test of the viewer's endurance. But what really angers me about it are the few scenes which feature just Elvira and her ex-wife and/or her daughter. These are the only moments that display any real human emotion, and prove that at the core of this horrible film, there was an excellent film struggling to free itself. What a waste.


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


user
I found Tremors 4:The Legend Begins, to be dull and boring.All the action scenes were stupid.The so called "GRABOIDS" are reduced to the size of a modern day house cat, if not smaller.The acting was horrendous, and this film was just an unnecessary movie in the Tremor saga, because even though it tells the story of how the graboids were formed, the story is so dumb and useless.Also, if you want to tell a story WAY back in time, make sure you use the SAME ACTOR(Michael Gross), to be someone in the past, when he's someone in the present in the other Tremor movies.Geez...If you haven't seen this film, don't waste your time.Stick to Tremors, 1, 2, and 3, for a good time.This film however, make sure you're remote is sitting right next to you with the STOP button working for a quick retreat away from this nonsense.


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


user
Warning: This review contains minor spoilers.
Well the writers of the first Tremors are officially out of ideas. I'm a big fan of the first movie and the first two sequels are pretty good for straight to video fare. Tremors 4: The Legends Begins, however, is a very dull movie. Where the heck are the Graboids???
Due to the relative lack of Graboids through the first 90 minutes I'm convinced that this entry into the series is suppose to be a "character study". Unfortunately there isn't one interesting character in the movie except for Billy Drago's character who is given too few lines, too little to do and in the end too little screen time. What saved the 2nd and 3rd movies was the presence of Michael Gross as Burt Gummer. Whenever there wasn't any action on the screen you could rest assured that Burt Gummer was going to be interesting to listen too and/or watch. However in this movie Gross plays Hiram Gummer a very poor and boring substitute.
On the plus side when the Graboids (Dirt Dragons in this movie) are on the screen they do look good but that is about as good as it gets.
I was impressed when I saw that Tremors 4 was listed at 101 minutes long. Pretty good for straight to video. But after watching it I'm sure that this movie is a good 15 minutes too long. There are long stretches of dialogue that is boring and doesn't further the plot any. Was there a rush to get this movie made? I think not, more time could have and should have been spent on the script.
I thought I had hit a gold mine when I saw Tremors 4 packaged for sale with....Tremors!!! What luck I thought, pay for #4 get #1 for free. Well after watching Tremors 4 I like to think I paid for the original and got this mess for free, I can't imagine paying a single dime for Tremors 4. For fans of the series it's best to forget that Tremors 4: The Legend Begins even exists.
Tremors 4: The Legend Begins rates a 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
The fourth "Tremors" feature goes back in time, to the year 1889. "The Legend Begins" in the small city of "Perfection", which was then "Rejection, Nevada". As the story begins, seventeen miners are killed by the ghastly "Graboids". Some of the characters in the present-day "Tremors" films have ancestors, both figurative and literal, in the past. Most obvious is the ever-returning Michael Gross (as Hiram Gummer). Unlike his descendant, Mr. Gross is inept with firearms; so, he hires gunslinger Billy Drago (as "Black Hand" Kelly) to shoot 'em up some "Dirt Dragons".
This one takes some getting used to - as it takes place in the distant past. It's like a western with miniature versions of the original film's monster "Graboids". These tamer "Dirt Dragons" are nowhere near as terrorizing as their "Tremors" (1990) counterparts. Consequently, in this film, the characters spend an awful lot of time on the ground, which would not have happened in the original movie. And, it was weird to have the citizens give up the fight so quickly, when Gross temporarily decides to leave town. Why so helpless? Why didn't Brent Roam (as Juan Pedilla) immediately rally the people to fight without Gross? Disappointing.
**** Tremors 4: The Legend Begins (2004) S.S. Wilson ~ Michael Gross, Brent Roam, Billy Drago


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


user
This, the direct-to-video death rattle of the Tremors series, features sixty inspired seconds (sawblade: you'll know it when you see it) and more tedium and filler than you can shake a stick at. Tremors 4 was obviously shot on a cripplingly low budget. That means they only had enough special effects mojo for three or four minutes of precious worm-on-human violence, tops. The lackluster, cliche-spouting cast and hackneyed writing ensure that the remaining hour and a half of the Tremors 4 experience feels at least fifteen thousand years long. Only hardcore Tremors fans will be able to sit through, much less enjoy this film. If you aren't among them- don't bother.


