empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am sorry folks, but I have to say I really cannot understand the overwhelming feelings everybody gets by seeing this movie...
When I saw it I looked at my watch to know how much more time I had to spend with this Kindergarten nonsense.
So why this verdict?
First of all: The movie tells a story that doesn't deliver any excitement! It is not even the amusingly distorted reality of a Quentin Tarantino we used to know. This story could have come out of every little kid's head. It doesn't have anything intelligent in it, neither anything inventive and it goes on for hours... the story has appropriate content for about 30 min. The rest is just awfully enhanced scenes that are supposed to leave a somewhat cool image. Doesn't work. Even the previously seen cutbacks that Tarantino often uses just confuse and are not in any way cool.
Second: Some guys go to Germany and kill Nazis. Ah really? Do they? The only Nazis they killed were a handful of guys, one of them being man enough to rather die than betray his companions. Is this the ugly face Tarantino wanted to give the Nazis? A brave soldier that is more valiant than any of the \"Basterds\"? Certainly not --> fail And what happens to the terrible Nazi-killing Basterds? Well they all get killed by Nazis except two who are taken hostages --> wow, what terrible revengeful monsters they are...
Third: Any characters? Yes one! The only role and the only gleam of hope for the entire movie is Chritoph Waltz who is building a truly deep and very detailed character here. Great acting! Brad Pitt really sucks and is completely out-acted by Waltz. Never seen a such a weak performance by Pitt... And the rest? Well, some Germans you've never seen before and will never see after. When the movie started and I saw the group of the seven Basterds I hoped to see something like the \"Magnificent Seven\": A group of extraordinary guys, each one with a distinct character, making their way to their destiny fearless and knowing... I was then very disappointed, when I saw the \"inglourious Basterds\". No details at all, no characters, no real men, just some random guys you won't remember who were not given any chance to differentiate themselves... But in fact you don't even need to differentiate, cause the \"Inglourious Basterds\" except Pitt hardly play any role in this movie...
So I was really disappointed, and seeing this movie on place #40 of the greatest movies of all time is the only thing about this, that leaves me with my mouth opened...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI will never go to another Tarantino movie again. The entire film was worthless. My wife and I both regret that we didn't get up and walk out at the first indication of what the film was really going to be about (which is still hard to determine since it was such a ridiculous storyline...blood, guts, and violence seemed to be the only real theme), but we kept hoping there'd be something redeeming just around the corner. Unfortunately, there wasn't because there wasn't anything that made sense! We, along with a lot of the other people in the audience walked out of the theater muttering \"that was disgusting\", \"what a waste of time\", \"I should've walked out\", \"where was the comedy\", \"that was pathetic\", etc. It actually made us, the audience, voice our disgust and the feeling that we had just been thoroughly ripped off. The only thing of merit in the film was the costuming and the acting ability of almost everyone in the film....there just wasn't a plot/script worthy of their talents. I rate this a 1 because there isn't a 0. I can't quite understand how anyone could rate this higher than a 0!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nChapter One: Once Upon a Time At A Table (1941)
In which a German Nazi and a French Dairy Farmer talk at a table for 20 minutes; first in French, then in English.
Chapter Two: Three Years Of Inglorious Basterds In Sixteen Minutes... Without Tables (Mostly)
In which an American Lieutenant talks to his newly formed 8 man Jewish- American commando unit. There are no tables present. Cut to Adolf Hitler, three years later. He is angry at his men's inability to deal with the Basterds. Hitler does have a table. We return to the Basterds in a flashback. Again, distinct lack of table-based content.
