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
Amazing effects for a movie of this time. A primer of the uselessness of war and how war becomes a nurturer of itself.
A wonderful thing about this movie is it is now public domain and available at archive.org. No charge, no sign up necessary. Watch it in one sitting and you will be propelled.
I plan to share this flick with as many people as possible as I had never heard of it before and I am a hard core sci fi fan.
I would like to see how others react to this movie.
Watch it.
Rate it.
Tell us what you think.


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


user
H.G. Wells story the shape of things to come was made into a movie in 1935.very well made science fiction tale about a war that lasts for decades.great cast includes;Raymond Massey(arsenic and old lace) Sir Cedric Hardwick(ghost of Frankenstein)Ralph Richardson(time bandits) and Margaretta Scott.early glimpses of helicopters,holograms,a rocket ship,and futuristic cities.this film was ahead of its time.directed by William Cameron Menzies(invaders from mars)its very enjoyable much like the earlier movie metropolis(1927)but avoid the so called sequel the shape of things to come,that was made in 1979. this movie has nothing to do with the original.h.g. wells like Jules Verne had a vision for the future with his stories.a classic science fiction movie.10 out of 10


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


user
I have, "Things to Come," on D.V.D. and it's very clear compared to my VHS version. The audio is fair, but can be hard to understand at times.
I liked the movie so much that I searched for a copy of the book and found it.It gave details of why some things happened. The best things about the movie are the small things that I didn't notice at first. Such as, John Cabal playing with a toy airplane at a Christmass party, like it was a dive bomber, out dateing sea power by naming a battleship,"Dinosuar." Ships sunk by air-power, an undeclared enemy sneak attack by airplanes. Swept flying wing planes. Strong rolls for the women through the entire movie.
There are more, see the movie to enjoy them.


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


user
With such actors as Ralph Richardson, Raymond Massey, Cedrick Hardwicke, and Margaretta Scott, how can you go wrong. Very unusual scenics, especially the modern ones. The realization of the modern machinery is very effective. Here you have ray-gun blasts from building vehicles that help clear the area, so new structures can be made. Although she's much younger in this film, It's not very hard to figure out who the future Mrs. Pumphrey from the BBC series, All Creatures Great and Small is going to be! Really effective "reappearance" of both Raymond Massey and Ralph Richardson. The musical score is by the renowned Swiss composer, Artur Honegger and it is also unusual. For the time (1936) it looks like they used really, large sets or the effects make it seem that way. Lastly, it's a really good story.


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


user
This movie is difficult to watch in our fast-paced culture of the 21st century, but it is worth it for the messages that it conveys, chiefly the consequences and ramifications of technology upon society, specifically when that technology is used for warfare.
This movie presents a full circle cycle of dehumanization and rehumanization as influenced by the advent of technology and the subsequent deconstruction of civilization and therefore serves as a cautionary tale against the misuse of technology, but as the circle completes itself, familiar themes and sentiments pop up again to present self-serving rather than self-destructive ways that humanity may utilize technology.
Brilliant for it's time, the picture and sound quality may pose a challenge for some, but as a landmark in the history, development, and evolution of the sci-fi genre, it is a must. In the end, free will and free choice are once again posed to humanity as a means for controlling our own destiny rather than having it served to us by someone else or indeed, the state of
society itself, as shaped by world events.
Those who are downtrodden by what life throws their way sometimes tend to remain so, but yet there is always a glimmer of hope and continuity that remains, as this film posits.
As far as qualifying as sci-fi, one of the biggest common demoninators of that genre is it's speculative nature. It asks us the questions, what if these events happened this way, and what effect would it have on society or the individuals within it? How would we react?
As far as influence, this film projects those speculative sciences that make sci-fi as unique as it is and keeps us asking those important questions.


