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 commented on this when it first debuted and gave it a "thumbs in the middle" review, remarking that I'd give it the benefit of the doubt beyond just the first episode. I've seen a total of six episodes now up to this point in June 2006. And as a lifelong Batman fanatic, I can say without hesitation: this show is utter crap.
Everything's wrong with it. Everything. Getting past just the lousy animation and design, the stories are ridiculously convoluted and with no character development or apparent interest by the writers of this dreck to give any substance to any stories.
And for God's sake...is it just me, or is the Joker in EVERY EPISODE?? Is Gotham that much of a revolving-door justice system? Or, again, is it just a complete lack of interest in the writers to put any effort into other villains (see "no character development", above).
And to make matters worse, every single Joker tale is the same 3-part formula.
1) Joker gasses people.
2) Joker sets out to gas the whole city.
3) Batman saves the day.
Pfeh.
There was one episode I saw that wasn't a Joker story. The title escapes me, but the villain was that nefarious Cluemaster...the "Think Thank Thunk" episode with the quiz show. That was the single-worst Batman story I've ever seen, heard or read. Yes, worse than "I've Got Batman in My Basement."
I can't really say what I feel this show is because it's probably against the ToS, but it starts with "B" and rhymes with "fastardization". Thank goodness for the existence of the Timm/Dini/etc. era of Bat-entertainment, back from the Fox and Kids WB days. Stuff that good, and I should have known this, just couldn't possibly have lasted forever, unfortunately.


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


user
I think that can sum up this show about as well as anything. Batman TAS may be the worst thing to ever happen to cartoons based on comic books because everything that comes after will be compared to it and nothing has measured up yet. It's just too damn good. Was Batman Beyond good? "Yeah, but it was no TAS." Is Justice League good? "It's not too bad, but it's no TAS."
The Batman is certainly no TAS, either, but I won't hold that against it. It would be unfair and besides, it has plenty of other problems with it.
The concept of a younger, less experienced Batman fighting crime is a fine one, and at times the art is very nice. But all of the rest of the time, the art is worthless Americanime, and this betrays a lot of the flaws of the show itself. It is paced, written, and designed like an Americanime. If I wanted to watch Jackie Chan Adventures, I'd watch Jackie Chan Adventures. Or I could just bang my head into a wall any time and get the same effect. The Joker is a homicidal, mentally unstable clown in a suit who uses his wits, unpredictability, and clever gadgets to fight Batman. When he is forced to fight hand to hand, he will either resort to something cheap or be totally outmatched. He is not meant to be a monkey with dreadlocks who knows kung-fu and can leap into twenty feet into the air, accompanied by speed lines. If they had wanted to do that with a villain, there were other less important characters they could have used or *gasp* they could have created a new one entirely. And it's not that re-imaginings are a bad thing, don't get me wrong. TAS (there I go again) took Mr. Freeze from your standard icegun-wielding B villain and made him into a memorable and morally complex character. Of course Freeze wasn't exactly a classic villain at the time and they performed an upgrade, but the point stands. What The Batman does is it takes everything you liked about Batman comics and lore and takes a large, smelly dump on them. Guess what? They were eating corn.
It's obvious this show can't stand against TAS but stand it on its own legs and it still doesn't work for me. The plots aren't good and they don't develop any better. They've been written for the demographic of children under twelve. Should children be able to enjoy a show? Of course they should. This shouldn't be an adult show with swearing, nudity, and gratuitous violence. But the mark of a truly good show is that it can be enjoyed on different levels by all ages. This show misses that mark.
Is this show a TAS? No, of course not. The problem is it's not even a JLU.


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 always been enthusiastic about period dramas, an art form in which the BBC has excelled in the past. This presentation of "Byron" was unbelievable. Unbelievably bad! The script was dreadful, the acting uninspired, and all the characters woefully insipid. Apparently Byron was "mad bad and dangerous to know", and set the ladies hearts all-a-flutter. Not in this production. Here he appeared as a tawdry jumped-up little squirt instead of a fiery hero of womenfolk and the Greek struggle for independence. It is said that Byron walked with a limp. This portrayal of the man was just limp all over.
I watched the whole two and a half hours waiting for something to spark into life. Not a splutter, not even a glimmer. It was utter tedium, if not downright boredom, from start to finish.
Having the opinion that no-one will ever better the Bard of Avon, I also believe that Byron's poetry is over-revered and to my mind should be flung on the back burner, and this dramatisation of his life should be accorded the same treatment.
I think the BBC lost its nous with this one


