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
Should have been titled 'Balderdash!' Little in the film is true except the name of the island and the fact submarines were involved. Little more than training film quality with poor camera work, muddy stock footage and perhaps the low point of stereotyping 'Japs' with laughing Japanese infantry, laughing Japanese fighter pilots and one-dimensional square-jawed Americans dying left and right. Sixty years later it is unintentionally funny as an odd artifact and as an opportunity to see what is possible when the war fever is upon you. The plot and the dialogue remind me of playing guns on a summer's afternoon in my childhood, peering through the neighbor's hedge to gain a fatal advantage on my best friend Steve and my little brother. In actual fact, the Makin Island raid was a near total failure with Carlson and his men wandering around in the dark exchanging gunfire with shadows until finally, thirsty and completely disoriented, looking for someone to surrender to, before they happened upon some equally confused Japanese soldiers who promptly surrendered to them! In the withdrawal several of Carlson's Marines ended up on another island and were abandoned! The film, of course, couldn't tell that story, not in 1943, so this bit of whimsy was fabricated and rushed into release to the beating of drums. With Randolph Scott, and his jaw, as Colonel Thorwald (Carlson) leading a unit comprised almost entirely of stock caricatures, the green recruit (Harry Landon, Robert Mitchum), the grizzled veteran (J. Carroll Naish, Milburn Stone, Sam Levene), the country-bumpkin (Rod Cameron), the all-American boy (Alan Curtis), and scores of sneering (when they weren't laughing) 'Japs'. And yet the cast nearly overcomes the material. Almost. Randolph Scott's narrow range is well suited to his role of earnest commander and he is supported by a solid group of professionals who do their best with thin gruel. But in the end, the one-note object of the exercise wins. Any pretense is totally abandoned at the close when Randy Scott simply looks directly into the camera and delivers a stirring (well sorta stirring) call to arms. The cast was better than this material. So was the audience. Should be viewed with Reefer Madness and a bottle of moderately priced Merlot.


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


user
The movie 'Gung Ho!': The Story of Carlson's Makin Island Raiders was made in 1943 with a view to go up the moral of American people at the duration of second world war. It shows with the better way that the cinema can constitute body of propaganda. The value of this film is only collection and no artistic. In a film of propaganda it is useless to judge direction and actors. Watch that movie if you are interested to learn how propaganda functions in the movies or if you are a big fun of Robert Mitchum who has a small role in the film. If you want to see a film for the second world war, they exist much better and objective. I rated it 4/10.


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


user
This true story of Carlson's Raiders is more of a Army training film than anything else.Obviously thrown together quickly on a miniscule budget about the only thing it has to recommend it is an early performance by Robert Mitchum,who's the only decent actor in the cast,and actual footage of the wreckage at Pearl Harbor which gets your blood boiling,as it was obviously intended to do.


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 attractive and capable cast is lost in this deadly boring rehash of the slasher sub-genre. The plot a simply a collection of cliches and set-pieces that we've all seen a hundred times before. Has great potential as an insomnia treatment.


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


user
This really should have been a one star, but there was so many, clichés, predictable twists, seen it all before slasher flick parallels that I actually give it an extra star for the fact it made me laugh...although this was never the directors intention Im sure.
I don't often write comments about films, they have to be either sensational, or in this ones case really bad.
To be honest, as soon as I saw Jeff Fahey in it I knew it was going to be poor as he has a unique nose for picking out the worst films.
Somehow the farce of it all made me watch it all the way through, possibly for the hilarious voice of MR T, (not relay Mr T, but you'll know what I mean if you bother to watch this), if you do watch it, make sure you don't pay to see it. This may have worked had they actually put intended comedy into it, but Im sure you'll find the odd laugh here and there at the farce of it all...


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


user
I suppose that any novel that's as much of a downer as Moby Dick would not find much favor with Depression era audiences who had enough of their own troubles. But any resemblance to the classic Herman Melville novel is a pure coincidence.
In fact half of the film is a prequel to the main story as we know it, not that too much of it was kept for the film. We first meet Ahab Creely (he's got a last name and a brother) as one happy go lucky soul with two legs and intentions to marry Joan Bennett who is Father Mapple's daughter. That brother Derek, played by Lloyd Hughes, also wants to marry Bennett.
John Barrymore is Ahab in an over the top performance. Barrymore had not quite mastered the sound cinema and he gave out with all the silent era histrionics plus a stage voice that would have shaken the rafters of any movie theater this film was playing in.
We see Ahab lose his leg to the great whale Moby Dick and I have to say the amputation scene was pretty gruesome. Of course this was all before the Code. Still I'm sure 1930 audiences shuddered.
After that the story of Ahab's hunt for the whale that he thinks made him unsightly in Joan Bennett's eyes. That is not exactly Melville's motivation, in fact there are no women characters in Moby Dick as he wrote it.
One of the things Melville did was invest the crew of Ahab's ship the Pequod with personalities. Other than Queequeg the cannibal harpooner the names are there, but not the personalities. Starbuck and Stubbs might as well be Smith and Jones.
I'd see this version of Moby Dick strictly for curiosity and nothing else.