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


user
SYNOPSIS The future as seen from 1939 England. As war loomed over Europe, the salvation of mankind will not be found in the politics of the past. It is up to the brave new world of science to overcome man's past mistakes.
CONCEPT IN RELATION TO THE VIEWER Beware your leaders and what you are told. Thinking outside the box can lead to a brighter tomorrow. There will always be descent and fear, and learning to overcome it is our only hope.
PROS AND CONS I had seen this film long ago and recently downloaded it off of the internet (it is in the public domain). This is a fascinating work on numerous levels. Since it is a story about the future as seen from 1939, it has obvious flaws. This vision of the future is both terrifying and whimsical. This film was cutting edge for its day. The special effects are very good as is the story line. The acting suffers a bit in the British theatrical sense, in that it can lean a bit toward Shakespeare.
One of the underlying themes of the film is that science and technology can solve all our problems, which we now know is not always true. The films other plot line is that charismatic leaders are a curse of human existence and will probably always be with us.
The underpinnings of almost all later science fiction movies can be seen in this film. The set design and wardrobe of "Forbidden Planet", the failings of technology in "2001: A Space Odessy", even the lush landscapes / cityscapes of "Star Wars" owe some amount of inspiration to this film.
The ending of the film leaves the viewer a bit perplexed. While it is optimistic in its ending sequence of reaching for the stars, we are left to wonder if mankind will ever be able to make it. Even as we reach, there are those that are trying to hold us back. This films vision of the future while interesting is also a bit humorous by todays standards. Huge flying machines and guns that could shoot people into space never materialized in the real world, but in 1939 they were considered the next logical step.
Many great British actors are in this film as young men. Cedric Hardwicke and Ralph Richardson are the most recognized and their oratory skills are evident here. Raymond Massey is a curious choice to play the lead character, Cabel. His character almost comes across as the new Christ sent to save the world from its own destruction with the new religion of science.
This is a good piece of cinema history whose themes are still relevant today even if its vision of the future missed the mark.


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


user
This is an amazing movie from 1936. Although the first hour isn't very interesting (for the modern viewer), the stylish vision of the year 2036 that comes afterwords makes up for it. However, don't plan on being able to understand all of the dialog - the sound quality and accents (it's American - but "1930s" American) make it difficult.
Basically, the story is a sweeping 100 year look at a fictional US town called "Everytown". It spans from 1936, when a war is on the horizon, to 2036, when technology leaps forward and creates its own problems.
The first one hour is a bit slow - although it's tough to tell what audiences back then would have thought. The events, suspense and visuals are pretty low-key in today's terms. However, when it gets to the future, it's just plain fun to watch. The large sets and retro sci-fi look of everything is hard to beat.
Unless you have great listening abilities, this movie is hard to listen to. I think I understood only 80% of the dialog. It could use closed-captioning.
If you're a sci-fi fan, this is one of the genre's classics and is a must see (well, at least after the first hour). For the average viewer, wait until there's a closed caption version and then watch it if you're comfortable with movies of this time period.


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


user
this was the most costly film, when produced. Sir Alexander Korda and H.G. Wells were both distressed by its poor ratings---for good reason. it was and remains far ahead of its time. aside from the seemingly poor direction, probably editing, at the very beginning, the work moves along to a stunning conclusion.
whether its Sir Ralph Richardson's 'Boss' role, or even better, his wife's, Sir Cedric's, as adversary to space-faring, Raymond Massey's 'John Cabal' center role---all deliver mind-boggling performances.
the scene with mr. Korda's incomparable set, of the small girl-child, running out to an absolutely 'never-to-be-matched' scene, commenting 'Life just keeps getting lovelier and lovelier'? that swiftly brings tears to any parent/grandparent. this is not a film for the young--unless 'experienced' and rather those who have seen 'the horror' it opposes.
sure, the 'phony-parachuting', looks hokey---while using a 'magnetic-cannon', now termed 'mass-driver' may be viewed as ridiculous, vs. rockets---give Sir Korda a break--Mr. Wells made that choice. and at +/- $8 million, this film went way beyond 'over-budget'---so he concentrated on what he could manage.
the true power of this Greatest of cinema rests in 'John Cabal's' final statement of human destiny---his friend 'Passworthy' doubts the wisdom of space-faring, saying, 'We're such little animals.' John Cabal's proper response is,(paraphrased) 'Yes, little animals, and if that is all we are, we must live and die as such.' they are standing under a large astronomical telescope. he sweeps his hand over the night sky. 'Yet we may have all the Universe, or nothing.'---then the final chorus breaks in---'Which shall it be?'---this is not 'Star Wars', 'Blade Runner'---anything you may consider 'Great'---this is the Real Thing.
i remind all of Steven Hawking's most recent address, upon his latest 'Medal of Honor'---'Humanity must leave Earth, or die.'---the very core of this work---i love 'standard entertainment'---yet this 'relic', for the wise viewer, offers far more. 'Which Shall It Be?' be in the proper 'mood'---whatever that takes---this will take your breath away---i 'guarontee'---overall, for humanity? the most significant of cinema.
since posting, i note many have commented on the poor 'media-quality' of 'surviving' examples. in the 80's i developed a 'proprietary' 'colorization' process which required a 'clean' original. this led me to Michael Korda, who sadly noted all were gone---so we must relish what remains---'sad but true?'