Chapter Three: German Night in Paris... At A Table... Talking
In which a Jewish woman who escaped from under the table in Chapter One has somehow managed to become the proprietress of a cinema. The Jewish woman talks to an Actor at a table in a bar. Later, the Jewish woman, the Actor, Joseph Goebbels and a Translator talk at a table in a Restaurant. The Actor and Goebbels talk in German. The Translator translates the German into French. The Jewish woman replies in French. The Translator translates the French into German. Goebbels decides to hold a film premiere at the Jewish woman's cinema. The Actor and Goebbels leave. The Nazi (who talked with the Dairy Farmer at a table for twenty minutes back in Chapter One) arrives. He talks with the Jewish woman at the table. He leaves. The Jewish woman breaks down; overcome with emotion at having spent so long talking at a table.
Chapter Four: Operation Table Talking
In which Austin Powers sends a British Officer to join the Basterds and an Actress on a mission to talk in German at a table in a Tavern. After 21 minutes of talking at a table they all shoot each other. The actress survives but spends the next 5 minutes lying on a table talking.
Chapter Five: Revenge of the Giant Table
In which, The Basterds decide to continue the operation by talking in Italian and suicide bombing the cinema. The Nazi takes the Actress into a small room where they sit next to a table. A hoe that he found under the table in the Tavern fits her so he kills her. Then he takes two of the Basterds to a big room, where they sit and talk at a table. Meanwhile, the cinema burns down, Hitler is riddled with bullets and the two Basterds blow themselves up for no good reason at all.
The End
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one of the worst movies I have ever seen.
What is the purpose of this movie? A bunch of Americans enters Nazi-occupied France and starts slaughtering Germans. You see them scalping their enemies and beating them to death with baseball bats. While making jokes, of course.
Some will say that this movie is a parody of a certain genre. For a parody, it is neither witty nor funny. The contents is zero. It is exceptionally brutal and disgusting. Underneath lies a subtle political message, because it is again \"the good guys\" killing \"bad Nazis\". The whole plot is unthinkable if you turn it around. Could you imagine a storyline where Nazis (while making jokes) kill everybody in the Warsaw ghetto with flamethrowers? Probably not, but this movie is exactly about that, with the exception that is satisfies the weird moral expectations of a certain audience: slaughtering people is so cool when done by the right people.
This movie only works because of the hidden Nazi-ideology underneath. It does not regard the enemy as people. And if the latter is supposed to be an element of the fun, I am happy to say that this kind of fun will always remain a mystery to me.
Another mystery is how such violence can fascinate the American crowd while a bit of nudity will freak them out. But if a naked body is pornography, this movie with all its brutality is pure pornography at its very worst.
Inglorious Basterds is a pointless, boring and tasteless waste of time and money.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was debating between this movie and 2012 but chose Inglourious Basterds due to it's amazingly high IMDb rating. I must say now, what a disappointment. I expected a certain amount of gratuitous violence, but I also expected a lot of witty dialog. I got a huge dosage of the former, but not nearly enough of the latter. I felt shortchanged. The ratio between violence to plot is very important and I think this movie gets it totally wrong. And the plot? It's that believable or really all that entertaining either. Save your time and money. I can't believe what this rating says for the gory and violent tastes of the modern masses.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHooray for Title Misspellings! After reading reviews and contemplating, my girlfriend and I confirmed that this movie is an utter piece of trash. This movie lost her as one of those Rare Tarantino fans.I wish it were made on nitrate film, and all the copies piled neatly underneath a chain-smoking Tarantino fanboy. The literally needless violence, the plot holes, Tarantino's table-itis sans drama, and absent character development made this a thoroughly painful, glorified montage.
What acting was there? And how much of that was just because I was too busy reading the subtitles? I watch my share of fansubbed anime, and kudos for the attempt at authenticity, but it was overdone for an English-language movie. With the glaring historical inadequacies, the constant reading killed what acting there was.
Why pay money for a narrator who will have absolutely no tie to any of the characters, plot, themes, setting, or anything involved in the movie? When the movie needs that sort of off hand explanation, it's foreshadowing the utter filth that follows.