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


user
Just a few words.... This movie really sucks. It's like those TV Movies with bad cast and plot. It's amazing how they could make this sequel worse than the III. Don't waste your time watching this crap, even if you like the tremors movies.


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


user
Well...tremors I, the original started off in 1990 and i found the movie quite enjoyable to watch. however, they proceeded to make tremors II and III. Trust me, those movies started going downhill right after they finished the first one, i mean, ass blasters??? Now, only God himself is capable of answering the question "why in Gods name would they create another one of these dumpster dives of a movie?" Tremors IV cannot be considered a bad movie, in fact it cannot be even considered an epitome of a bad movie, for it lives up to more than that. As i attempted to sit though it, i noticed that my eyes started to bleed, and i hoped profusely that the little girl from the ring would crawl through the TV and kill me. did they really think that dressing the people who had stared in the other movies up as though they we're from the wild west would make the movie (with the exact same occurrences) any better? honestly, i would never suggest buying this movie, i mean, there are cheaper ways to find things that burn well.


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


user
Dear dear dear dear dear...me! I had the strength to see it through... But why?!
The first two films where fun and actually somewhat good. But this is so bad we had problems seeing the whole thing. This was some kind of Tremors for kids. I can't believe this movie was made at all..seems like the props where taken from some bad western series of some kind (for kids) and they just did whatever they could with it.
What audience is this movie for? I can only think of 12-14 year olds. If you're older than 14 you'll have serious problems with this movie. It's not only slow, but it's so utterly boring. The characters are overacted (not just a little either) and so stereotyped it's fun for a while..but not long enough to not make you want to fling tomatoes at the screen. You know everything that is going to happen too, cause yes...you've seen it a BILLION times before in any hero series on TV for kids. I picked all the survivors and all the tremor fodder the second the characters got introduced. It's so bad..so wrong..so...crap.
But OK, we did get a laugh now and then. Not just at the silly plot holes, but some scenes where worth a replay or two...or one scene that is, where two baby tremors fling themselves at one of the obvious tremor fodder guys..It's really a great scene which made us replay it over and over and laugh wholeheartedly. Still makes me grin when I think about it. But that only happened one more time sadly..and that's when the "badass" gunman shows up and overacts his part wonderfully...that and one comment "They spring from the ground like some DEMONIC TROUT!" At this point we where almost crying with laughter. But after that..nothing could ever top that..(?)..so it's pretty much downhill from there.
So tops here are demonic trouts and overacting. If anybody ever tells you this is a good movie...he's either a "plant", vegetable or someone very evil. This movie has got to be the worst of the tremors by far. Looking forward to seeing Tremors 3, it's bound to be box office hit compared to this...this...*goosebumps* no..I'll leave it at that.


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


user
Enough is enough...sometimes they just need to stop making movies based on a concept that is long dead. The first Tremors movie was great. The second one was ridiculous. The third one was nauseating. The tv series was depressingly awful. And this movie just drives the stake deeper.
Basically another excuse for cheap computer effects and puppetry, now we have the series set in the Wild West, in the 1800's, and they fight graboids. Like a rehash of the first one, they have to learn how to beat them all over again. Mildly entertaining I suppose. Otherwise this straight-to-video release, just like Tremors 2 and 3, is just going way too far. Oh and I continue to wonder how there is never any record of these events taking place...did they just simply forget to record this unprecedented event? I think something like this would be history-making, so our pals in the first film wouldn't be so unprepared.
Movies like this that ruin the original just make me crazy. Avoid this garbage.


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


user
One of the major flaws in this film is that while the mocking of pretentious yuppies is satisfying, it fails to realize that the movie makers themselves are guilty of being one of those that deserve to be mocked. One of the characteristics of these yuppie types is the conceited misunderstanding that they (the yuppies) are the only ones sophisticated enough to understand art. While the movie ignores this characteristic and instead focuses on their misunderstandings of dinning, I find it ironic that only people who enjoy this movie boast the same conceited taste in films as the characters do in their choice of dinner. If these pompous characters that were in this movie have a video library at home, I would bet that American Psycho would be one of those movies.