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


user
Things to Come is an historic film. Along with Metropolis (1927), it stands as one of the first great science fiction spectacles. It is also one of the first doomsday movies. It is remarkable how the filmmakers predict the start of the Second World War within a year, and even, in a subtle way, the year it would end in the real world. But then the film departs from reality, depicting a world ravaged by war (only substitute poison gas for nuclear weapons which of course did not exist in 1936).
The last half hour of the film is an incredible sight, making groundbreaking use of models and matte paintings -- later to become staples of the science fiction genre. It is sad that, after Things to Come, Sci-fi would become identified with cheaply made b-movies, a stereotype that wouldn't be broken until 2001:A Space Odyssey more than 30 years later. If they'd stuck with the quality of the effects in this film, things would have been very different in Hollywood.
Raymond Massey and some of his co-stars play multiple roles in this film, to good effect. Massey plays a great "Doctor Who"-like role as a pilot from an advanced (for 1970) civilization who tries to win over the populace of a devastated country ruled by a simple-minded warlord (a very effective performance by Ralph Richardson). Ultimately, the storyline covers 100 years. But that's a big problem with this film -- there really isn't a cohesive storyline.
Perhaps in such an episodic film -- somewhat reminiscent of Intolerance, actually -- it's hard to have a conventional plot, but I felt more could have been made of the material, and although the visuals in the final third of the picture are indeed stunning and worth the price of admission ... the plot is nonexistent and the movie itself suddenly ends just as it is getting interesting. Maybe the producers were thinking of another future sci-fi innovation: a sequel?
Things to Come is a film every serious sci-fi buff should see at least once. Unlike Metropolis, however, it might not bear repeated viewings.


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


user
There be very little doubt that HG Wells is the most influential writer of the 20th century . Jules Verne has some claim to be the father of science fiction but his stories were more adventure stories using marvellous inventions as plot devices . Wells was profound and brought subtext to his tales . Perhaps his greatest legacy is that there's very little if any evidence that people believed in life on other planets before the 20th century where as now many people including Richard Dawkins consider it a near certainty . There's no evidence of this of course and one can't help wondering that is was Wells who introduced this to human thinking ? Undoubtedly it was Wells that planted the seed .
THINGS TO COME was adapted by Wells himself from his own novel . It is rather obvious however that he is unable to tell the difference between the technicalities of writing novels and writing screenplays . The dialouge is often laden , heavy handed and unconvincing . One case in point is the two pilots from opposing sides discussing the nature of war " Why must we murder one another . Why ? " This mirrors the criticism , near naked contempt that Orwell had of Wells in his essay Wells , Hitler And The World State and it is true that Wells anti-war message is painfully overstated . It'd be impossible to believe a conversation taking place between an RAF pilot and his opposite number in the Luftwaffe a few years later
That said it is absolutely fascinating watching a film from 1935 predicting a world wide war taking place in 1940 that heralds the end of civilisation . There's a striking and haunting imagery as a child bangs a drum as a phantom army marches in the background and the collapse of society and the fear of The Wanderng Sickness is wonderfully realised . Even the rather lazy storytelling of showing the year of the setting has a compelling nature It's the images that makes this film along with Arthur Bliss score that makes the film so memorable . And to be fair Wells does ask the question " The universe or nothing . What shall it be ? " . In short this is a film whose flaws are easy to forgive