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


user
Dieter Bohlen, Germany's notorious composer and producer of slightly trashy pop hits like "You're my heart, you're my soul" felt the need to tell his story - and gracefully he decided to hire a ghost writer. The result was a funny book about his life. Well, more or less a fuzzy image of it. He didn't deny that he is a selfish asshole but the whole story was twisted to fit his image of himself. No word that he has probably beaten up his former wife and she ended up in hospital. However it was written in a funny style and a huge success after his appearance as jury member of the German version of "American Idol" - especially his unforgettable comments.
This should be the end of the story - really. In the hype of the mentioned "Idol" TV show called "Deutschland sucht den Superstar" (abbreviated DSDS) somebody must have come up with the terrible idea to make a movie out of the book. The result is "Dieter - der Film"
I have rarely seen a movie which tries so desperately to be funny and fails so completely. None of the gags really hits the point. Naddel's voice and style of talking was getting on my nerves right away although Verona's voice should have done that more. Obvious, childish, predictable and lengthy gags destroy any motivation to watch this movie to the end within a few minutes. The content of the movie is a sloppy film adaption written sloppily down by a ghost writer based on Bohlen's sloppy idealized memory. They could have used this freedom to do almost everything. It was supposed to be a satire, but they failed. The story is totally uninteresting and the fact that the background voice is Bohlen himself guarantees that the whole film has nothing satirical at all.
It's no wonder that it was considered to bad for a cinema release. The probability that this thing would have rotten in some archive was quite high until recently when the current season of DSDS turned out to be a mediocre success. With the "friendly" help of Germany's biggest yellow press newspaper "BILD" and the desperate situation for the TV station RTL to have something in the program while the still unbeatable show "Wetten dass... ?" is running on Channel 2 the movie finally arrived in television - unfortunately.
Watching this movie is a waste of time - there are certainly better cartoons with much more fun and a story actually worth looking at.
Therefore: 2/10


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


user
Admittedly, I watched this piece with already VERY low expectations. Dieter Bohlen is a rather untalented composer parvenu whose lack of talent is only surpassed by the size of his ego.
This was the first cartoon movie that I watched that was 100 per cent humor free. It is rude, offensive, redneck and blatantly anti- women. As such, it is a creation befitting Bohlen, but the average viewer will be rather put off by it. No wonder that it was never shown in a cinema theater: It would've bombed BIG time!
Not even the expense of 6.5 MegaEuros were able to save this utter piece of crap. Save 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
Sure, this one isn't really a blockbuster, nor does it target such a position. "Dieter" is the first name of a quite popular German musician, who is either loved or hated for his kind of acting and thats exactly what this movie is about. It is based on the autobiography "Dieter Bohlen" wrote a few years ago but isn't meant to be accurate on that. The movie is filled with some sexual offensive content (at least for American standard) which is either amusing (not for the other "actors" of course) or dumb - it depends on your individual kind of humor or on you being a "Bohlen"-Fan or not. Technically speaking there isn't much to criticize. Speaking of me I find this movie to be an OK-movie.


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


user
So why does this show suck? Unfortunately, that really is the only question, because there is no doubt that it does.
For those unfamiliar with the premise of the show, the doomed-to-be-shortlived series Cavemen focuses on a number of Neanderthals and their struggle to exist in modern day America and is based on the characters featured in a series of television ads for Geico Insurance. The concept is solid and there is every reason to think it could be executed successfully.
I had to think about it for awhile, but then the tagline from the commercials -- something to the effect of "We're not that much different from you" provided me with the key to the show's suckiness. Even though cavemen/Neanderthals are actually a different species than humanity, the title characters of this show, it turns out, are exactly the same as those of us who are boring jerks.
Maybe its my background as a game writer -- rather than a soulless, hack, committee-based writer from California -- but this show had so much potential, and none of it has been realized. To start with, the producers should have focused on the fun things that would make cavemen different from us.
What could conceivably be funny, for example, about giving them occupations like perpetual grad student and furniture store clerk, when they would have more compellingly been drawn to things like subterranean utility workers and guides at cave parks? Why would they play prosaic games like squash, when a whole episode could be devoted to them trying get hunting licenses to go after game with spears? A show like this could write itself, and it takes some willfully bad writing to make it quite so crappy and boring.
Another tiresome aspect of this show is an attempt to portray the cavemen as being subjected to a number of stereotypes associated with various human minorities. Yawn! This has been done so many times before, and never more drearily than this. And, as noted previously, Neanderthals really are a different species, so using them as a metaphor for racial stereotyping is both uncompelling and off the mark.
Responses are welcome, including those from anyone who wants to tell me why I'm wrong. I'd like to enjoy this show and am just sorry that I have thus far been unable to.
Michael J. Varhola, Skirmisher Online Gaming Magazine


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 3 episodes of Caveman, and I have no idea why I continue except maybe waiting for it to get better.
To me this show is just pumping itself off the commercials, with no real humor. As we sat around watching these shows, we all speculated on what was going to happen.
The episode of the woman cave-woman with a attitude was actually a big, yea right, for us. she's crude in a theater and acts tough to strangers, and truth be told, she needed a slap
I consider myself a pretty good reviewer, taking in everything, but I must say, Cavemen is comparable to the old show, My mother, the car. I give it a 2, only because they deserve 1 better than a 1 because they actually spent money on it.