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 nothing wrong with a popcorn movie to keep you off the streets. It's just that some are better than others. This is very poor. The acting is awful, the script dire; and the special effects overrated.
Why does Hollywood treat it's audience with such contempt? And why have they made a sequel?


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


user
Simply not the quality I expected from Morris (love Brass Eye and Blue Jam). This is very much like a not so bad student film. What concerns me, in all this is WHY DID IT WIN A BAFTA??? Morris makes fun of 'enshrined mediocrity' (Ayn Rand) in much of his work (Nathan Barley) and yet with this piece is urinating down the backs of the talented and telling us its raining!
I just hope as he has chosen a subject I would love to tackle (the humanity of terrorism - Four Lions) that he isn't going to cock that up, wasting the opportunity to make a statement about the farce of mainstream ignorance and opinion on this emotive and heavily spun phenomena.


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 filmmaker myself, and possessing a somewhat dark and subversive sense of humour, I thought I was in for a treat when I took home "My Wrongs..." (not that the DVD cover gives anything away, instead opting for the ambiguous quote from controversialist director, Chris Morris, "a short film including scenes"). I should have known better really, and avoided this insipid (and often offensive) piece of twoddle.
The scene in the church is repulsive to watch (especially since we are all too familiar with Morris's warped attitude towards paedophilia from his notorious TV series, Brass Eye) and serves no purpose other than to shock. How this film is labelled a comedy I will never understand.
The runner's commentary sounds like a novel idea in principle (having been a runner myself, it's often an interesting and uninhibited perspective on the filmmaking process), however this is sadly not the case here. Instead, we are treated to some public schoolboy ranting about dogs on film, before concluding that there are no really great movies starring dogs. This is all very interesting, but not worth a single frame of celluloid.
To say that this film goes nowhere would be an understatement. It relies far too heavily upon its heightened style, at the expense of plot, character and dialogue, leaving the viewer strangely perturbed and unfulfilled. Its over-simplified message - that man should take responsibility for his actions - is both glaringly obvious and poorly illustrated.
The film does have its moments of pseudo-Kafkaesque surrealism, but ultimately, it fails to convince, to entertain, to enlighten and just ends up being irritating. If you want to see a really great piece of short filmmaking, I strongly recommend "Franz Kafka's It's A Wonderful Life", by Peter Capaldi.


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 not going to bother with a plot synopsis since you know what the movie is about and there's almost no plot, anyway. I've seen several reviewers call ISOYG an 'anti-rape' film or even a feminist statement, and I just have to chime in on the galling hypocrisy of these claims.
First of all, what do we see on the cover of this movie? That's right: a shapely woman's behind. Whether it was Zarchi's attempt to make an anti-rape statement - and I absolutely don't believe it was - is entirely beside the point. The film is marketing sex and the titillation of sexual assault and the material is so graphic (everything but actual penetration is shown) that NO ONE but the hard core exploitation crowd will enjoy it.
The rape(s) in the film is uncomfortable, brutal and hard to watch. There's something to be said for presenting a horrible crime in such a brutal light, but there was no reason for this scene to go on for seemingly 30 minutes, none. There was also little character development of the victim and only one of the rapists is slightly developed (mere moments before he's murdered) so the scene isn't at all engaging on an emotional level. Really, it's just presented for the sake of showing extreme sexual violence and you can tell by the movies ISOYG is associated with on IMDb (Caligula, Cannibal Ferox, etc.) that it attracts only the exploitation crowd.
Finally, a few reviewers have commended Zarchi's so-called documentary style and lack of a soundtrack. But considering how inept everything else in the film is (acting, script, etc.) I suspect these were financial decisions and the film looks like a documentary because he literally stationed a camera and let his porn-caliber actors do their thing.
I'm not going to get all up on my high horse talking about the content of ISOYG. I'm all for exploitation / horror and love video nasties. In fact, I'm giving this movie three stars only because it truly does push the envelope so much further than some other films. However, it's also poorly made and after the rape occurs, just downright boring for the rest of the film as we watch a bunch of ho-hum, mostly gore-less murders and wait for the credits to roll.
This is probably worth watching once if you're a hardcore 70s exploitation fan but I'm telling you, the movie is overall pretty bad and not really worth its notorious reputation.


assistant
0