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


user
As an animated film from 1978, this is pretty good--generally well above the standard of the days when Disney hadn't done anything good in years (and Tolkien cared little for Disney anyway). It gets major points for innovative and careful camera work, applying cinematic techniques with relative success. The much-maligned rotoscoping actually works pretty well, especially with the Ringwraiths, and the opening narration. However, it is so drastically overused--possibly as a money-saving technique--that it detracts from the overall effect. The same technique that makes wraiths spooky and otherworldly doesn't fare so well in the Prancing Pony.
As for the adaptation of the story, it's actually quite good. We lose little bits here and there, minor details such as the Old Forest and Tom Bombadil, the Gaffer and the Sackville-Bagginses. We compress a few characters, such as revising Legolas as one of Elrond's household and an old friend of Aragorn's, but that's a rather wise decision for film. In books you have room to include the references to the larger world of the Elves and Middle-Earth's vast history. In film, you trade that for visuals and sound that convey the same elements in a different way. Nothing critical is truly lost here, and although I have minor quibbles about some of the changes, I'm generally pretty happy with it.
If only the dratted writers had managed to remember Saruman's name--he's frequently referred to as Aruman, a decision probably made to make him more distinct from similarly-named Sauron; it took me a second viewing before I was certain I hadn't misheard it. It's also annoying that Boromir is a bloody stage viking, and irritable from the start. However, Gandalf is excellent, and most of the rest of the voicework is excellent. If only John Hurt weren't too old to play Aragorn; I love his voice.
Of course, with the film ending at the midpoint of the story, there's a vast disappointment built in. What makes it far, far worse is the altogether miserable job done by the Rankin & Bass crew on the sequel. That they were permitted to do Return of the King after butchering The Hobbit remains a huge mystery; they seem more interested in bad songs than in proper storytelling. For all its faults, this film's heart is solidly in place and it tries very hard to accomplish a nearly impossible task. I can only hope that the upcoming series of films keeps as true to its vision...


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


user
First of all, the only reason people keep bitching about this film is because they can't stand a few parts of the true story being "altered". Well guess what? Peter Jackson's film wasn't a perfect rendition either. Well enough ranting. This is a very beautiful film. The backgrounds are gorgeous and taken from well known Tolkein artists. The film covers about half the trilogy (Fellowship of the Ring and up to the battle of Helms Deep in the Two Towers) and moves at a good pace. The voice casting is top notch and the most of the characters look like I imagined they would. Samwise is a bit too ugly for my tastes, but Aragorn looks AWESOME. The film has a great score that completely supports the movie. If you enjoy good fantasy stories but hate reading (the books are even better) give this movie a try, keeping in mind it was made 20 odd years ago.
Also of particular note: Peter Jackson's adaption of Fellowship follows almost exactly the same strand as Ralph Bakshi's (Jackson has said many times how much he admired Bakshi's effort).


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


user
I'm fond of this film and it vexes me that so many "reviewers" rank it below the Peter Jackson trilogy. A filmed novel is always interpretive; in particular an animated film relies on the artist's vision and should be judged on its own terms. Speaking as a purist, this is a finer homage to Tolkien than the updated version. While this film has its flaws it stays truer to the source, especially so far as the characters are concerned.
In the Jackson version Tolkien's Frodo is barely recognizable: from the first scenes he is portrayed as a weakling, constantly wavering, manipulated by forces around him and never standing on his own two feet (this is physically and metaphorically true.) You wonder why fate chose this limp biscuit to carry the one ring to the Cracks of Doom. Jackson unforgivably rewrites Tolkien and robs Frodo of his finest moment when he allows Arwen to rescue him from the Ringwraiths...Bakshi's version respects the original, presenting a Frodo who demands the wraiths "Go back and trouble me no more!" Bakshi sustains Frodo's character as Tolkien conceived it. We see his decline as the weight of his burden increases. Frodo is so pivotal to Lord of the Rings you wonder why Jackson took such liberties (he does so with numerous characters)since character development propels the plot to its inevitable conclusion. Bakshi's film better explores the companionship between Legolas and Gimli in a few judicious scenes that are completely lacking in Jackson's version. Similarly we see Boromir horsing with Pippin and Merry, furthering the idea of fellowship. For my liking the camaraderie is more developed in the animated version than the live action.
Tolkien's poetry is an important ingredient in the novels and Bakshi makes tribute to this in one of my favorite scenes: when Frodo sings the "Merry Old Inn" song, minutes before stumbling into Strider. The cheery tune is chillingly juxtaposed with the darker theme music when seconds later, invisible to his friends but visible to the wraiths, Frodo is dangerously exposed. This is one of the most atmospheric portions of the film and chills me whenever I see it.
The well documented budget/time restrictions limit this film's final impact but had it been completed it may have resonated with more viewers. As it is, it's worth a look. Even its detractors admit that Peter Jackson derived much of his inspiration from this prototype.