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


user
Necessarily ridiculous film version the literary classic "Moby Dick". John Barrymore is Captain Ahab, who falls in love with the pastor's daughter, Joan Bennett. His brother Derek is a rival for Ms. Bennett's affections. When Mr. Barrymore loses his leg in a whaling accident, Bennett rejects him. He must slay the whale and win Bennett back...
There are several scenes which may have thrilled 1930 theater audiences; particularly the scenes involving Barrymore losing his leg. The film hasn't aged well, however; there are much better films from the time, both 1920s silents and 1930s talkies. The two name attractions, John Barrymore and Joan Bennett aren't at their best.
**** Moby Dick (8/14/30) Lloyd Bacon ~ John Barrymore, Joan Bennett, Lloyd Hughes


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


user
This version of "Moby Dick" insults the audience by claiming it is based on Melville's novel-even going so far as to show a phony first chapter sentence rather than the famous "Call me Ishmael". In addition to having atrocious acting, even from John Barrymore,this is perhaps the greatest example of how far Hollywood (especially early Hollywood) would go to revise and change a famous novel just to beef up its chances at the box office.All of the novel's beautiful,poetic language has been absolutely eradicated, and Ahab has been changed from a brooding,blasphemous,obsessive madman to a dashing,misunderstood hero who only wants to kill Moby Dick after his fiance(!) turns away from him after seeing his wooden leg. To this is added the standard evil brother who wants the fiance for himself, and a different ending!


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


user
I found this a good movie to pass your time, but not by any chance of any historical value. The portrayal of Cleopatra reminded me a cheap soap opera.
The twist of the facts is... funny! She gave birth while feeding her people!?!? O please... A pregnant Queen of Egypt (especially this one) would not bother to go from one room to the other for that reason! They tried to make her appear a saint for God's sake! And the way they tried to justify her murdering her own sister... beyond description.
Cleopatra was the greatest politician of her time. Her decisions were based anything but her feelings and morals. She did everything for only two reasons: Power and self-preservation! She was borne in a family where she had to straggle for survival, something she did very well. Anything that stood on her way was either murdered (her brothers and sister) or seduced (Ceasar and Mark Anthony).
Unfortunately Octavian was too powerful to kill and too... gay to be seduced. So, he was her end...


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


user
The DVD version consists of 2 episodes, the parricide of Caesar being the juncture. In addition, the language was Spanish without subtitles. Hence, it's hard for me to review in depth this movie because because i didn't understand what was said.
Cleopatra being an historic icon, the part is very difficult and i found that for a newcomer, Leonor Varela just plays fine. She is strong-willed but also a very supportive, tender soul mate. Thimothy Dalton as Caesar is perfect and their romance is the main thing of the first episode. So, it is not really a documentary, nor a peplum but a great love story.
After the parricide, a new lover comes (Marc-Antoine) but the flavor is gone: we remember always our first love. So, i found the second episode dull and their tragic fate isn't told powerfully.
Nonetheless, the production is luxurious: the sets are big, tastefully decorated; the Moroccan live location exotic and the wardrobes splendid. The producers have a lot of money for sure, but they spend nothing on the special effects. They are so poor (blue screens, ships, Sphinx) that it's funny.
Finally, I would like very much to hear it in french or English to make a definitive opinion about this two movies.


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


user
If this book remained faithful to the book then we can only assume that the author was ignorant of history. Mark Anthony never died of injuries obtained in battle as depicted. He died a coward's death by committing suicide and even then, he asked his slave to do it for him. The slave chose to kill himself instead. In the real story Mark Anthony was ashamed by the slave's great valor and decided to copy him. But even in death Mark Anthony was a drunken failure and failed at his own suicide attempt. He cried out for Cleopatra and was taken to her, bleeding. She hauled his litter up on ropes and Mark Anthony died a while later. If you want history don't watch this movie. If you want romantic drivel then you will probably enjoy it!


