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 kinda liked the film despite it's frenzied pace. BUT, I did not appreciate the comment that Canada was referred to as Montana North. It is definitely NOT Montana North and never will be. Americans wonder why they are perceived as arrogant in the rest of the world, and that is one reason why. Stop teaching the kids of the United States of America to think they own the planet. Such a centrist world view is not becoming of one of the world's great nations. Even in jest. I would never refer to the USA as 'Alberta South'. Walt would never put us down, so why start now. Other than that the film was pretty goofy, better luck next time.


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


user
I do agree that though this story by Melville just might be unfilmable, this isn't even a credible try. To move the story into the 20th century just outrages the original story's intent and nature; possibly you might have been able to move it over to England, but it must be a period piece. Even our story narrator--the proprietor--tells it in a flashback, going back even further, somewhere around 1800. Towards the end of the 19th century, a strangely disobedient worker would be discarded without a thought. And the 20th century? Come on! Give me an expletive deleted break!!! Even around 1800, such behavior didn't work very well, in view of the ending. And the movie's ending? I don't know what it was, because I didn't watch the entire travesty--I had to stop. This was like setting "Streetcar Named Desire" in Elizabethan England.


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


user
A noble effort, I guess, but ultimately a poor one. Before seeing this film, I felt "Bartleby, The Scrivener" was unfilmable. After seeing it, I still do. Unfortunately, I think only those who have read the story will understand what is going on, and they will be upset at the film's needless revisions (updating from 1850 to 1970, moving from New York to London). Even the superb talents of Paul Scofield can't salvage what looks to me like a well meaning but misguided effort to film Melville's metaphysical classic.


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 terrible production of Bartleby, though not, as the other reviewer put it because it is "unfilmable," but rather because this version does not maintain the spirit of the book. It tells the story, almost painfully so. Watching it, I could turn the pages in my book and follow along, which is not as much fun when dealing with an adaptation. Rather, see the 2001 version of Bartleby featuring Crispin Glover. That version, while humorous, brings new details to the film while maintaining the spirit of the novel. What's important is the spirit, not the minutiae of things like setting, character names, and costumes. The difference between these film versions is like night and day, tedious and hilarious. This version is a lesson as to what can go wrong if an adaptation is handled poorly, painful, mind-numbing schlock.


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


user
You might be a bit confused if you watch this silly made-for from the beginning, since the credits list Susan Dey as "Special Guest Star." Um, why would a one-off MOW like this have a guest star? Well, if you stick with it, you'll find yourself paying attention to little else but Ms. Dey's butt, wiggling in a flowered bikini as the "Partridge Family" house babe frolics on the beach to which that imaginative title alludes. Susan's derrière is especially compelling when she shakes it at the camera while teasing and tickling her pseudo-disaffected brother in one mildly incestuous scene. Sadly, Susie and her tush fight a losing battle: the jiggle-TV craze that might have put that bottom over the top was three years off, so that sweet booty just gets a supporting role. In 1976 Fat Freddy Silverman would have put that behind right out front and used this flick as Susan's audition tape for "Charlie's Angels." As is, our Susan was denied cheesecake immortality and had to settle for a very commendable career playing somber, neurotic women.
The view beyond Susan's heinie, it must be said, is not very compelling. The scenery is nice, and photographed in a bizarre, hazy way that briefly fools you into thinking there might be some quirky creative intelligence at work behind the camera. Nope. It's just a typically suspense-challenged 70's made-for-TV thriller that allowed weekly series stars to make some extra cash(and collect some cable residuals, though they obviously didn't know that at the time) and show off their "range." Here we're treated to a TV-scale nuclear family, squaring off against TV-scale thugs who can't decide whether they're a motorcycle gang or a hippie cult (thus the filmmakers split the difference by putting them in dune buggies) and have never learned one of the primary lessons of 1970s television: don't mess with Dennis Weaver (see "McCloud" and "Duel"). The only potential for depth in this movie is in the aforementioned teenage-son character of Steve, played by the long-forgotten (if ever-remembered) Kristoffer Tabori, who is supposed to be rebellious and troubled and might feel some sympathy for and attraction to the lawless mob that is (supposedly) menacing his family. But Steve, as played by Tabori (gosh, why didn't we see more from this wunderkind?), is actually just grumpy and moody and isn't one bit conflicted when big D gets serious and draws a line in the proverbial (and literal) sand. For the sleep-deprived and Susan Deyniacs (there must be some of you out there) only.