Historical Research - while it was sprinkled with interesting factiods, used the proper costumes and props for the soldiers, this movie stretched the truth beyond belief even for historical fiction. Kudos on Mata Hari reference, though using it as foreshadowing was a bit much. Mata Hari was executed by a firing squad, not choked in an isolated room. This ruined any sense that the reference may have had.
Other reviews mention more than half a dozen homages to other artists in the first 15 minutes. Considering the audience, all these and other references were completely lost on many who would bother to see this movie, and all who would enjoy it.
I'm confused by his choices of when to start a scene, end it, and what needs to be included. In a movie promoted as an action film, why did it take nearly 20 minutes to set up any sort of testosterone?
What I believe to be the message was trite. The idea of rats and how we act on a primal nature against them, and \"who is the rat?\" were at best clichéd, but at worst not realized. Mention of American camps for the Japanese and German Americans would have added legitimacy to this question to the moral high ground. Literally every character in the film that gets a speaking role was caught up in their own legend. Is that the world in which Tarantino lives?
I'm glad I didn't pay to see this one. I regret that I bothered to view it at all, even with well-meaning hosts. There was a rich base of ideas to develop, but none were realized.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nEvery movie Quentin Tarantino has made has become progressively worse. I'd like to believe that most people would agree with that statement, but seeing as \"Inglourious(sic) Basterds(sic)\" has an 8.5/10 from over 100,000 ratings, it doesn't seem like the general movie-going public has any sense. Even his best work, Reservoir Dogs, wasn't a 'masterpiece.' The trouble is that claiming that you like Tarantino's work has become trendy. As soon as that happens, you get boatloads of people ready and willing to hop on another bandwagon. They will ignore laughably terrible acting, and utterly self-indulgent writing just so they can be part of the exclusive club called \"everyone.\" This movie is so terrible, that I swear it must be some sort of twisted joke by Tarantino to see how much torture his fans will tolerate and still praise him. Like another reviewer has already said: \"Previous Tarantino movies were from a guy in love with other movies. This one is from a guy in love with his own writing.\" I couldn't agree more. This movie is nothing more than self-indulgent and in-joke riddled writing paired with acting ability taken right out of a high school play. But, thanks to the general movie going public, I'm sure it will still go down as one of the best movies ever made. Bravo, Tarantino. You've pulled-off one of the best practical jokes of all time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe first half of this movie was quite good. It was interesting and suspenseful. The second half was pretty bad. The comic book revenge story came full circle and we see lots of comic Nazi characters and some badly acted \"good guys\" blowing them away. There's a lot of violence in this movie. I'm not squeamish about violence but I think it should at least have some purpose in a movie. There was little purpose to the violence here except to create a genre film where we see lots of people getting mowed down with rifles. We're somehow supposed to be amused by this.
I watched Reservoir Dogs recently. There was a movie where violence was employed effectively. It was realistic within the world the movie created. There were never any over-the-top sound effect. It was a crime movie which played it straight. Inglorious Basterds should have played it straight but didn't. I was rolling my eyes at how the violence was exaggerated with sound effects and extra bullets to the head and face.
None of the back-story of any of the Basterds is really explained either, they're simply Nazi hunters. We don't really get to like any of them either because they're too busy cutting scalps off and shooting people in the face. It's all about \"revenge\" and very little else.
There was 2 1/2 hours to work with here but few of the Basterds were really examined in depth. This seems like it was simply a revenge flick pure and simple. We saw that in Tarantino's last flick, \"Death Proof\" which I didn't care for either. It suffered the same problems. The characters were almost interchangeable.
The first half again, was pretty good. I wanted to see the exploits of the Inglorious Basterds across Europe. I was presented with a much lamer movie about the resistance movement plotting revenge against some comic book Nazis when they all go to one movie premiere in France.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBad bad bad....
This is another stupid movie. still don't know what is the language of this movie? is itEnglish or french or German!?!! you have to be speaking all 3 languages ( at least ); preffered Italian too to understand it. poor quality translation with very hard to read font. showing a very stupid way of ending this movie!! in the mid of the movie you will lose interest in this movie and start to think why am i watching this?! brad pitt is proving that his acting talent is going down.