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


user
I missed the beginning of this film, which might account for why I disliked it so much. On the other hand I've studied the fall of the Roman republic for years so I know the story. Then again, that might also be the reason why I disliked this film.
The film has more historical inaccuracies than extras. Though it's so inaccurate that I don't think they made an attempt for it to be correct, in which case it can be forgiven. The odd thing is that they sometimes go to great lengths to be historically accurate that it ends up getting confusing. Like throwing in Antonius' marriage to Octavia, and then pushing it aside two scenes later. Why even bring it up if it serves no purpose for the plot and Octavia is never even seen? And like calling Antonius by his actual name (Marcus Antonius) in some scenes, and by his strange English name Mark Antony in other scenes.
Though historical inaccuracies aside, the film could still have been an entertaining watch if it wasn't for the leading lady. There isn't an ounce of dignity in her. She's hysterical, dramatical, and completely lacking control of herself. Instead of being a clever and composed queen Cleopatra turns into a hysterical teenager with a bad case of PMS. 95% of that comes from the poor acting, but 5% is also from poor script writing. Far too many stupid dramatic scenes are written into the script. Sometimes you weren't watching Antonius and Cleopatra, you were watching immature versions of Dawson and Joey from "Dawson's Creek".
If you want to watch something about this period, watch... anything but this.


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


user
I only hope that no classicists/ancient historians saw "Cleopatra", or, if they did, that they took it as a laugh. The movie is horrendously inaccurate, more laughably, even, than "Gladiator" (which is at least a well-written script whose historical errors are articulate and correspond well to the story). Most blatant is Octavius, Caesar's heir, in the Senate before Caesar's assassination: at the ripe old age of 19!
Besides this, the acting is mediocre. Timothy Dalton has more than a hint of James Bond in him when he says, "Caesar. Julius Caesar." Billy Zane is a laughably dense Marc Antony. And Leonor Varela tries her best to be the seductive Pharaoh (who in real life was not good-looking at all) but comes off as unbelievable.
So this is a warning for all historians--this movie is not true to life!


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


user
Why is it that any film about Cleopatra, the last phaoroh brings out the worst in movie making? Whatever attraction the woman had for the greatest Roman of them all, Julius Ceasar, and his successor, Mark Anthony, never seems to come across on the screen as other than the antics of over sexed high school seniors. Despite lavish sets and costumes, this movie is as bad as any Italian "sandals and toga" extravaganza of the 50's. Admittedly, this kind of spectacular belongs on the big screen, which is why "Gladiator" went over well, but "Gladiator" did not have all the romance novel sex.
Miss Varela has as little acting talent as Elizabeth Taylor, but Timothy Dalton has talent to spare. Pity some of it didn't wash off on the others.


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 the biggest disappointment in this film was that, right until the end, I expected the acting instructors of the cast to break in and apologize for how poor the acting was. When you consider the powerful subject, the brilliant scenery and the effort made in creating a wonderful set and spectacular images, it is a shame that little attention was given to acting.



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


user
Another rape of History
This movie is a catastrophe; it just uses a historic story and makes a sweet love story, with bad acting and low budget production.
The movie should be 1/3 the time, they just dragged the time to make a mini series.
The battle scenes are so stupid and illogical, the solders log stupid, the costumes a catastrophe. The Romans were good in fighting in opened areas, one of their armies was completely destroyed by the Germans when they tried to fight in a forest, in this movie the Romans choose to fight in side the city, I mean get real.
And by the way Cleopatra was from a Macedonian origin, which means a light skinned person.


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


user
In A Woman Under the Influence Mabel goes crazy, but I can see why she does go crazy. If I lived the kind of life she lived with the family she has I would go crazy too. Everyone in her family is off their rocker and not completely with it. She is constantly surrounded by people yelling at her and telling her what is best for herself and people that aren't the sharpest knifes in the drawer.
To start with the one person closest to her in her life, her husband, Nick, is a little off his rocker. He is always yelling at her when he is home telling her how to live her life and to stop acting like an imbecile. The rest of the time he is working long hours at his job and he isn't there to support her when she needs support. The one person in her life that should always be there for her is never there and if he is, he is just making her feel worse. She relies on him for support and always goes to him first when she feels she is acting wrong and he does nothing to support her. When she comes home from the hospital all he does is tell her how to act, instead of comforting her, he just yells at her and tells her what to do.
The other major people in her life are her parents. Her parents do nothing in her life for her. Mabel basically runs their lives because they are afraid to stand up to her and stand up for her. In the end she even asks her father to stand up for her and he doesn't understand, and when he does get it he still does nothing. They do nothing to help Mabel recover or to keep her from going crazy because they do nothing for her period. The only person that tries to do something for her is Nick's mom. Nick's mom is adamant about having Mabel committed. She doesn't want to have Nick deal with it so she has the doctor commit her. It seems as though everyone is against Mabel and they feel that having her committed is a good idea because then they won't have to deal with it anymore. They all want to live their own lives and do nothing for Mabel except for yell at her and make her feel like she is doing something wrong when she really isn't. That is why she went crazy, and why she had to be committed, it was her family's entire fault.