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


user
First of all no adaptation is ever as good as the book, especially when you're dealing with master writer like Tolkien. This ADAPTATION wonderfully synthesizes Tolkien's universe with 1970s psychedelia, aesthetics, and liberal culture. Yes - the animation and background painting is sometimes a little "rough" in its technical execution but it's beautiful none the less, and very evocative in terms of giving a unique "sense of place" to each of the scenes. Beyond the absolute uniqueness in imagery is the absolutely outstanding voice acting - acting that's FAR superior to the acting in the new live action movies. And while the cell animation might not be the most "technically proficient" animation it superbly captures the expressive bodily and facial gestures of the acting while at once not forgetting to be subtle and nuanced. The background paintings vary from traditional "fantasy" motif to outright abstraction, but the transition to abstracted settings is always motivated by the narrative and contributes greatly to the themes of the film. If you're a person who has to have extensive computer rendering in a film so that everything is visualized for you then I can see how you might not like this movie but if you enjoy superior acting, transcendental imagery, and JRR Tolkien then this film is a must see.


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


user
My friend had the idea of watching the animated LOTR after seeing the Peter Jackson Return of The King. So I finally bought it off e-bay, thinking right from the start it was going to suck. Actually, it really wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. The animation was good for its time, they used a unique method of blending live action with animation to create some interesting effects, and the guy who did the voice for Frodo sounded somewhat like Elijah Wood.
Not the greatest adaptation of a book, but trust me, I've seen a lot worse. It skips quite a lot of things, since both Fellowship and The Two Towers are compressed into one two hour movie. Definatley worth a watch, kids might like, but still, absoutley no comparision with the Peter Jackson trilogy.


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


user
I happened upon this movie as an 8-10 year old on a cold, dark November afternoon. I was outside playing all day, freezing, and when I came in around 4pm, I had a cup of hot cocoa and sat down in front of the TV with a blanket. I was surprised to be watching a cartoon that wasn't all happy and silly--and was in fact dark, and moralistic. It captured my imagination. I'm sure it misses the text, and is abbreviated in all the wrong places for the Tolkien purist. But it still captures the spirit of the story, the choice to carry a burden for the good of others, the consequences of selfish, rash decisions, etc. The quality of animation leaves room for complaint. But the one place where this movie clearly rises above the new films is the voice characterizations. John Hurt is great in this. If you don't like how the character is drawn, look away, and just listen to him. His voice is extraordinary. I've seen it again many, many times and it always brings me back to that time, as a kid, thirsty for some magical adventure. It's for this reason I say 'lucky', the film is nostalgic for me so I overlook its shortcomings. But between John Hurt, and Tolkien's fantasy, it still reached me, and still does.


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


user
When a small hobbit named Frodo Baggins inherits a magic ring from his uncle, the wizard Gandalf investigates and discovers that the ring is an ancient creation of an evil dark lord. Should the ring end up back in his hands, he will regain his power and destroy Middle Earth. Frodo and his loyal friends set out on a a quest to destroy the ring with a band of warriors. This is an underrated adaption of the classic novels as it only covers the first half of the story. Regardless, this is an epic and wonderfully animated film.
The animation is superbly done with rotoscope, which is tracing over live action footage. Ralph Bakshi worked well with the low budget he was given. The film also boasts a grand music score by Leonard Rosenman that fits every scene. There are a few plot holes with the script, but that has to be excused, considering the original deal was to make the book trilogy into two films, much had to crammed in the first one. My biggest gripe is some of the character design, Samwise was a bit too goofy, while the other hobbits act completely normal. The other characters are actually well written for the screen, and the voice actors do a great job, I was pleased that Legolas is actually a bit more helpful to the plot. The rotoscoped orcs are more comical than frightening, while the ringwraiths are eerie and nightmarish.
Another problem is that the evil wizard Saruman is called Aruman, thanks to the writers. Overall, I think a little more money and better writers would have done this a lot of justice, but there is something charming about it. Ralph Bakshi made a valiant effort of making screen adaption of these classic stories. The film suffers terribly from being overshadowed by the live action films, but it's still a great movie for animation lovers of all ages.