Maybe this is the movie number 1000000 that talks about Nazis. is there any other subjects that Hollywood can produce?! I think this movie is another American propaganda to show super heros American. I expect next Hollywood movie is American hero will save Jesus!!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is not worth a descend review, it just made me decide that I am not going to go see the next Tarantino film. And I used to love Tarantino's films.
Not artsy, not entertaining, not witty, not funny, nothing, just dull and stupid. If this movie would have been Tarantinos first, it would have also been his last.
Tarantino has to get a grip on himself, otherwise his next movie is going to be 3 hours of meaningless, boring and uncool dialog. It seems like he has fallen in love with his dialog - and his love is blind.
After you finish your popcorn's there's no reason to sit in a theater anymore.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nCountless Historical & cultural mistakes 0/10
(1) A Jewish guy named OMAR!!! Hahahaha (2) Brilliant detective was taking out by the least intelligent guy in the movie! (3) Jewish suicide bombers!! That was funny. (4) Hitler and his top guns went to watch a movie downtown Paris!!! With two guards at the door. !! shoot me. (5) Brad Pitt overacted and it was painful to watch him. (6) Mr. QT is re-writing history, \"Hitler was killed in a theatre really!\" the funny thing about this is that people \"and I mean stupid people\" will actually believe this plot.
And finally can any one tell me, how this movie made it to the top 250 movies of all time!!! Shame shame shame, still wondering how can anyone like this movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nQuentin in my opinion has written and directed only really one good movie and that was the multiple award winning Pulp Fiction. However, most of films, especially of recent, have been real REAL turkeys. People still rate him and his stuff today and i really can't see why. There are many other directors and writers nowadays producing far better entertainment in all aspects of their movies. From this point on, i shall not believe the hype that is a Tarantino movie.
Inglorious was too long and worse still you felt it. The humor was, well, minimal and not that humorous. The violence was nothing new (minus the end scene). The dialog was sometimes very VERY drawn out.
For some they'll love this movie; and for others they'll hate it.
... and i thought the subject matter of Nazis was finally put to bed with the awesome 2004 German movie Der Untergang.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nLittle Quentin seems to have mastered the art of having the cake and eating it.
As usual, the pure sadistic display can be explained as a clever thought-provoking way of sending violence back into the audience's face.
Sure, Mr Tarantino. Violence is Baaad. Sadism is Baaad. It is well worth wading in it to make that point. How very brilliant.
The juvenile part of the audience may well not be clever enough to follow all the smart references to higher levels of consciousness though, but I'm confident they'll see the light one day.
Thanks for making this little world of ours a little better. You deserve a medal.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nInglourious Basterds IS Tarantino's worst film he has ever made. It's full of his usual ingredient's i.e. snappy dialogue, brutal and sudden violence, but it all feel's deja-vu. The directing is typical Tarantino and nothing seem's new at all. It's almost as if he's copied exactly from his only masterpiece, Pulp Fiction.