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 Peter Falk's film. Period.
I was 10 years old when this film came out; I was already a film maven at the time. Of course neither my parents nor I saw this film when it came out, but I was in love with the typeface of its ads & the aura that this was An Important Film. Okay, 34 years later I've finally seen the film--having never seen any Cassavetes-directed film previously. He's a hack, overall. Zero sense of timing, editing. Gena's performance reminds me too much of Dustin Hoffman's stint in "Rain Man": technically on par but entirely one-note. As Tom Cruise stole "Rain Man," Falk takes the cake for this film.
I was annoyed with Gena's performance, really throughout--it seemed better suited for "Awakenings" (blecch!). It's not all her fault: she's a basket case from first scene to last. We never find out why?? But Falk's character seems real & is performed WONDERFULLY by Falk as a seriously flawed man.
Shave off at least an hour (an editor needed!), and this would have been an arresting portrait not of a woman under the influence but of a simple, Cro-Magnon, man coming to grips with a wife who doesn't work & yet cannot deal with her three kids & her husband's long hours of work.
I'd rather remember Cassavetes for "The Dirty Dozen" or "Rosemary's Baby." He would have been a better director had he snipped his own tendency for excess--as he amply demonstrates with this film.
Bob


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


user
He only gets third billing (behind Arthur Treacher & Virginia Field), but this was effectively David Niven's first starring role and he's charmingly silly as P. G. Wodehouse's dunderheaded Bertie Wooster, master (in name only) to Jeeves, that most unflappable of valets. As an adaptation, it's more like a watered-down THE 39 STEPS than a true Wodehousian outing. And that's too bad since the interplay between Treacher & Niven isn't too far off the mark. Alas, the 'B' movie mystery tropes & forced comedy grow wearisome even at a brief 57 minutes. Next year's follow-up (STEP LIVELY, JEEVES) was even more off the mark, with no Bertie in sight and Jeeves (of all people!) forced to play the goof.


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 been a fan of Without A Trace from the premier episode. I really cannot express my disappointment in the episode last week. This is a REAL problem that far too many Afican-American families have dealt with and continue to deal with. The lack of media coverage crucial in the first 48 hours has been documented by a recent study. Law enforcement including local , state, and federal are also complicit. What was the purpose of advertising this subject matter and then copping out on the ending? Seemingly, television can deal with almost ANY subject matter EXCEPT RACE. This is shameful.Get it together or don't explore it next time.


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


user
Reasons to watch the movie:
1) Bo Derek at 16 looks good and occasionally gets naked. She does a pretty good job playing an immature, insecure 16 year old beauty, in fact
2) Many shots of a pretty Greek island
But:
1) Peter Hooten turns in the worst performance by an actor since Brutus played Caeser's friend in "Roman Senate Proceedings of March 15." He delivers each and every line in a delightful baritone bellow. Turn down the volume whenever he speaks. Preferably all the way down
2) Bo's fantasies are sadly tame, especially by today's standards. A few turns in the bath and as a fully clothed model
3) The plot is skimpier than Bo's costumes


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


user
There are exactly 2 good things to be said about "Fantasies" (both mentioned by a previous reviewer as well):
a) Bo Derek's extraordinary, poetry-inspiring beauty. She has shots in this movie where she gives even Catherine Zeta-Jones a run for her money, and that's a high compliment indeed. Her nudity is brief and discreet, but just looking at her face is enough.
b) The Greek island setting, with its sun and crystal-clear blue waters.
Other than that, there is no story, the dialogue is abysmal and at times unintentionally funny ("He touched you where you're a woman!"), and Peter Hooten's character is a slimy jerk. Bo overplays the naivete of her character, but then again when you have to work with dialogue this bad it's unfair to blame the actors (the fact that she kept saying the name "Damir" in almost every sentence is a major irritation). Oh, and although the film is set on a Greek island, there is hardly a Greek word to be heard - apparently everyone there, from kids to old people, speaks English the whole time. (*)