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


user
There seems to be only two types of reviews of this film on the net. Those who hate it and curse Ralph Bakshis name and those love it and call it work of genious. I'm inclined to be in the middle. I'am forced to agree with most of the criticisms of this film (e.g.the cruel cutting of the story, badly rotoscoped charecters, over acting etc...) But dispite this I still love this film. The rotoscoping (when done properly)adds an eerie lifelike dimension to the charecters and the final battle scene at the end of the film is fantastic. The surrealistic scenes when the nineriders chase Frodo are stylish and well executed and the musical score... magic. Sadly the bad points outweight film but if you can bring yourself to ignore them it is a great film.
(No doubt I'll be lynched by an angry mob of people who hate this film after writing this review, ah well, such is life)


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


user
I recently rented the animated version of The Lord of the Rings on video after seeing the FANTASTIC 2001 live action version of the film. The Lord of the Rings live action trilogy directed by Peter Jackson will undoubtably be far better than George Lucas' Star Wars "prequel" trilogy (Episodes 1-3) will ever be as the real fantasy film series of the 21st century!
I remember seeing the animated version as a child, and I didn't quite understand the depth of the film at that time. Now that I have read the books, I understand what the whole storyline is all about. To be sure, some of the characters are quite silly, (Samwise Gangee is particularly annoying, almost as much as Jar Jar Binks in Star Wars Episode One, (AWFUL!)) but, I have to say it follows the book rather closely, and it goes into part of book two, The Two Towers. The good things are that the action is somewhat interesting and some of the animation is quite remarkable for it's time. The bad things are that it ends upruptly halfway through The Two Towers without any result of Frodo's quest to destroy the one ring, and the animation looks quite dated compared to today's standards.
Overall, not AS bad as many say it is. BUT, the 2001 live action version is the new hallmark of The Lord of the Rings! At least Ralph Bakshi took the script seriously! Peter Jackson has said that the animated version inspired him to read the books, which in turn caused him to create one of the greatest fantasy series ever put on film, so we can at least thank Ralph Bakshi for that matter! I'll take the animated version of Lord of the Rings over the live version of Harry Potter anyday!
A 7 out of a scale of 1-10, far LESS violent than the 2001 live action version, but NOWHERE near as good! For diehard fans of the books and film versions of The Lord of the Rings.


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


user
One thing i can say about this movie is well long, VERY LONG! I actually recently purchased this movie a couple of months ago seeing that there was a new version coming out. I was happy to find that it was made in 1978 because The 70's (even though i never lived in them) is actually one of my favourite decades, especially for the music! when i watched this movie the story was actually very good at the start but then after about 50 mins it started to get very boring and repetitive. i will admitt the animation did impress me! it was nothing i had ever seen before and was well pretty cool to see. but the movie honestly could of been a bit better, it could of had alot more talking and story to it than just 15 to 20 minute scenes that just had wierd fighting. then for the last 5 or 10 minutes the movie picked up and got good again but ended unexpectedly. in my opinion i thought it was EXTREMELY long. i know its 13 minutes over 2 hours and that is still long for a cartoon but since it was boring for most of the movie, it made it seem like it was 4 hours long!!!! but overall it is an okay film i guess and i will watch it again on one of those "nothing to do days". i will see the new one and i hope it is better!


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


user
I just bought this movie on DVD and watched it for the first time the other night. I've been a fan of Tolkien's work for about 4 years now, ever since I got out of high school. I didn't grow up on this movie...perhaps my mother kept me away from it. It's definitely not for children. Not that it's bad in a graphic sense, but that the themes would go right over most 10 year olds heads. Overall, the animation was excellent considering this was made in 1978/1979. I thought the story followed the book fairly well in a loose sense. But I am bothered that Bashki didn't just add another 40 minutes or so and tack on the Return of the King parts. That would've made it the ultimate movie. I was bothered by it's abrupt end, and then when I heard Return of the King sucked, I was bothered even more. Too bad it wasn't one great animation film. It might have garnered a higher vote from me. I give it a 7. I can only hope Peter Jackson will do the books justice with the new live action LOTR.


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


user
If you have read the books then forget the characters that Tolkien built in your head. The representation of hobbits, dwarves etc have had the 'disney' treatment. The dark riders are excellent, and as I had always imagined from the books.
Cinematically this is an excellent film, mixing live motion and animation to produce amazing effects for the year. I only wish he (Bakshi) had been given the money to complete his epic.
It's worth having the video as they will be worth a bit after the 2001 Lord of the Rings !!