There is nothing new or exciting about Inglourious Basterds to be honest, it's just a war drama that isn't funny, nor brilliant as Pulp Fiction was. Basterds supposedly is Tarantino's tribute to Leone's Spaghetti western's but seem's mis-jointed and out of place especially with the continuing use of big sub-titles and throw's the audience of balance.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is \"realism\"? If Rivette was seeking to give us a ground-level study of a woman in a certain place and time and how she was able to influence (and was influenced by) the world around her, he has failed miserably. Most prominently because we never get a clue as to why thousands of men would have followed her into battle. There is certainly not enough exposition of the cultural/historical context to define the country's need for such a savior and, god knows, there is nothing particularly charismatic about Joan as she is presented here. Unless Bonnaire's wooden posturing and flat line readings are supposed to indicate transcendent faith and determination. The use of landscape is particularly uninspired - we never lose the feeling we are watching twentieth century actors wandering in a supposedly medieval landscape. And as for the battle scenes (which, in contrast to some commentors claims, do take up a good 15% of screentime)- they look like look like some some History Club from your local high school recreating a medieval siege, although the kids would no doubt put more passion into it. I will give Rivette credit, however, for picturing a side of Joan left out by other movies: that of a petulant, naive, and narcissistic adolescent (played by a woman all too clearly at least twice the age of the character she is supposed to portray) obviously unable to understand her place within the movement she is helping to create or the world existing outside her own passions. Joan's outrage at her own soldiers swearing and astonishment at the enemy for their lack of respect and obedience to her are jarringly spontaneous and believable notes (you suddenly realize such moments must naturally have occurred)in an otherwise uninvolving historical \"representation\". Unfortunately they also serve to point out precisely what is not addressed on screen -what made Joan SPECIAL? I must say I also continued to be puzzled and frustrated by certain foreign film lovers who equate tedium and lack of dramatic involvement with \"artistry\" and \"seriousness\". Does this film really increase our understanding or involvement with the subject? Or with anything for that matter? 4/10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFor one thing, he produced this movie. It has the feel of later movies with international casts that are dubbed. The opening credits tell us it was filmed in Vienna.
Bey was a delight in the Universal adventure movies of the 1940s. He was also superb in a movie I saw maybe ten years ago but have never heard of since: \"The Amazing Mr. X.\" Maybe it was Dr. X. I remember it as a thrilling and frightening movie.
This one is pretty wooden, unfortunately. The plot isn't easy to follow. When I got the hang of it, I was disappointed anyway.
Francis Lederer looks great as a concert pianist. He was a very handsome leading man ten or 15 years earlier. He never really caught on as a major star, though he should have.
This isn't terrible but it's pretty heavy going.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is the second addition to Frank Baum's personally produced trilogy of Oz films. It's essentially the same childishness as in the other two pictures, although I consider it preferable to the others because it's shorter. As in the other films, there are performers in animal costumes, an adult woman pretends to be a boy, and the characters and plot jump all over the place while the camera-work is static. This time, at the centre is a magic cloak that grants wishes, and the boy played by a woman is made a king.
Most of the special effects are witnessed at the beginning. Fairies are represented by multiple-exposure photography. And, there's a man in the moon that looks just like those made by Georges Méliès years before, most famously in 'Le Voyage dans la lune' (1902). Méliès' imaginative fantasies and creative trick effects made him the leading pioneer of early cinema, and the films he made around the turn of the century were far better and even technically more advanced than this trifling Oz series.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAt least it is with this episode. Here we have a time traveler, the Professor from Gilligan's Island, no less, going back in time to 1865. What does one do--why try to save Lincoln of course! No really interesting variations are rung on this old theme. As another reviewer has stated, this episode is particularly drab and unstylish, with little to suggest that \"the Professor\" really is back in the 1860s. Budget limitations are readily apparent, and the direction is stolid. John Wilkes Booth adds a spark but it remains a very flat production. We too often feel we are on stage sets, waiting for something clever to happen. There is a minor twist at the end, but I emphasize minor.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf regarded as an independent feature I can't say it's too bad at all but from where I'm standing this sequel and the original \"Lady and the Tramp\" don't agree with each other! They are two completely different movies with different style, different voice personalities, different narratives and about the only thing that they share with each other is the visuals (e.g. the town-house of Jim Dear, Darling, Lady and Tramp) and none of those have changed.