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


user
Bo Derek's debut film remained unseen for eight years  and that's how it should stayed! John Derek was a competent actor but, as a director, he's virtually the Ed Wood of erotic cinema  not that this is especially explicit, considering that Bo (atypically sporting dark hair) was only 16 when the film was made! John also wrote and photographed it; the latter results in some decent footage of the Greek island setting against which the narrative is set  but the plotting is puerile and the dialogue atrocious!
The character played by male lead Peter Hooten has been brought up with Bo's family: they grew up as brother and sister but, now in their teens, the couple discover they're attracted to one another (but, as I said, don't expect any sexual fireworks!). Still, the worst thing about this is the fact that the protagonists each harbor an obsession all through the film which are not only silly in themselves but irritating in their relentlessness  Hooten wants to turn the remote fishing community into a modernized sea-side resort and keeps expecting a cruise-liner to appear into view (which, of course, it does at the finale); Derek's is even nuttier  she craves possession of a large antique bath-tub!! For the record, the couple are married by the end of the film.
Also involved in the non-events are the female town mayor and a photographer lothario who wants to make a model out of Bo (and who, naturally, incurs the wrath of the jealous Hooten). Occasionally, for no very good reason, we're even treated to snippets from the screening of old Hollywood classics in an open-air movie house to which the whole town assembles (among the titles shown is THE PUBLIC ENEMY [1931])! At the end of the day, while Bo's naivete throughout is undeniably charming, it's not enough to offset the film's overwhelming dullness and amateurishness.


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 way back at the first theatrical release, in a justifiably empty theater. Believe it or not, after decades of watching movies, this one still sticks clearly in my mind as the worst movie of all time; or at least the worst that I would allow myself to watch.
The acting is far beneath the standard set by any random group of drunken high-school students yanked off the street and forced to learn their lines in 5 minutes or less.
After the first shock of disbelief, we laughed for a while as each scene hit new lows. But after a while, even that dubious pleasure wore off and it just got to be really sad.


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


user
After viewing the film, I was truly shocked to see such a high rating on IMDb.
'The Fantastic Mr. Fox' is an adaption of a beloved children's classic, portraying the story of the smooth, slick protagonist Mr. Fox (or 'Foxy') as he attempts one 'last' heist to steal from the dreaded Boggins, Bunce and Bean. That's right, one short, one fat, one lean, or however it goes.
I don't quite know where to start with my criticism.
Well, I'm in my late teens and was never a fan of Roald Dahl, but I like his material well enough, having read a few of his books as a child and seen Matilda and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory over and over again. This film, however, struggles for an audience. Is it aimed at children? Adults? I'm still unsure! Many of the 'jokes' would bore a child, especially as Mr. Fox visits a lawyer for example, or complains about being poor. Also, an audience of (I'm assuming) children is expected to sympathise with a character who steals and kills chickens. I'm all for the food chain, but you practically see Mr. Fox biting down on their necks! Surely that's a bit much? And also, the plot... well, it's kind of boring. I stayed only with the hope of it getting better, but instead I just got more and more annoyed at Mr Fox and his son Ash for making stupid decisions.
The humour, meanwhile, falls flat. I laughed only once or twice, even though I specifically recognised attempts at jokes. I think part of it is that the voice acting is so incredibly flat and monotoned. The voice actors have no sense of comic timing, instead aiming for the subtlety of humour that only works with certain mediums. George Clooney aims to portray Mr. Fox as charming and sleek, but his voice has no character. Meryl Streep shows no emotion, I didn't even realise Bill Murray had a role until the end credits, and Ash, twelve-years old in fox-years, sounds like he's about 30.
I love animation, particularly stop motion, but the visual style actually creeped me out a little bit. Characters are tall, spindly and lacking any warmth of design. They move with very little fluidity and often the animation is jerky and strange. There is also a distinctive 'mixed medium' feel, as 2D components are added in sporadically and unsuccessfully. Characters look straight at the camera and talked; it was very awkward. There was one or two moments when Kylie looked straight at the camera, didn't move and had swirls on his eyeballs. It actually freaked me out.
Fantastic Mr. Fox had so much potential. Lots of people still seem to like it - look at the reviews. Maybe it just wasn't for me.