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


user
It's been quite some time since I've watched this LOTR. I am currently hunting for a copy to purchase. Bakshi's work is quite true to the original work. The visuals are engrosing and sometimes haunting.
Drawbacks? Occasionally, the movie is confusing or muddled. There are one or two times where the storyline slows to a crawl. But, overall -- buy this movie. It's great for kids, adults and collectors.


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


user
Brilliant movie. The drawings were just amazing. Too bad it ended before it begun. I´ve waited 21 years for a sequel, but nooooo!!!


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


user
Well, I get used after awhile to read comments about these movies that don't reflect my experience at all. To me, Amitabh was a better villain here than in some of his most famous movies. He was a die-hard villain, a no-apologies villain. To me it was a breath of fresh air to see him in a role where his villainy isn't sort of undercut in some way.
The kid who played Aryan was probably over his head with this cast. There I think maybe the director could have done better. But, to be honest, the very best part of this movie was Shernaz Patel. She is an unsung heroine, a true veteran thespian who is overqualified for every role she is offered. But I must say I appreciated her contribution greatly as she played Virendra Sahi's wife. She may be given little to do, but she does everything with total conviction. I'm sure she sailed right over the heads of most of the audience.
So if you are in a habit for settling for Bollywood average, you won't get much out of this movie. But if you constantly search for something more, then this might give you some of what you've been missing.


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


user
Not many reviews, hence thought i would add one.
DO NOT GO BY THE OTHER REVIEWS! This was a excellent movie.
RKS is one of the very few Indian directors that can actually put together a really good movie.
AB and Akshay given yet another example of great acting, as does bhoomika too, which was a little unexpected, but great to watch.
Am surprised there has not been much hype around release.
Or filmfare/other awards nominations, considering how good the movie was.
Better then Khakee i thought and i thought Khakkee too was good movie.
Is a fairly long movie, but definitely worth it and while watching it, definitely does seem long.
Cant wait for RKS next movie and the next AB, Akshay movie they always seem to do well together... e.g. waqt.
Bhoomika too has acted really well in the movie and should do really well if she continue in the same fashion in the future.


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


user
Even though this was a disaster in the box office, It is my favorite film. It gives a powerful message of family. It has a lot of violence and has one song with a bunch of girls in bikinis. Compared to other bollywood films, the action scenes in this movie are more realistic. It is an incredible combination of Akshay Kumar and Amitabh Bachchan. If you want to see the Indian Godfather, Amitabh portrays that in this film. Don't read reviews by critic, they're just ignorant. This movie has good mix of comedy, romance, drama, and especially action. So if you want to see action more realistic than Main Hoon Na(still good movie), this is the movie.


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


user
A movie made for contemporary audience. The masses get to see what they want to see. Action, comedy, drama and of course sensuous scenes as well. This is not exactly a movie that one would feel comfortable watching with entire family. It isn't for eyes of children. I had to fast forward quite a number of scenes.
If it is just entertainment you are looking for, then this movie has it all. The songs are catchy. A lavish production, I must add.
However, the message of the movie is not universal. It emphasizes on the idea of karma. That is, if you do good, you will get good. And if you do evil, you will get evil. The fruit of good deeds is good, while the fruit of evil is evil.
In real life, this is not always true. It is well-known that most people do not get justice in this world. While it is true that some evil people do meet with an evil end, there are many who escape. And then, there are many people who do good, and yet in return they meet with a sorry end.
If you don't care about the message, and all you want is an escape from worldly reality, this movie is an entertainer alright.


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


user
Family is about two families who are after each other's blood.
Viren Sahay (Amitabh Bachchan) is an underworld don, operates from Bangkok. He has a family in India. Once by mistake he kills Shekhar (Akshay Kumar). Like Viren Sahay, he also has a family (a brother, wife and parents). Aryan (Aryaman), Shekhar's brother is out to take revenge of his brother's death. He kidnaps Viren Sahay's family for the same reason.
The film has got one turning point (Amitabh Bachchan). Second half of the movie belongs to him completely where instead of his dialogs, expression matters more. Akshay's minuscule role has also put him at par with Amitabh. I didn't understand what Bhumika Chawala was doing in this movie.
There were a few loose points in the script; like; Amitabh has been shown as the most wanted criminal of the city still he walks scot-free in the city. Kidnapping of his family is also seemed vague. How can the family of such a big don doesn't have any security cover?