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


user
I can't believe I waste my time watching this garbage! I did because Leonard Maltin gave it an "AA" rating, and for TV movies this is usually a reliable indicator of some quality entertainment.
The acting was OK, but whoever wrote it should be forever denied access to any medium of communication. The plot is ludicrous, the motivations of the "bad guys" totally absent, and the various family interactions silly and shallow. For example, Dad preaches that violent reaction to aggression is BAD, but he turns out to be an "admirable" person NOT because of his "ignore the idiots" philosophy, but because he's pretty good with his fists...
The ONLY message I was able to glean from this pap was that the nuclear family is Good and alternate living arrangements are Bad. Oh, and Bad people happen to Good people.


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


user
Being born in the 1960's I grew up watching the TV "Movies of the Week" in the early 70's and loved the creepy movies that were routinely shown including "Crowhaven Farm", "Bad Ronald", "Satan's School for Girls", "Kolchak the Night Stalker", etc, but this one is just plain dumb.This is obviously the writer's trying to capitalize on the horrific Manson murders from a few years earlier. The movie stars Dennis Weaver of "McCloud" and "Duel" fame as a father who takes his family camping on a beach. The family encounters some hippies who for some reason decide to terrorize the family. The reason for this is never explained, and Weaver's pacifistic stance is hard to swallow. For God's sake, call the police, beat the hell of them or something, just don't sit there and whine about it. The acting is pretty lame, the story unbelievable, etc. Susan Dey looks cute in a bikini but that's about it. Ignore this if it ever airs on TV.


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


user
The story is a little slow and a little stupid. Greta Garbo doesn't look very good and I couldn't understand half the things she said because of her accent, which was exaggerated for this role. Melvyn Douglas, meanwhile, plays his normal unlikeable role and Constance Bennett is just so-so except for a couple of her screams, which were funny.
On the plus side, Roland Young had the best role in the film. I wish he had more lines, as he disappeared in the second half of the story. Also, it was interesting to see Ruth Gordon look so young. I had only seen her in those crazy roles she played from the late '60s to the '80s and a whacked out old woman. Story-wise, the best part might have been the final few minutes when we see a stunt man doing amazing things on skis, pretending to be Douglas falling down the slopes. That was amazing and humorous footage.
Overall, I can see where this film - Garbo's last - was not a box-office success. It just drags too much, going on and on about deceptions. It's an annoying story. Garbo knew it, too, and called it quits.


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


user
It seems a shame that Greta Garbo ended her illustrious career at the age of 36 with this ridiculous mistaken-identity marital romp. Coming off the success of her first romantic comedy, Ernst Lubitsch's masterful "Ninotchka" (1939), where she was ideally cast as an austere Russian envoy, Garbo is reunited with her leading man Melvyn Douglas for a sitcom-level story that has her playing Karin Borg, a plain-Jane ski instructor who impulsively marries publishing executive Larry Blake when he becomes smitten with her. Once he makes clear that work is his priority, Karin inadvertently decides to masquerade as her high-living twin sister Katherine to test her husband's fidelity when he is back in Manhattan.
It's surprising that this infamous 1941 misfire was directed by George Cukor, who led Garbo to her greatest dramatic performance in 1937's "Camille", because this is as unflattering a vehicle as one could imagine for the screen legend. Only someone with Carole Lombard's natural sense of ease and mischief could have gotten away with the shenanigans presented in the by-the-numbers script by S.N. Behrman, Salka Viertel and George Oppenheimer. MGM's intent behind this comedy was to contemporize and Americanize Garbo's image for wartime audiences whom the studio heads felt were not interested in the tragic period characters she favored in the thirties.
However, Garbo appears ill-at-ease mostly as the bogus party girl Katherine and especially compared to expert farceurs like Douglas and Constance Bennett as romantic rival Griselda. Photographed unflatteringly by Joseph Ruttenberg, Garbo looks tired in many scenes and downright hideous in her teased hairdo for the "chica-choca" dance sequence. The story ends conventionally but with the addition of a lengthy physical sequence where Larry tries to maneuver his skis on a series of mountain cliffs that unfortunately reminds me of Sonny Bono's death. Roland Young and Ruth Gordon (in a rare appearance at this point of her career) show up in comic supporting roles as Douglas' associates. This movie is not yet on DVD, and I wouldn't consider it priority for transfer as it represents a curio in Garbo's otherwise legendary career. She was reportedly quite unhappy during the filming. I can see why.