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


user
There has been a lot of love that has been put into Wes Anderson's "Fantastic Mr Fox", unfortunately all the love is for himself. Granted, there has been a lot of time and effort been put into making this ever so self-consciously quirky universe but if only the same time and effort had been put into the script to try and make it funny. The worrying thing is that I think it was, and this is the best that Wes Anderson could come up with.
The animation is good in the close-up shots of the animals, however when the camera is further away everything becomes really harsh on the eyes and to be perfectly honest looks like a bit of a mess. There wasn't really anything special about the acting either, with Wes opting to choose his buddies and big names over more specialised voice actors that could have probably made the film better. I'm pretty sure George Clooney's voice acting resume consists of two cameo appearances in South Park, one of them where he played a dog.
The film is too smug and trying way too hard to be clever and different and is typically, despite the film being set in England, all the good animals are typical Americans playing baseball, whilst the bad guys are stereotypical English with the most insulting English accents. I cannot stress how much of a waste of time this film is. I didn't laugh once.


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


user
Fantastic Mr. Fox is a comedy based on the classic Roald Dahl book. Wes Anderson directs, and respectably takes the short book of the same name to the big screen in a full length film. While I respect what Anderson, an incredibly talented man did, the film seemed to have gotten lost in its own clever spirit. Anderson seems to have left the story behind knowing that he is a talented man, and if this happened to be a bad film, it would be his first bad film. Just like when you go to school and have your first bad day, this is Anderson's first bad day in film making, so I am going to let him off easy. I will admit it did have a cleverness and nice spirit to it, and the animation is nice, but the film gets progressively harder to get into, leaving the story behind and having random shots of random things happening. The characters are good, also. Jason Schwartzman voices Mr. Fox (George Clooney)'s smart ass son, Ash, and especially engaging. The film does not quite make it up to a level of terribleness, but it certainly gets closer and closer as it goes along. I'm sure Wes Anderson will get back on track with another amazing film when and where he decides to make another film, but for now, I'm sorry, Wes Anderson, this film of yours was a big disappointment.


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


user
I went in not knowing anything about this movie and I walked out in an half hour knowing everything about it. It was one of worst movies I've ever seen. I'm a generally a nice person but if somebody told me they liked this movie, I would probably never talk to them again. Anybody who likes it throughly is most likely to have an extremely dry, hermit type personality. I'm gonna also include that they think they are pretty intelligent too, just like the self-centered fart bags who do the voices for the movie. I know everyone has different types of humor, some people may not even like mine, but that's okay; I don't think this covers any range of humor though. This movie is as flat and dull as Wes Anderson's mind. Go in and get ready to walk out; it's best to get your money back too.


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


user
Brilliant technology. But what good does it do if the content is hollow and foolish. I have left after < than 30 minutes of watching, being bored and irritated.
The theatre administration returned my money, but the time waisted and aggravation remained. I have been had and no thanks to the stars whose names were the main attraction.
George, Meryl, Bill - I hope you were well paid. You might have even liked it. So I apologies for my limited mind. A lot of people seemed to like it too. Look at the comments. Oh well...
Wish to know - what is remotely redeeming in a story about Mr Fox the husband, the father, the citizen, the ...whatever.


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


user
A fabulous book about a fox and his family who does what foxs do. that being stealing from farms and killing prey. until a trio of farmers decide they've had enough of this fox and try in various ways to have the problem "solved". They are of course "out foxed" at every turn and while the trio are camped out at the fox hole the family perform raids against the three farmers land.
The"film" version ,and I use the term film very loosely, is more of a god awful pastiche of American heist movies particularly the Oceans movies. They they even have George clooney as Mr fox to to add to the insult and manage to miss the point of the story quite completely. So kudos to them .They'll make lots of money and destroy another classic Roald Dahl children book.


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


user
I watched it with my mom and we were like...
What the hell? We didn't get it at all. I may have this wrong, but a chair had something to do with the death of this woman's father. That movie was terrible! This is not a movie for those who love a good suspense movie. Bad suspense movie! *shakes cane at movie* I'm never seeing it again. And I'm a big fan of lifetime movies, too! They kinda need to quit trying to make movies outta books. It's driving me crazy!!!
And Whit was butt-ugly and yet, she loves him more than Hugh, who was a TINY bit nicer-looking.
My rating: 1/10


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


user
Kind of hard to believe that the movie from this book could succeed in topping its awfulness! The plot is so contrived and unbelievable. . . starting with laying a ton of guilt on a small child to spare her pain! Then we have the collusive behavior of at least six and maybe more people(including clergy) involved in what is a crime everywhere. Next we have a wife who seemingly in the length of a ferry ride goes from being comparatively happy to very shortly kicking over the traces. A very unpleasant and coo coo mother, aided, abetted and supported by a politically correct group of friends! Moving the setting from an island off the coast of South Carolina, did not help the story although it may have helped the film makers budget. The very beautiful buildings supposedly housing the monastery did not seem to logically suit an island small enough to need golf carts and such a small ferry service. Kim Basinger whom I do really like is painfully thin in this movie and her hairdo certainly belongs in another decade. Also there is simply no chemistry at all between her and either of the male leads. I thoroughly disliked the book from which this was taken but did read it all. The movie I kept surfing back and forth to, had to leave whenever that saccharine music got too much. Unless you like an unbelievable story, wooden acting, a contorted mixture of religious/mythological/allegory my advice is to skip this one. Oh and maybe a small carping criticism, but wouldn't a caring father have a life jacket on a small child on a small boat? The best part of this movie is the scenery