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


user
Every new fall line-up show deserves, at least, my "3 strikes and you're out" policy. I give a comedy 3 chances to make me laugh, that is, 3 complete episodes. After Episode 1, I actually said to the TV,"Cancelled tomorrow". It was that bad. I have now watched the first 4 episodes of "Cavemen" and have yet to manage even a smirk. Not a titter, a guffaw, a chortle, as a matter of fact, no facial movement at all. I will continue to punish myself by watching every future episode because I am convinced that I am clearly missing something in this show. I'm simply not "getting" it, but I believe that a comedy on a major TV network in prime-time, just HAS to be funny; but there are no laughs from me YET. There's just no way that ABC would put on the least funniest comedy of all time at 8:00 p.m. I KNOW there has got to be an inside joke that just isn't jiving with my brain. I've read each of the previous comments, I "get" the social aspect of it, but, WHERE ARE THE JOKES ???? I shall continue suffering for at least 30 minutes a week, until I have a light-bulb moment and smack myself in the head shouting "Eureka".


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


user
I actually didn't mind the Geico commercials the first 50 of so times I saw them and even found them to be a bit wry and amusing, BUT SERIOUSLY! This is the BEST thing that these people could come up with?!? This show sucks! It is bland and feels like watching an episode of "The Office" with the characters disguised as cavemen (I know a lot of you will hate me for saying that but "The Office" just does not do it for me). Okay, I get it: we have the poor slob just trying to keep his nose clean and he has a crappy boss who hates him; the pseudo-intellectual who really just has a barely-functioning intellect; and the dopey one who just wants to be accepted, but SO WHAT!!! I have worked with these people and found them just as annoying in real life as I do on TV...why would I want to waste another 1/336th of my week watching more of those type nominates?!? Please call your parents and ask them if they dropped you on your head if after thinking about it, you still delude yourself into believing that this is entertainment.


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


user
This show proved to be a waste of 30 minutes of precious DVR hard drive space. I didn't expect much and I actually received less. Not only do I expect this show to be canceled by the second episode, I cannot believe that Geico will ever attempt to use the cavemen ad campaign EVER again. I would have preferred spending a night checking my daughter's hair for head lice than watching this piece of refuse. I wonder what ABC passed on to make this show fit into the '07 fall schedual, perhaps a hospital/crime/mocumentary reality show featuring the AFLAC duck? In the event that I failed to express my opinion about this show let me be clear and say that it is not too good.


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


user
Peeew this stinks! As everyone knows it's based upon some Geico insurance commercials; what no one knows is WHY?! Those commercials were amusing on first viewing at best; hardly fodder for a series. (The talking Geico gecko -- that's another story. Now that would make for an intriguing series!) And why on earth did ABC -- as reported in the press -- actually agree to buy the cavemen character rights from Geico for this? After all, the idea of cavemen struggling in the modern world is hardly unique to TV; Phil Hartman had a recurring Saturday Night Live role as The Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer over a decade ago. And that's how a concept like this works best -- as an occasional installment. But a regular series? Fuhgeddaboudit. (A 1960s series called "It's About Time" also used the cavemen in the modern world concept. It lasted one season.)
One of the show's directors, who was also responsible for the Geico commercials, was recently quoted as saying: "We were so excited when we were shooting our commercials because we felt like we had something that was very unique and we had bigger stories to tell." Wrong.
In the annals of bad TV, this is destined to take its place alongside 1972's "Me and the Chimp" as one of the all-time worst. The lead actor in the embarrassing Chimp fiasco actually went into shame-by-association hiding after it was abruptly canceled. No doubt our cavemen friends will follow suit.