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


user
I've never understood the appeal of Garbo. She always comes across in her films as stuck up, not all that alluring, and that annoying voice that could have drowned out the tuba section. She was also a very limited actress, like Gloria Swanson far better off left in the silent era. In this her last film, her performance is very average and even unassured. She tries hard but it all comes to nothing because the script is even worse than her acting.
A would be screwball romcom that is never once believable and never gets off the ground (even though Melvyn Douglas manages to get airborne in the skiing scenes, which are really the only amusing thing here).
There was potential but the script fails in almost every department, wasting every actor in it. Douglas and Garbo had good enough chemistry together but this one isn't even a spot on Ninotchka, which I also found to be extremely overrated.


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


user
Payback is the game being played in this drama and the revenge plot is undone by the absurd story line that sets the stage for the fireworks that come later. Why would a man become involved with the trophy wife of a ruthless mob boss in the gangster's own mansion with suspicious henchmen all around? Why would an unhappy wife encourage the attentions of a complete stranger and expect him to carry her away with him and leave her husband and boredom behind to live happily ever after with her new love? Surely the hero, here Kevin Costner, must have expected a reaction from the cuckold husband that gives the movie an excuse to indulge in senseless gore and violence. Anthony Quinn, great actor that he was, surely deserved better, and Madeleine Stowe is the tragic figure who suffers greatly as she latches on to her prince charming. Stowe is okay but her Spanish accent doesn't work. The cameos of the lesser players are good, especially Miguel Ferrer and John Leguizamo and Sally Kirkland is interesting as a fading rock star.


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


user
Faces are slashed, throats are cut, blood squirts, and in end the three main characters are either depressed or they die. They even blow up Kevin Costner's dog with a shotgun. Why would anyone want to see a movie like this? Violence is valid only when the good guys kill the bad guys, not the other way around. Take for instance Underworld and Underworld Evolution where you can enjoy seeing justice done when the demons are slain. In this movie, the good guys are cut up. See the difference? Why would anyone want to MAKE a movie that depresses the audience? Beautiful photography and skilled editing in a motion picture like this is a waste of talent. Let's put this one into the category of the exquisite corpse.


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 wastes virtually every actor's talents in what could best be charitably called a "potboiler".
Despite it's action-packed 'Top Gun' opening it is all downhill from there with plenty of stereotypes and unlikely situations following each other until you try to choke yourself on your popcorn.
There are so many dead-end story lines in this movie I was guessing at one point it was made by splicing together a discarded TV series.
Quinn's Mexican drug-lord role is laughable and his 'associates' plucked right out of a 1970's Quinn-Martin cop show. Costner's character is wooden and gives us no reason to believe he actually fell in love with Mendez' wife. Nor are we convincingly led to believe the wife is aching for companionship and will jump the first hot body coming along.
Definitely a 'B' movie at best and a huge waste of time for everyone involved.


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 watched this movie and I've gotta say that with such a great premise and great talent this turkey just lays there!!! A friend lent me this movie and I watched with an open mind mainly because he had such high praise for the story.
Well, the movie started off with Kevin Costner as a fighter pilot retiring... why? Why did they make him a fighter pilot? He was supposedly going to be hired by Anthony Quinn's character to be his new pilot... well, we never see Costner go near a plane for the rest of the movie!
Costner runs into a Texan (James Gammon) selling a horse to a big Mexican businessman and Costner tags along for a ride. Without knowing what happened, Gammon is beat to near death and Costner drives him to the meeting, which happens to be with an associate of Quinn! But, nothing comes of it... nada, zilcho! Why did they have Gammon's character? Why did they have the horse sale with the Quinn associate if nothing was to come of it?
Also, after they leave Costner for dead, they make Madeline Stowe's character become a whore, then she attacks one of Quinn's men that was paying for a turn... she stabs him with his own knife, and the next thing she's been moved to a convent! No explanation as to why she was moved, or when it was done!
Too much talent wasted on such a weak script and poor editing!! I only watched this because a friend owned it and let me watch it... I'm going to throw it at him for the 2 hours I wasted of my life watching the blasted thing!


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


user
Revenge on us the viewing public perhaps. I sat through this 2 hour movie and i was waiting for the second act to kick in so that the movie lived up to its title. But Costner never avenges his lovers fate she dies and the movie ends. I was left wondering where the rest of the movie was. If a movie is called Revenge then the hero better get some by the end of the film. I had a choice of seeing this or Black Rain at the cinema thankfully i saw The other brothers movie at the cinema instead.i caught up with this turkey on video. there was one good thing about the film and was its beautiful theme tune. Listen to the cd.dont watch this its awful. 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
This has to be some of the worst direction I've seen. The close-up can be a very powerful shot, but when every scene consists of nothing but close-ups, it loses all its impact.
Tony Scott has some very beautiful scenery to work with, the backdrops of Mexico, the cantinas, the beautiful estate where Anthony Quinn lives, and the dusty towns Costner rolls through on his journey for revenge. Unfortunately we only catch quick glimpses of these places before the camera cuts to a picture of a big, giant head. Even the transition scenes where Costner is driving alone across Mexico quickly cut to a close-up.
The score is over-dramatic and intrusive, dictating every emotion we should feel. The story itself should have been handled much better. Among other things, too many people pop up out of nowhere to help Costner along - it's just bad writing.
It's a typical thriller storyline, but many others have taken the same premise and done outstanding things with it. Costner's No Way Out had a somewhat similar storyline, but it was a much better movie.
The ending was completely anticlimactic and suffered from the most melodramatic scoring of the film. This movie was never going to be great, but if we saw more of Mexico and less of giant heads this film might have been watchable.