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


user
and shot in Vancouver with the 'mountains' of the low country of South Carolina visible in the background. For heaven's sake, they should have reset the location. There are no coastal mountains in South Carolina. Period.
Lame visuals. They should have been beautiful. And the story limped along.
I really don't understand why it was such a hit as a book, although I have to admit it's one I haven't read as yet. Usually I read the book and give the film a miss. There was nothing in this movie that made me want to buy the book, or even borrow it from the library.
Verdict: The Mermaid Chair seemed pretty shallow to moi.


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


user
I had several problems with the movie:
(1) The screenplay -- specifically, Kim Basinger's voice over: Movies are not books; they should *show* the action rather than have a voice over *tell* us what's happening. Occasionally I find a movie with a voice over that works, but here it seemed more of a lazy way of writing the script. In fact, it sounded to me as if she was practically reading excerpts from the novel in her voice over.
(2) I felt no emotion in the relationship between Jessie and Brother Thomas and also felt that Alex Carter's acting was pretty bad. That's a significant failure for me in defining Jessie's and Thomas' characters -- with no connection between them, it seemed to me as if she just wanted a stud and that for him it was a matter of being sex-deprived. If it had been properly done, the relationship between them would have given much more context to the story.
(3) With the book, I understood Jessie's mid-life crisis. In the movie, it seemed more like just plain boredom.
On the plus side, I didn't think the movie was so bad as for me to turn off the TV . . . though that thought did occur to me.


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


user
Didn't care for the movie, the book was better. Does anyone know where it was filmed? *** this was my first visit to your site...just found the answer to my question. so now I look like a dummy, but I think I'll still submit my comments. and yes, British Columbia is lovely ***Or why they took it from its South Carolina Coastal setting?(this question stands) The place was essential to the fabric of the book and its change was part of my disappointment with the movie. Oh, I just read where I need to write at least ten lines. Here's my other main issue with the film. Kim Bassinger was too vapid and not at all what I pictured from the book. I know, the book was the book and the movie; well not so good. I found the character in the book much more empathetic. Also the book evoked rustic, almost primitive images of the monastery. While the "castle" in the film was much more visually impressive, it distorted the feel of the story and seemed at odds with the characters.


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


user
I almost never comment on movies, but I saw the 5 glowing reviews of this "movie" and decided I had to weigh in with my own review. An instructor of mine received this film in the mail, mixed in with his Academy screeners (AMPAS, aka the guys who vote on the Oscars), and was so floored with how terribly constructed this movie was that he brought it in to our class to demonstrate to us how NOT to put together a movie.
This film has no plot, the scenes are horribly, horribly edited (oftentimes using faux "24" style picture-in-picture techniques), and the performances (particularly the lead, who even fails at acting like a bad actress) are for the most part, obnoxious. Someone truly failed to understand the point of an introduction, namely, the setting up of the plot. There is no setup! Halfway through the movie neither myself nor the rest of the class knew what this movie was supposed to be about. The opening crane shot, which sets up some kind of murder, is never addressed, and now that I think about it, was possibly meant to be a flash-forward, with the rest of the film being a flashback, but it cuts from that scene directly to the next without any indication as such.
Bah, I could really go on and on. At the very least, this movie gives me renewed confidence in my own film-making ability.


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


user
Saw a screener of this before last year's Award season, didn't really know why they gave them out after the voting had ended, but whatever, maybe for exposure, at the least, but the movie was a convoluted mess. Sure, some parts were funny in a black humor kind of way, but none of the characters felt very real to me at all. There was not one person that I could connect with, and I think that is where it failed for me. Sure, the plot is somewhat interesting and very subversive towards Scientology, WOW! What a grand idea...let's see if that already hasn't been mined to the point of futility. The whole ordeal feels fake, from the lighting, the casting, the screenplay to the horrible visual effects(which is supposed to be intentional, I can tell, and so can everyone else, no one is laughing with you though). Anyways, I hope it makes it out for sale on DVD at least, I wouldn't want a project that a lot of people obviously put a lot of effort into get completely unnoticed. But it's tripe either way. Boring tripe at that.