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


user
Cavemen was by far the biggest load of crap I have ever wasted my time watching. This show based on the Geico commercials is less entertaining then an actual 30 sec ad for Geico. The makeup was half ass-ed to say the least, hard to imagine a caveman with prefect white teeth even after going to the dentist. This show could of had potential for a funny series if they could of gotten the cast from the commercials, that in it self makes for a lousy show. Perhaps if the writers were the same from the Geico ads this may of had a chance, instead the pilot lacked a good story line. I give this show a 1 out of 10, I would of liked to put a zero out of 10 but that was not an option. I pray for a quick death to this show, I'd give it less then 5 episodes before it dies a deserving death.


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 30 minute show about one joke. The joke, Cavemen are not treated fairly. HaHaHa!!! He can't dial a phone because he is a Caveman. Cavemen are not as smart as human beings. Oh jeez, those Cavemen are so unsophisticated. There is no humor in this show. They can only run off this one joke for so long and they already have with the Geico commercials. This show does not deserve a time slot on national T.V.
This show tries to hard to be funny, but it just isn't. Watching this show, I was thinking that it was trying to be like a "Bachelor's Gone Wild Show." Meaning they go to the bar and try to sleep with many women. The crying caveman is annoying. The caveman with the glasses is too smart to be a caveman(HAHAHA!!!). All three of them have personalities, but I can't figure out why I don't care about them.


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


user
I wasted my time and gave this show a chance. This has to be one of the worst new shows. If they gave an award to shows that suck THIS one should sweep the category. The acting is poor and the story line is contrived. Now Dinosaurs was a bit strange but at least it was entertaining. That show lasted three seasons and was finally scraped. This new show, based on an insurance companies commercials, is not funny and really has nothing going for it. Possibly the original commercials and the amount of times they were, and still are, repeated is what is wrong with this show. It just came to TV and already we are tired of seeing the "caveman" characters.


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


user
"Cavemen" exceeded my expectations, and not in a good way. It was even worse than I thought it would be. Basically, here's the show: The Cavemen are an alternate race, they face prejudice, etc. Quite possibly the stupidest idea ever created; almost being worthy of jail time for the writers. One show featured the cavemen going into a club, trying to pick up girls, and then nothing else happened. It was reminiscent of listening to a 22 minute Andy Rooney dialog, followed by death by steak knives via midget cannibals. For those who have not seen this show, here's an example of the dialog: "You're sure you're okay with going out with a caveman." "Yeah, that's fine. I've had like 10 - thousand!" Hilarious... Possibly the best writing I've ever witnessed.
22 minutes of cavemen with horrible makeup, tackling tough social issues... Sounds like an entertaining night. I also love how bad the recent ideas are that they're resorted to making a sitcom out of car insurance commercials. I wonder if they'll do the Gecko next, so that I can have a new title for the worst show I've ever seen. I would even say that this is worse than "Viva Laughlin." At least "Viva Laughlin" was ripped off from something that was somewhat inspired.
Shows like this make me hope that there's a comet up there somewhere aimed for Earth.
(Unratable honestly...)


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


user
Warped take on the Pinocchio theme, and set during the Christmas season(..after the previous entry abandoned ties to Christmas) has booby-trapped toys sent to murder a child(..yet through this, other victims are accidentally harmed in the process)perhaps by a toy maker's "son". Screaming Mad George was responsible for the killer toys(..including a larvae which enters a victim's mouth and out his eye, another where soldier toys actually shoot real bullets at a babysitter after her boyfriend was practically strangled by a severed hand toy, operating from a remote control). The little target is a mute child named Derek(William Thorne)whose stepdad was murdered by a red ball with extending arms that ensnare his face, causing him to land on a fireplace poker. Mother Sarah(Jane Higginson)worries about her son's mental state, figuring his reluctance towards opening presents or, more importantly, talking, derives from watching her husband's horrific murder. Derek's real father, Noah(Tracy Fraim)fears for his son't safety, and informs, reluctantly, his ex-girlfriend Sarah that the local toymaker, Joe Petto(Mickey Rooney)once was arrested for setting traps in toys to harm kids due to the loss of an unborn child when his wife was killed in a car crash..kind of a retaliation in saying that if he couldn't have a son, then others shouldn't either. Still quite a heavy drinker(..often seen swigging Jack), Petto seems to have set aside his feelings towards kids, but his creepy son Pino(Brian Bremer)hasn't and Derek he harbors angst towards. Why? You'll soon understand.
Pretty disappointing special effects and rather goofy premise. Rooney's name adds an allure to the film, gaining it a notoriety, but his histrionics can only help so much. Attractive lead actress Higginson(Slaughterhouse)and Fraim as the man who re-enters her life aren't so bad, but the lame plot that develops is hard to take seriously. I'm guessing that's the point, but Rooney has no reason to be in such a film as this..he has no room to bring any personality to his toymaker other than rage and desperation, quite volatile, barely holding himself together as he explodes in anger towards Pino, when not downing liquor. Bremer is appropriately weird and "robotic" as Pino, longing to have Sarah as his mama. The practical effects used during the attacks on victims are rather unconvincing..Screaming Mad George's work with Savage Steve Holland was far more effective than what we see in this film. The sex everyone talks about isn't as gratuitous as many would have you believe(..I can't even recall any nudity). Probably the best of the numerous sequels greenlighted, but that's not exactly an endorsement. I'm pretty sure written on paper, this was an entertaining concept, the idea of spoofing Pinocchio using horror elements, but the result doesn't exactly blow you away.