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


user
Sorry - this movie is just a cheap TV-Production. I saw very much promotion Material and expect a professionell Movie like "Stormriders" - what i was presented was a Low-Budget-Movie like "XENA" or "Hercules" on TV. No Atmosphere, very boring, more then worse Fight-Scenes. Some good ideas - not more. I hope i will get the Chance to make a movie like this and then i show how to do such a movie!!!
My ASIAN-Tips: "MUSA - THE WARRIOR", "STORMRIDERS", "SHAOLIN SOCCER", "BATTLE ROYAL", "VERSUS", etc.
Sorry for my bad English!


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


user
"Shinobi" is one of those movies that thinks the mere act of killing off a character automatically brings a sense of gravitas or emotion to the story. Unfortunately, for the audience to actually care about the people dying, you have to develop the characters, otherwise all you have is a bunch of random acts of violence. The problem is especially compounded when you have TONS of characters, all of whom die.
OK, so if you can't be bothered to make the characters memorable or sympathetic in any way, you can at least make the REASONS for why they die plausible, right? Nope. Here we have a war between two ninja clans, with neither side really knowing WHY they are fighting each other. They kill each other because the emperor says so. Yet even well after it becomes glaringly obvious that the emperor wants ALL of them dead, they still refuse to abandon their meaningless missions. That's not stubbornness... that's just plain dumb.
Fine, fine! There is no character development, and the plot provides no reasonable rationale for fighting. At least they die fighting in cool action scenes, right? Yet again, NO! In fact, many of the fights aren't even fights at all: super ninjas that the movie spent so much time and effort introducing die suddenly (and lamely, in my opinion). I'm talking about things like, "Lalala, I'm walking along and I- *neck gets slashed*." THE END for that character. Not even halfway through the film, I threw my hands up in frustration at the ludicrousness of 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 have watched anime but I'm not a die hard fan; and I don't read manga. I say this because many of the reviewers who are waxing lyrical about this film seem to have that background. I have seen "St. John's Wort," and although it isn't a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, it made me pick up "Shinobi," especially since everyone seems to love it.
Well, I watched it this afternoon, and fought very hard to keep watching. Yes, it's very beautiful - the slow motion water scenes, the autumn leaves on the trees, even the CGI eye flicker - majestic. I liked the hawk, the costumes, even some of the fight scenes, but overall this was dull as dirt.
It seemed as if someone took "Romeo and Juliet" - the translation even mentions that they are star crossed lovers - and threw in some "X-Men" for good measure. Two of the characters split Wolverine's powers - the guy dressed in a bear costume had his claws and the grey-haired guy had his ability to heal himself. Then you have the girl who has a poison kiss - that's Poison Ivy (from Batman). Why do they give these women such dumb powers? Poison girl shows her leg then kisses you to death. Man, that's some great power for you. And the other girl, can create bugs from this yellow dust that she rubs on her hands. The other woman, one of the star crossed lovers, has the power of a hypnotic stare. Wow.
I sort of made it to the end of the film, by fast forwarding it, and did see a bit more tragedy than I expected. Some people are comparing this to "House of Flying Daggers" and "Hero." Don't make that mistake. They may share similar endings, but that's where the similarities end. "Shinobi" is made by an amateur - the other films are made by an experienced filmmaker.
I would say avoid this film unless you're 12 to 18 years old.