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


user
I have decided to not believe what famous movie critics say. Even though this movie did not get the best comments, this movie made my day. It got me thinking. What a false world this is.
What do you do when your most loved ones deceive you. It's said that no matter how often you feed milk to a snake, it can never be loyal and will bite when given a chance. Same way some people are such that they are never grateful. This movie is about how selfish people can be and how everyone is ultimately just thinking about oneself and working for oneself.
A brother dies inadvertently at the hands of a gangster. The surviving brother decides to take revenge. Through this process, we learn about the futility of this world. Nothing is real and no one is loyal to anyone.
Amitabh gave the performance of his life. The new actor Aryan gave a good performance. The actress who played the wife of Amitabh stole the show. Her role was small but she portrayed her role so diligently that one is moved by her performance. Chawla had really great face expressions but her role was very limited and was not given a chance to fully express herself.
A great movie by Raj Kumar Santoshi. His movies always give some message to the audience. His movies are like novels of Nanak Singh (a Punjabi novelist who's novels always had a purpose and targeted a social evil) because they have a real message for the audience. They are entertaining as well as lesson-giving.


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


user
Gypo Nolan (Victor McLaglen) is as poor as anyone on Earth. Living in 1920s Ireland, Gypo and his fellow Irishmen are part of an underground rebellion against the oppressive Brits. One particular rebel, wanted for murder by the English, arrives back into town secretly. He thinks he can trust his friend Gypo, but the £20 reward proves too tempting. Gypo gets his friend killed and sinks into a pit of despair and drunkenness. Meanwhile, the other Irish rebels are searching for the informer. Right away, Gypo, with money burning a hole in his pocket, is their main suspect, but they, who are his friends, don't want to believe it. The story of The Informer is simple in its plot, but complex in its moral and emotional issues. It's easily one of John Ford's most emotionally involving films. What Gypo did was wrong, but we can certainly understand his motives. We also understand his sorry character, and there's a lot of sympathy that arises for him. The script is very suspenseful, as well. It's the kind of suspense where we are pretty sure we know how everything will end up, so we have to grit our teeth and bear along with it. The acting is remarkable. Victor McLaglen, who acted in many of Ford's films, probably gave his best performance here (and won an Oscar for it). Every other performer in the film deserves his or her kudos. In addition to an amazing script and acting, The Informer is one of John Ford's most expressionistic films. I love the darker side of Ford. In its mood, as well as in its themes, The Informer reminds me of two of my other favorite Ford films, The Long Voyage Home (1940) and The Fugitive (1948); it's also a bit similar to The Grapes of Wrath (1940) in these respects. 10/10.


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


user
A brilliant portrait of a traitor (Victor McLaglen in Oscar winning performance) who is hounded by his own conscience. McLaglen plays an IRA rouge who betrays his leader to collect a reward during Ireland's Sinn Fein Rebellion. The scenes showing fights and mob actions are very realistic, focusing on the desperation within individuals. The lack of hope for a better future seems to be a fate worse than death.
Director John Ford superbly creates an murky and tense atmosphere, enhanced by the foggy and grimy depiction of the Irish landscape. Max Steiner's dramatic music score adds to the cinematic delight. Oscar Winner also for Best Screenplay, nominated for Best Picture. This is one of Hollywood's Classic.


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


user
Magnificent and unforgettable, stunningly atmospheric, and brilliantly acted by all.
I really cannot understand what sort of people are panning this masterpiece and giving the preponderance of votes as 8 (and nine ones!)
This, along with Grapes of Wrath, is John Ford's greatest movie. I would say that Long Voyage Home is next in line, though quite a way back.
Rating: 10. It deserves a 12.


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


user
This film deals with the Irish rebellion in the 1920s and more specifically one man's life after he informs on a friend for the bounty on his head and the subsequent consequences. Watching the film, I got the feeling that you could take the script and with just some minor updates, do it again and it, sadly, would still fit contemporary events. But te remake wouldn't be nearly as good. A magnificent performance by Victor McLaglen (for which he deservedly got an Oscar) and a fine ensemble cast that includes most, if not all the actors with brogues in Hollywood at the time, most of them recognizable character actors either established at the time or just starting out. A very good film well worth watching. Highly recommended.


assistant
1