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 wasn't that bad when compared to the first two sequels to the original. It's directed by Martin Kitrosser of Friday the 13th fame. The acting is very bad indeed, but the gore and special effects help make it interesting. Thats one thing I like about Screaming Mad George (make up effects artist for the film), his effects are so off-the-wall and bizarre that they will keep you watching a bad movie just to find out how crazy they're gonna get. The movie isn't really all that gory, but there is an EXTREMELY nasty eyeball-munching scene in the middle involving a toy maggot (what!?!) Mickey Rooney makes a guest appearance that he probably wasn't too enthusiastic about but needed the money at the time, possibly? If you liked the weirdo 4th installment (my favorite of all 5), you'll probably like this one. I liked it better than the Matrix! Enjoy.


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


user
Silent Night, Deadly Night 5 is the very last of the series, and like part 4, it's unrelated to the first three except by title and the fact that it's a Christmas-themed horror flick.
Except to the oblivious, there's some obvious things going on here...Mickey Rooney plays a toymaker named Joe Petto and his creepy son's name is Pino. Ring a bell, anyone? Now, a little boy named Derek heard a knock at the door one evening, and opened it to find a present on the doorstep for him. Even though it said "don't open till Christmas", he begins to open it anyway but is stopped by his dad, who scolds him and sends him to bed, and opens the gift himself. Inside is a little red ball that sprouts Santa arms and a head, and proceeds to kill dad. Oops, maybe he should have left well-enough alone. Of course Derek is then traumatized by the incident since he watched it from the stairs, but he doesn't grow up to be some killer Santa, he just stops talking.
There's a mysterious stranger lurking around, who seems very interested in the toys that Joe Petto makes. We even see him buying a bunch when Derek's mom takes him to the store to find a gift for him to bring him out of his trauma. And what exactly is this guy doing? Well, we're not sure but he does seem to be taking these toys apart to see what makes them tick. He does keep his landlord from evicting him by promising him to pay him in cash the next day and presents him with a "Larry the Larvae" toy for his kid, but of course "Larry" is not a good toy and gets out of the box in the car and of course, well, things aren't pretty.
Anyway, eventually what's going on with Joe Petto and Pino is of course revealed, and as with the old story, Pino is not a "real boy". Pino is probably even more agitated and naughty because he suffers from "Kenitalia" (a smooth plastic crotch) so that could account for his evil ways. And the identity of the lurking stranger is revealed too, and there's even kind of a happy ending of sorts. Whee.
A step up from part 4, but not much of one. Again, Brian Yuzna is involved, and Screaming Mad George, so some decent special effects, but not enough to make this great. A few leftovers from part 4 are hanging around too, like Clint Howard and Neith Hunter, but that doesn't really make any difference. Anyway, I now have seeing the whole series out of my system. Now if I could get some of it out of my brain. 4 out of 5.


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


user
This time we get a psycho toy maker named "Joe Petto" (get it?) who makes living, evil toys that kill people. He goes after the family who has the bad luck of just simply living in the same house where he and his mutant robot son "Pino" (again, get it?) used to live.
Easily the worst (and hopefully [presumably] the last) in this semi - series, this one and the previous one look like soft core porn movies, but without the sex and nudity. It's kind of like a low rent hybrid of "Halloween III", "Puppet Master", "Dolls" and bad home movies. Supposedly in 2000 they started to do a sixth chapter in the series, but it was abandoned and never completed. We can all only hope that it stays that way...
1/2 a star out of ****



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


user
Bad actors, terrible script, totally unbelievable ending - this film had it all. After seeing films like this, you wonder why the makers bothered at all. This film has absolutely nothing to say, all the methods used to create a scare have been used over and over again in previous horror films. A total waste of time.