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


user
I gave this movie a 5 out of pure pity. My intention is not to burst anyone's bubble, because I've seen, as I've skimmed through other comments, that this movie is quite appreciated by many. Well, it is not worth any praises, and I say this because I've seen the original anime, Basilisk, and this movie shames it deeply. Perhaps if you see Shinobi alone, you could like it. It is enjoyable due to the well-choreographed battles, based on fantasy more than on martial arts, and I agree that their beauty is deeply enhanced. But the story is nothing like the original one. Now, I understand that when one transforms an anime/manga into a movie, one must make certain changes. I was not expecting to see the freakish characters from the anime, although they have a well-established role, and some are truly profound and well-designed. But I certainly did not expect to see immense and wrongly-placed changes, that basically ruin the entire story. Characters who are dramatically and unethically mutilated, transformed in something the public might love more, perhaps. For instance, Oboro, who, in the anime is a sweet, innocent girl, completely and utterly in love with Gennosuke, becomes a vengeful clan leader in the movie. I liked the fact that the woman becomes strong and evades the limitations imposed on her by the era (we are talking about Japan, 17th century), but her mood changes are unbelievable and badly written. Hotarubi, which is one of my favourite characters in the film, but who is not known for her childish and sensitive nature, becomes a pathetic little girl who is not only not madly in love like in the anime, but is more or less worthless in the plot. I could go on and on, like how they made Tenzen, the worst and most dangerous character in the anime, exceptionally weak and unattractive, or how Gennosuke, the leading character seems completely misplaced and confused, not to mention, again WEAK. The music is beautiful and the image is astounding, which was expected of a Japanese movie, and I appreciate it for that. But do not watch this if you've seen and enjoyed Basilisk, because it is just hopeless. Basilisk, although based on fantasy, with elements of horror and largely exaggerated is splendid and has so much more depth in its characters, storyline, historical value and it is, may I say, heartbreaking. Shinobi was a waste of time and I could not believe it kept on going after what was supposed to be the climax. Alas, it pains me deeply to judge a movie so harshly, but I advise you against it. Please, watch the anime, or at least watch the movie first and then repair your image of what Basilisk really is by watching the anime. Otherwise you will have a seizure when you realize how they've massacred it.


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


user
The bad out takes from "Reign of Fire" strung together, without any real story.
Dean Cain tries to be a real actor, and fails again.
In the end the dragons quit in disgust.
BARF!


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


user
I mistakenly kept myself awake late last night watching this thing. About the only thing I could say good about this horrid film is that it could be used by film schools to show how not to make a movie. No proper character development, wait, I'm not even sure they were characters. Set-ups were hokey and inane, and the overuse of split screens was wasted since sometimes they couldn't even synchronize with alternate shots. If I could give this a zero or minus rating I would. Sadly, it isn't even worth the time for a few laughs.
It's just a sad example of money wasted by Hollywood, and now I waste my time even thinking about it.


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


user
Why else would he do this to me?
Not that I expect Dean Cain to produce hit movies. Or even decent movies. I saw Lois and Clark, I am aware of just how... "good" Dean Cain is.
Obviously this is gonna be a cheesey flick, and each cheesey flick has its own special way to make you scratch your head. I will not call these spoilers as you can't really spoil this movie any more than it already is.
To begin with... why is that a fake helicopter? I mean... why?
How come that one scientist is from Chicago and that other scientist is from LA and neither one could be any more eastern european if they tried? How hard would it have been to get either an american actor, or just change that lame state sheet the movie provides us with to say those people aren't american?
Why are there 2 occasions when the movie gives us a slug line? We get helipad-day and then mess hall-day later on. And then that's it, who cares about the timeline. To be honest, who cared about it even when they mentioned it, but I guess that's beside the point.
Does a movie really get better if you are able to view it through multiple split screens? The answer is no.
That dragon sure can walk down that hall..over..and over...and over....and over...
Who on earth was responsible for one of the worst endings in film history? It was straight out of scooby doo. Oh, the dragon's dead now...say, wanna get dinner? Sure, but not at some Chinese place....with Dragon in the name!! AH HA HA HA!! HA HA HA!! HAHA HA! I used to be Superman! AHA HA HA! HA HA!
fade to black
my god, it made me cringe it was so stupid.
But never fear..even though the whole building exploded...and no one was left alive..for some reason there's a second untouched, unmanned lab that survived pretty well, so they can make a sequel. Hurray for us all.



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 formula B science fiction movie, and the director made no bones about it. It is about a dragon who is restored to life by a scientific team. Everything done is stuff you've seen many times before. It is a weak script, with no real characters. In fact, it is full of stereotype characters and situations. The director attacks this by just making it a formula movie, with no attempt to fool us, and that gives this movie a mild appeal, but it isn't something you're likely to remember a while. It is best seen while you're cooking, cleaning, working out. Sort of mindless fun. It has its place in entertainment, but it certainly isn't something you sit down with friends to watch, unless you're all just drunk and don't care. The mass rating of 3.2 is probably fair. I don't think it is as crappy as most people, but I am surprised that some people in the postings thought this was spectacular. That really eludes me, as I see no attempt to even make this a memorable film.