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


user
You want to see the movie "THE Gamers" by Dead Gentlemen Productions. This is not that movie. This movie is not funny. It is a waste of time.
All of the good comments here seem to be written by (poorly disguised) false third parties. The people who made this movie seem to be attempting to synthesize fake interest.
This movie is not a well done mockumentary. Comparisons to "Spinal Tap" or Christopher Guest are insulting.
The movie is so mean-spirited that I cannot imagine anyone familiar with the subject matter finding it funny. Being able to laugh at yourself is an important quality, but if you are the ones being lampooned in this manner, you'd have to hate yourself to enjoy it.
The movie is not offensive because of its grand satire of taboo topics but because of its constant pathetic banality.


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


user
I picked up this movie in the hope it would be similar to the hilarious "The Gamers" by Dead Gentlemen Productions (which is highly recommendable, by the way). Boy, what a disappointment! The movie is shot in this fake documentary style made famous by the office but it fails to deliver. The reason is partly the stiff acting but mostly the writing and directing. True, it can be funny to use every singe cliché there is about role playing games, but here it is done in such a way that it becomes extremely predictable. Already at the beginning of each scene you know what the "joke" will be about. But maybe the biggest problem is that everything is depicted way over the top. There is no subtlety in this movie, if there would be captions "LAUGH NOW" or a cheap 80s-style fake-laughter track it would not make much difference. With some scenes you can't help to think "Yea, I get why they thought this would be funny" but the way it is executed takes all momentum out of the possible joke.


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


user
As a gamer, I can't say I like this film. Fact is, I down right hate it. I tried to watch it as open minded as possible, but when it gets down to it, it feels rather insulting to my social group.
To me, there are several reasons why.
1. The characters seem unnatural. I've met lots of players, of all different walks of life. I don't know any who act like any of the characters in the film. It's like the producers of the film have taken the worst aspects of the worst stereotypes and put them all into 5 people. Most gamers are rather social people, some with rather active lives.
2. The style doesn't work. The mockumentary style is ill suited to the subject matter of the film. An actual documentary on gamers would actually work better. While it is good looking (I.E. cleanly put together), it isn't very good.
3. The dialogue feels forced, unnatural. It also seems to lack any real world context. Gamers swear, I'll admit that, but we don't have Tourette's Syndrome.
4. The humor is lacking. While self-deprecating humor is a mainstay of my group and several other groups I've encountered, this is less self-deprecation, and more like toilet humor. Likewise, a large part of gamer humor is full of in-jokes and anecdotes, not toilet humor. Most gamers would balk at and shun anybody who made such jokes.
5. The biggest problem to me is basically this: Accuracy. I don't mean rules, but instead dynamics. Invariably, this film is going to be compared to the even lower budget films The Gamers and The Gamers: Dorkness Rising, both of which portray the players as actual people playing an actual game. The difference is, Gamers: The Movie presents a situation where you want to beat the players senseless vs. The Gamers, where you can say something like: "Huh, I know a guy like that... Yep, that's definitely like Gary."


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


user
Christopher Guest need not worry, his supreme hold on the Mockumentary sub-genre is not in trouble of being upstaged in the least especially not by this extremely unfunny jab at RPG-gamers. The jokes are beyond lame. Not enough substance to last the typical length of a (particularly rancid) SNL skit, much less the 87 atrocious minutes I waisted watching this drivel. The great William Katt (Greatest American Hero, House) deserves much MUCH better. One thing and one thing alone makes the fact that I saw this worth it in my mind and that's posting about it on here so hopefully just hopefully I'll save someone such a bad experience.
My Grade: D-
DVD Extras: 2 Audio commentaries; 7 interviews with various cast members; 4 deleted scenes; & theatrical trailer
DVD-Rom extras: 2 Wallpapers
Easter egg: Highlight the eye in the picture on the main menu for a short scene


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


user
I couldn't believe it when I put this movie in my DVD player. I thought I'd have a good laugh, since I've played D&D for half my life. I had to turn it off as I had company and they were wondering what the crap I was watching.
Finished it later, and I should have just left it off at the soft-core gay clown porn in the beginning. No, they run the gamut of fart jokes, cum jokes, incest, racism, dressing up as KKK... This movie is flat out mean to anyone who's ever played D&D.
No wonder it looks like the Real D&D wouldn't let them use their game. Who'd want their name attached to this?


assistant
0