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


user
The spoilers in this review are offered as a public service, because the only way to enjoy this costume melodrama is to know that our protagonist, the Lady Barbara Skelton, gets raped and gunned down in the end. And not a moment too soon. I'd have shot the screen myself but I was afraid I'd hit James Mason.
The original 1943 novel, called "The Life and Death of the Wicked Lady Skelton" (I guess people didn't whine about spoilers back then), was written by a woman, an English navy brat who was either troubled or cynical or both. Her heroine is devastatingly beautiful, and the author seems to think that if you have beauty, nothing else matters. But other things do matter, such as the fact that Lady Barbara's immediate and only response when someone gets in her way is homicide. She murders three men in five attempts. A serial femme fatale, she's got a case of dissocial personality disorder that should have landed her in either Bedlam or Newgate.
Lockwood plays her as a narcissistic vamp, wearing so much makeup that I thought of her as a Restoration-era Joan Rivers (or a restoration-era Joan Rivers, ha!). Yet Lady B. is irresistible to all three principal male characters-- Michael Rennie, James Mason, and Griffith Jones, all of whom do good work, as does Patricia Roc. Of course, all three admirers realize in short order what a psychotic bitch Barbara is, but the plot keeps them all in her orbit until one of them finally does gun her down - accidentally, in what is meant to be either irony or just desserts. Given the dramatic death scene with a boom lifting the camera out through the windows and heavenward, I presume we're meant to give a damn about her death. But hers is the first corpse we don't care about.


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


user
This romantic adventure must have seemed shockingly subversive in its day. A wealthy upper class English woman schemes, plots and manipulates everyone around her for her own satisfaction. She uses her privileged position to embark on secret activities of a decidedly anti-social kind. There's a clever sex-role reversal as her activities prove her more daring and dashing than most of the male characters. But naturally there's a tall, dark and handsome stranger to keep up the love interest, and this wicked lady is not backward in coming forward when she meets the right man.
The wishy-washy weakness and gullibility of every other character make the plot unconvincing in the extreme, but those who thirst for Romance will overlook that.


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


user
Lois Weber, self proclaimed missionary via the cinema, wrote, directed and produced other films on controversial subjects, but this may be the first to get wide viewing, thanks to TCM. This film is her indictment of abortion, but she cleverly muddles the issue by bringing in eugenics and birth control, leaving the impression that they are somehow equivalent to abortion. Her talent in writing and the other cinematic skills are well displayed here, but one may be forgiven for wishing she had used them less didactically. If you have wondered what Tyrone Power, Jr.'s "famous father" looked like, here is your chance. 1916 fashions and automobiles are also on display to add to the interest of this museum piece. It's enjoyable even if you don't appreciate the propaganda.


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


user
I saw this movie for 2 reasons--I like Gerard Butler and Christopher Plummer. Unfortunately, these poor men were forced to carry a pretty dumb movie. I liked the idea that Dracula is actually a reincarnation of Judas Iscariot, because it does explain his disdain for all things Christian, but there was so much camp that this idea was not realized as much as it could have been. I see this movie more as a way for the talented Gerard Butler to pay his dues before being truly recognized and a way for the legendary Christopher Plummer to remind the public (me and the 5 other people who saw this film) that he still exists. I actually enjoyed the special features on the DVD more than the movie itself.


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


user
Please don't waste your time. This movie rehashes the worst of Bram Stoker's Dracula (Van Helsing), Anne Rice's Vampire Lestat (rock music and silly biblical references), and Blade (high-tech toys). I really like vampire movies and novels, and there are many out there that are very good . But not this stinker. Not even the soundtrack helps it, mostly because the movie resorts to ridiculous scary classical music rather than the "kick-ass metal" some reported. Only a few times did I hear any metal; mostly it was tortured violins. Avoid it like garlic and crucifixes.


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


user
This film is really bad. It maybe harsh, but it is. It really is. Poor script, every vampire cliché in the book is used, and no sympathy is given at all to the origins of the main character ... i.e. ole Dracula. There have been some truly brilliant Dracula/vampire movies in the past, but this doesn't even make it into the "dire" slot.
Take a selection of people who seem to have dropped out of a teen-slasher move, add a dribble of Dracula Lore and mix in a heady tonic of religious/surreal day-dreaming ... and you get a confusing mess of a film - Dracula 2000.
I really cannot find any good things to say about this movie, as if it wasn't bad enough that it was made in the first place, they seem to have made Johnny Lee Miller effect an English accent ... Whats the problem with that I hear you cry ... Well, he is English, but he sounds like an American trying to do an English accent.
All in all you may as well say your money (if you were thinking of buying it), or rent it out, watch it, and discover for yourself why it's about as scary as the Tellytubbies.
P.S. Although La La is pretty frightening!