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


user
I caught this movie on Sci-Fi before heading into work. If you've any interest in seeing Dean Cain dive and avoid being enveloped in flames at least a dozen times, this movie is for you. If that doesn't peak your interest, well, I'm afraid you'll wish that YOU were the one about to be enveloped in flames, because this movie is pretty bad. The acting, to begin with, is awful, awful, awful. The characters are all completely obnoxious, and the dialogue is worse than your typical Z-grade, Sci-Fi movie. Towards the end, the movie began to remind me of 'Hollow Man' (complete with escape via elevator shaft), except with a Dragon, not a naked, invisible man. Unlike other similar flicks, however, this one wasn't even awesomely bad...it was just plain bad.


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


user
Dragon Fighter is the first Sci-Fi Channel (although I guess it's now called Syfy?) original movie I have ever seen. But I have seen one or two others since, and I can tell you that they were stupid, but this one really scrapes the bottom of the barrel. The CGI is done poorly, the acting is bad, the script is ridiculous, and what happens at the very end is unexpected and out of place (if you have seen Dragon Fighter, you probably know what I mean; I didn't want to put a spoiler in my review). Plus, there was this one musical tune that was used in pretty much every single dangerous sequence. That was really stupid; they just played it over and over. And it's definitely not original; I know I've heard that somewhere before (I just can't remember where). This is one to avoid.


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 45 minutes of Dragon Fighter are entirely acceptable and surprisingly watchable. The characters are believable and interesting. The cloning lab looks really high-tech. After that, it all collapses. The characters start behaving idiotically, and a new subplot is introduced from nowhere about a fusion reactor (and this is supposedly "present day") going critical, the only plot justification of which is that it is required to kill the dragon - only it doesn't. The finish is incredibly weak. One wonders what made a movie that started out so well turn so wrong.
All the characters except Dean Cain are played by Russians. This results in some weird situations and details, like the character being played by Vessela Dimitrova being called "Bailey Kent" despite her heavy accent (and despite her, on one occasion, inexplicably switching to *Spanish*!).
Because of the decent start, I considered rating this movie a 5, but it really was more disappointing than that, so I only give it 4.


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 those movies that are bad they are funny, then there are those where you scream "i want that one and a half hours of my life back"...thats pretty much what this is.
dean cain tries to be an actor but fails. the sfx are really bad (repeated scenes and rocks that look like falling paper) and the fake plastic guns that have torches taped on them...the split screen effect used to show multiple things happening at once is just terrible.
this movie cant even be used as one of those simple night entertainers, its just that bad
if i could go negative ratings, i would


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 hard to praise this film much. The CGI for the dragon was well done, but lacked proper modelling for light and shadow. Also, the same footage is used endlessly of the dragon stomping through corridors which becomes slightly tedious.
I was amazed to see "Marcus Aurelius" in the acting credits, wondering what an ex-Emperor of the Roman Empire was doing acting in this film! Like "Whoopie Goldberg" it must be an alias, and can one blame him for using one if he appears in this stinker.
The story might been interesting, but the acting is flat, and direction is tedious. If you MUST watch this film, go around to your friend's house and get drunk while doing so - then it'll be enjoyable.


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


user
Yesterday I saw the movie Flyboys and my girlfriend told me it was the worst movie she's ever seen... Since I thought it was pretty awful as well it got me thinking - which film was the worst film I had ever seen and this was the only film that came to mind.
Unfortunately it was a couple of years since I've seen it but I remember the horribly miscast Dean Cain as cocky military man (pretty boy Cain doesn't do cocky very well). The strange deal with the CGI-helicopter when it would probably be cheaper to rent a chopper than to hire some CGI-guys to make it, but my guess is that they found the chopper as a free sample for some CGI program or the producer's son liked to play with his new computer. And how did it look?? Awful. And when the dragon charges through the corridors of the complex then reuse the same shots over and over - looks VERY cheap.
Avoid this movie - it is truly awful...


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


user
Pretty standard B-movie stuff. Seriously, anyone who watches "Dragon Fighter" with Dean Cain and a bunch of people making their first movie should know better than to expect real quality or even moderate intelligence. B movies exist to re-work formulas that are popular. If you give them even token analysis, you'll wind up ruining the movie for yourself (and perhaps writing some self-important, slanderous review on IMDb).
I liked the female lead, Kristine Byers. She had charisma and I thought she was notably attractive. It was a memorable B-movie appearance. Unfortunately, I don't see where she has made any movies since. I'll watch for her again.