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


user
This has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. This movie has nothing positive about it. Some of you people actually like this movie! I've seen a lot of Dracula movies and I've liked everyone that I've seen, but when I saw this movie I said to myself, "What the hell is this?" What a stupid movie. Now they have Dracula becoming who he is because he is Judas. For those of you who don't know who Judas is, he betrayed Jesus Christ and then felt so guilty he hung himself. You have to be kidding me. That's the dumbest reason I've ever heard for why Dracula became evil. Who asked for a reason anyway? What a piece of sh** this movie is. Who ever came up with this sorry excuse for a movie should be beaten. Even the Dracula is horrible. If you ever saw this movie you wouldn't even think it was Dracula. Wow, Dracula 2000! Is that title supposed to impress me? Don't waste your time or your money on this trash.


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


user
DRACULA 2000 is a horror film that was continually shown on Sky Movies in Britain and considering it seemed to be screened about three times a week for a whole year I have absolutely no idea how I managed to miss it until it`s first broadcast on network television tonight . Actually seeing as I`m not much of a fan of horror movies the reason was probably down to my theory that this was going to be tripe . My theory was proved right for the most part
!!!!! MINOR SPOILERS !!!!!
What makes DRACULA 2000 such a bad movie is the amount of dumb scripting involved . For example early in the film the bad guys are flying Dracula`s coffin from London to America ( In a twin engine turbo prop plane ! ) and one of the bad guys is left alone in the cargo hold where Dracula comes to life . A fight breaks out , there`s lots of noise but the bad guys in the cockpit don`t hear a sound until the script demands it . It also appears in this segment`s climax that Dracula can control the weather but this seems forgotten about as the film progresses . Sloppy scripting , and there also seems to be a problem with the structure where there`s numerous scenes of characters being at the New Orleans mardi gras then the characters being at a different location such as police station in the following scene then they`re back at the mardi gras the scene after that which means the lack of credibilty in the plot is enhanced
There`s something else that yanked my chain - Product placement . There`s umpteen scenes where the logo for a certain record label/retailer chain is in full view . I won`t dare publicise the company brand ( Except to say they also run a train company which is a national joke in Britain ) but I was under the impression this type of advertising was against British broadcasting guidlines and I`m surprised the BBC showed this movie if that`s the case
There are some positives in DRACULA 2000 like the visuals for example . This is actually a good looking movie with a good looking cast and boy were those vampire chicks hot , but it`s something we should expect from Hollywood over the last few years - A very good looking movie that`s very dumb


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


user
Put the blame on executive producer Wes Craven and financiers the Weinsteins for this big-budget debacle: a thrash-metal updating of "Dracula", with a condescending verbal jab at Bram Stoker (who probably wouldn't want his name on this thing anyway) and nothing much for the rest of us except slasher-styled jolts and gore. Christopher Plummer looks winded as Van Helsing in the modern-day--not just a descendant of Van Helsing but the real thing; he keeps himself going with leeches obtained from Count Dracula's corpse, which is exhumed from its coffin after being stolen from Van Helsing's vault and flown to New Orleans. This is just what New Orleans needs in the 21st Century! The film, well-produced but without a single original idea (except for multi-racial victims), is both repulsive and lazy, and after about an hour starts repeating itself. * from ****


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


user
A very slick modern (keeping it sensually hip) revamp on the Dracula story (although staying with the traditional customs) with quite an interesting, if not fully grasped back story of the prince of darkness. The first time I tried watching it I could only make it halfway through, before losing interest. Again it gets off to a good start (especially the scenes with the thieves and then their encounters with Dracula), but then for me it got less involving when it hits New Orleans to focus on Van Helsing's daughter. A great place to set it, but never took advantage of its settings (despite etching a paradise in damn, where Dracula could flourish). Produced by Wes Carven (and yeah they throw that name out there), but written / directed by Patrick Lussier. Artistically it had its moments with few dreamlike visuals, but some kinetic editing and cheap jolts don't help. The messy script does get considerably silly. Lussier does a polished job that remains rather glassy, inserting a lot of blood (the make-up is suitably achieved) and a lot of "Virgin" advertising. No I don't mean virgins, it's the music company, as it does get in numerous shots and Helsing's daughter works there too. Oh that wasn't obvious planting. The soundtrack is an amusing choice of rock tunes. Now the performances are all over the shop, but there are few familiar faces to spot (Danny Masterson, Sean Patrick Thomas, Nathan Fillion, Shane West and Lochlyn Munro). Gerard Butler as Dracula just didn't come off, as not much of a presence was formed. He was simply out-shined by the succulent ladies of the night; Jennifer Esposito, Colleen Fitzpatrick and Jeri Ryan as Dracula's brides. The likes of Jonny Lee Millar and Justine Waddell are respectably okay. Christopher Plummer gives out a grizzled turn as Van Helsing and Omar Epps has fun with his role.