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


user
When you wish for the dragon to eat every cast member, you know you're in for a bad ride.
I went in with very, very low expectations, having read some of the other comments, and was not let down. Unlike some other cheap and failed movies, however, this one doesn't really remain hilariously (and unintentionally) funny throughout.
-SPOILERS FOLLOW-
First of all, plot it very inconsistent. Looking past the "small" mistakes, such as the dragon growing up in 3 hours, the whole idea it's based on is messed up. See, the movie wants us to believe that dragons came from outer space in the form of meteorites which really were dragon eggs. After explaining this, they show some peasant poking at one with his pitchfork and the dragon pops out. Later, the obligatory "crazy scientist" guy babbles on about how dragons outlived the dinosaurs. So apparently humans were around when dinosaurs were, or we just have a fine little plot hole here. The other major thing is that the lab is blown up with a force "half as strong" as what was used for Hiroshima. Then two guys later walk in to check everything out, and it's almost unscathed! There's even another dragon, which grew out of who knows what. All in all it's very predictable. As soon as the guy mentioned cloning, I guessed they'd clone a dragon. That means that our Mr. Smarty-pants security guy isn't so intuitive and smart as the movie would have you believe, if you ignore that I knew this film would be about, you know, dragons.
Putting that aside, the second worst thing is the "special effects." Others have mentioned the fake rocks falling during the beginning, the CG helicopter, and the dragon. It looks a bit better than a blob, but it ruined whatever it had going for it when it trudged down the hall in the same manner time after time. To their credit, the flying dragons in the beginning looked OK from far away (although the one in the cave is probably the worst one in the whole movie.) These things are funny to watch, however. The scenes where a million different shots of the same person facing different ways are shown are not. Nor are the "introduction" screens with the vital stats.
Coming to the actors, they weren't the greatest, but I guess at least they tried? They seemed more enthusiastic about what they were doing than many of the actors participating in the recent "BloodRayne," for example, and you've got to give them points for that. One thing I noticed though was that the woman who plays Meredith often had her face covered in make-up that was many tones lighter than the rest of her. She looked like she had a bad run-in with some white-face.
The script is bad and cheesy. You don't really notice the music, but it's actually not too bad for the most part.
The bottom line is don't watch it unless you want to see it because you hear it's bad (like I did), although the only funny things are the bad CG effects. Other than that, don't waste your time and money.


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


user
What a dreadful movie! For some reason, scientific laboratories and outposts always have a staff of grubby, dirty, mean-spirited, misanthropes living inside. These folks who presumably work together on complicated scientific projects cannot seem to agree on how to survive death at the hands of a CGI Dragon. Spoilers: An extra-nasty scientist whose main acting skill is "leering" and "the sinister stare" has cloned a Dragon. While the lab was supposed to work on this kind of thing, the other scientists are shocked, because apparently they were all way behind in their experiments and got caught with their pants down. The rest of the story is like THE THING, or Ten Little Indians, where the staff is hunted and killed off as they try to formulate a way to escape and/or defeat the "Dragon." The CGI Dragon creature is dark gray, which seems to be the popular color for most of the cheap CGI special effects. It hardly looks better than a cartoon, and the dark gray tones make it difficult to see any interesting details in the body of the Dragon. All it looks like is a gray blob. The acting is less than horrible. These scientists act like a bunch of children who cannot agree on anything, and this makes it easier for the Dragon to kill them off in various attempts to escape, hide, etc. Dean Cain is hardly better than any of the cast of unknown actors in this movie. He seems to sink to the level of his supporting cast. This movie is really, really atrocious. The acting is bad. The story is dumb. The CGI is very very cheap and amateurish. There is nothing commendable about this movie, it is not even a good time-killer to glance at while doing chores or other work.


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


user
There have been plenty of unknown movies or movies given bad reviews that I really liked. This was not one of them.
It was overacted and used camera techniques that made me feel like I was watching a soap opera. It was ludicrously predictable and took most of the movie to get going then left you asking "that's it?". Once I decided not to take the movie too seriously and watch it from a purely corny point of view it became more enjoyable. This is one movie that would have wound up on MST3000 if it was still on.


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 some of the worst crap I have ever seen. I literally got a sharp pain in my head while watching this movie. The CGI was awful, and the story was just a waste of ink. Dean Cain's character was Mr-Super-Intuitive-I-can-figure-out-anything, except he can't seem to work his own helicopter correctly. The biggest problem was the split screen camera work. I felt like I was watching the Brady Bunch or something, only it wasn't different people in the boxes, just close ups and different views of the same thing. I can only figure that the actors really needed the money, because this movie wasn't worth the film it was shot on.