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 rarely been as annoyed by a leading performance as I was by Ali McGraw's in this movie. God is she bothersome or what?! She says everything in the same tone and is horrible, so horrible in fact that, by contrast, Ryan O'Neal is brilliant.
There is not much of a story. He's rich, she's wooden, they both have to Sacrifice A Lot for Love. His father is Stonewall Jackson, hers is called by his first name, in case you didn't notice the Difference in The Two of Them that They Overcame in the Name of Love.
The Oscar nominations for this movie indicate it had to have been a bad year. John Marley is fine as Wooden's father, but a Supporting Nomination? At least Ali didn't win.
I still think Katharine Ross should have played Jennifer, but then again, if it were up to me, Katharine Ross would have been in a lot more movies. She's certainly a better actress than McGraw.
I didn't even cry when she got sick, never occured to me to even feel sad.
It was nice to see Tommy Lee Jones looking like he was about 15, and the score is good. But this one is so old by now it has a beard a mile long, and the sin of that is its not that old, but it feels it.


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


user
A wealthy Harvard dude falls for a poor Radcliffe chick much to the consternation of his strict father (Ray Milland).
Syrupy, sugary, and most of all, sappy story about a battle of the 'classes' when rich-kid Ryan O'Neal brings home a waif of a librarian for his snobbish parents to ridicule. Ali MacGraw is the social derelict with the filthy mouth while John Marley plays her devout-Catholic father, but no one in the film is more annoying than O'Neal himself with his whimpering portrayal as Harvard's champion yuppie.
Followed 8(!) years later by 'Oliver's Story'.


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


user
**** SPOILER WARNING ****
Absolutely without a doubt, one of the funniest comedies ever created for the screen. Totally impossible to take any of this seriously. It would take a major novel to list all of the comedy routines in it. During the glory days of her program, Carol Burnett and company, who often did take-offs on films, skewered this one in ways that were hard to imagine. Carol played Jenny who suddenly became ill with only a slight cough and immediately the treacly music came up and everyone looked around wondering where it was coming from. Harvey Korman played Oliver with flowing locks and almost look liked Ryan O'Neal. The only thing funnier than this bit, is the real film.
What a death scene at the end. Jenny really looks like she's dying alright...dying for her make-up artist to come in and give her a little color. And of course, we all know how often hospitals encourage a loved one to get in bed with them during the patient's final moments. The ending scene with Ryan O'Neal sitting on a bench in the snow contemplating his future in the movie business is an instant classic. He had plenty to worry about. He never did recover from this.


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


user
This 1970 hit film has not aged well, but frankly, it was not that good when it was released. Yet, it was a hugely popular success perhaps because the idea of fatalistic young love must have appealed to audiences saturated by constant TV coverage of the Vietnam War. The plot is pure drivel as it concerns Oliver Barrett IV, a privileged Harvard hockey player, who meets and falls in love with Jenny Cavelleri, an antagonistic Vassar music student proud of her working class background. His old-school father naturally disapproves of Jenny, and in a typical act of rebellion, that means the young couple gets married in one of those hippie-era, extemporaneous ceremonies. He lands his dream job in New York, but she gets unexpectedly ill and dies of her terminal disease. There is a veneer of then-contemporary film-making techniques displayed by director Arthur Hiller, but none of that can hide the old-fashioned, cliché-ridden story at its core. The inevitable ending left me particularly unmoved.
Both Ryan O'Neal and Ali MacGraw became stars with this movie as Oliver and Jenny but inexplicably so since neither seems able to convey the depth or complexity required to make their characters compelling. At least the boyish O'Neal is sincere in his weakly defiant approach, but MacGraw is so wooden and smirky in behavior that it's hard to see what Oliver sees in Jenny beyond her sarcastic façade. John Marley (two years before finding the decapitated racehorse in his bed in "The Godfather") does better as Jenny's plainspoken baker father Phil, as does Ray Milland as the seemingly insensitive Barrett paterfamilias. The overly familiar Frances Lai music has almost become parody in itself over the years. The print quality on the DVD is good, though the only extra is a rather effusive commentary track by Hiller. The most interesting bit of trivia is that author Erich Segal (upon whose book this movie is based) conceived Oliver as a mix between two Harvard roommates he knew  Vice President Al Gore and actor Tommy Lee Jones, who happens to have a bit part in the movie as one of Oliver's roommates.


assistant
0