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


user
Once I ignored some of the implausibilities, this was actually a fairly decent horror/monster flick. So, I'll give some of the good points first: - the dragon was quite convincing, especially as she prowled through the tunnels looking for lunch (hint: she likes humans). - the action was fairly non stop, and, after a weak beginning, I got quite absorbed in the storyline. - sorry to say, I was kind of rooting for the dragon - she was probably the most convincing and consistent character in the movie.
Now for the implausible stuff **maybe some spoilers**: - if you were hunting a fire-breathing dragon in 1100 AD, would you charge into its cave with a barrel of gunpowder under your arm? Duh. - a female character with an all-American name, blonde hair and obvious Slavic accent, trying to pretend she's Spanish? Huh? - a lead scientist whose Slavic accent you can cut with a knife, and he's supposedly born in Chicago, educated in USA? - a military helicopter pilot who does his own repairs, flies a huge transport copter with no other crew, and is an expert marksman and combat soldier to boot? OK. Uh huh. I won't even mention his giving 3 different call signs in 2 minutes while communicating with his base.
It's still better than some of the Japanese monster flicks from the 60's, but not by much. If we're lucky, we won't see Dragon Fighter 2, though naturally the ending left that possibility wide open. Or, maybe, they'll hire a real director next time.
In spite of everything, I gave this flick a 4 out of 10. Add 2 more if they rewrite the plot, and Dean Cain gets eaten in the first ten minutes. 


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


user
If Alien, Jurassic Park and countless other sci fi horror movies are your cup of tea, add a lot of sugar and you'll get this one down. The film begins in jolly old England around 1100ad and then jumps to present day California. Our hero Carver (Dean Cain) is the new Security Chief and Military Advisor for a Science Lab 400 feet underground. He arrives (Carver is also a helicopter pilot) with the lead Scientist and we soon find out it's a cloning lab and they have something newly found to clone. Is it a Dinosaur or what? As with the above movies, all hell breaks loose and our characters start getting picked off. The special effects on the Monster are pretty good for a "direct to video" movie and Dean Cain does what he gets paid for. But forget the rest of the group as we find out why we have never seen them before. Again, don't go in with high expectations and you'll be ok.


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


user
Nothing could have saved this movie, not even Superman.
Ten years ago the special effects would have been amazing. Better directing might have gotten some more feeling and better performances out of the actors. But nothing but feeding the script to a dragon could have fixed it. Plot holes, bad lines, terrible pacing, endless replaying of the same shots of a CGI dragon stomping through hallways... ugh.
Avoid this one at all costs.



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


user
This movie really, i mean REALLY, sucks. Its got plot holes so big, and 30 foot dragon can fit through them. Not to mention the dragon itself, which is inevitably the worst computer generated image ever to be put on the film real. I mean, when you see something like this, you gotta be thinking "Wow, someone actually made this movie. Then released it. That takes guts". Whoever they are, i'm sure they don't work in the film business anymore.
When i hired this movie, it wasn't in on DVD, so i (reluctantly) took it out on video. The first thing to appear, was a Lord of the Rings trailer, for the Two Towers. This was a very clever move, putting this trailer on the video. It justifies me (reluctantly) giving the film 1 star, otherwise i would have given it zero stars. Maybe the producers though the star attraction of Dean Cain (I think thats how you spell it) would draw in the crowds (uh, to the video store that is).
Next they employed split screen technique (like in Hulk) to (i assume) compensate for what an atrocity this piece of crap film is. On the box cover, we see a picture of our hero, and the dragon. Does the dragon look exactly like the one in Dragonheart, or is it just me? Either way, the dragon in the film looks like a reject from Gremlins 2, and has the CGI of a Nintendo video game villain from the early 90's (perhaps worse). Also, not the Dragons movement as it pursues its victims- its the same F##cking monotonous movement- right leg, left leg, right leg left leg- dom, dom, dom, dom DOM, DOM F#$king DOOOOOM! This just pisses me off. Maybe the filmmakers thought this was thrilling and would have the same effect of Jaws. Why not then have a Dragon POV shot. Either way, that was just funny, much like watching a Weebl toon.
Dean Cain gives many puzzled looks during the film (maybe his coming to terms with the fact that this film could end his career). Don't expect Superman here. The first time i saw the trailer for this film, i thought it was an add for a PS2 game.
As for the story, its so so bad, my 5 year old brother can come up with better ones when he's unconvincingly trying to lie about why he was messing around in my room while i wasn't there. Oh, and did i mention that I F@#KING HATE THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THIS INCREDIBLY STUPID STUPID CRAP ATROCIOUS FILM?!!!


assistant
0