If you're seeking any kind of continuity years after the release of the original for those memorable songs like \"Bella Notte\" and \"The Siamesse Cats Song\" this sequel won't give you any at all! Just about every song has a little pop to it and those good old characters like Jock and Trusty, Jim Dear and Darling and Aunt Sarah and her cats may well be seen but they're seeming to be somehow replaced by new characters, not to mention Peg not appearing at all, whose voices are quite annoying. Even Lady and Tramp don't appear often enough and as for Scamp?! He is so spoilt! And treats his father Tramp with utter disrespect, then runs away with no remorse even after hearing how much he's being missed at home! And they called his shameless getaway an adventure! I'd say Scott Wolf truly brought out the abusive bad boy in Scamp wiping out the typical cute Disney animal. Even the old characters just drive you mad in this; Trusty sounds like Goofy sick in bed, Jock (Jeff-stupid-Bennett) - and his VOICE - sound neither Scottish nor worth hearing! Zap him off as far as possible to free our poor ears from his voice and as for the dumb, feather-brained, EXASPERATING JUNKYARD DOGS!!!!!! Somebody put them down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
\"Lady and the Tramp 2\" isn't completely bad if you're not already having a tough day but I expect a lot more charm from a sequel to a true classic - Scamp is chavvy, so is his girlfriend Angel and there is a feeble storyline. Still, I think you should try it at least once because, as I say, there are much worse movies around.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI rented this movie, knowing that it would be bad (i have only seen one good Disney sequel and that was toy story 2), but it went far lower than my expectations. I am a die hard disney fan and i just don't believe in sequels with disney movies. For somebody who didn't grow up with the classics (either watching them when they came out, or renting them since you were born) it's a cute story. I just feel that the plot was dragged out a little too much, and was to predictable. The one thing that annoyed me the most was the voices of the girl children of lady and tramp. They were too high pitched. Although most reviews say that it isn't that bad, i think that if you are a true disney fan, you shouldn't waste your time with this one.
Hopefully Disney won't be making any more sequels to any of the other classics any time soon.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMy Take: Typically routine and lazy straight to video attempt from Disney.
Disney must have fallen in love with the family movie tradition that is the family dog. Many movies have devoted themselves with stories that solely center themselves with man's best friend. Disney themselves have made a handful. They also made a handful of those that are literally dogs. Add this one to that bunch.
I haven't seen the original for a very long time, so probably I'm not the right person to judge if this straight-to-video sequel fares any better. Anyone above the age of seven aren't the right people to see it either. Perhaps only the youngest of the young will want to see LADY AND THE TRAMP II: SCAMP'S ADVENTURE, and even they would grow up and say it wasn't the best kind of family entertainment they have ever seen. I guess to be fair, I can say is that it warrants a rental, but that ain't much to say.
This sequel pretty much picks up the parts left behind after the original oft-called classic. Lady and Tramp now have a litter of cute Crocker Spaniel pups... and one mischievous mongrel named Scamp who is a chip off the old block. Instead of the confines of home, Scamp wishes to run off with the other junkyard dogs of town, unknown of his dad's own past as one of those mongrels of the streets. To capture the charms of the original, this one throws in the same poor dog/rich dog love story, in vice-versa. Scamp falls for a one of the junkyard dogs named Angel (and who wouldn't with a name like that and a voice that sounds like Alyssa Milano?). Que replay of the famous spaghetti scene! Other than the \"cute\" factor, there is nothing in store for any audience in this lazy straight-to-video effort. Stick with the original.
Rating: ** out of 5.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA few of my fellow writers have covered this movie's plot elements so I will stick to some of the cuff remarks...
1. This is entertaining - but not for the reasons you'd think. It's cheesy but somehow still watchable.
2. Tamra, Daniel's love interest has to be about thirty. The Christian girl that Dan ignores is way cuter.
3. Muriel stole his shirt from Mr. Spock. Also, if my guardian angel looks like Muriel I'm going to have to apply for a transfer.
4. Okay... so apparently... Dan is responsible for his parents' divorce! What kind of horrible guilt trip is that?! Muriel says that it was Dan's prayers that kept his parents together. I just thought that was absolutely ridiculous. Listen, I can pray for my parents as much as I want but the only way they'll stay together is if they decide they're going to do it.
5. I'll echo the atheist's comments on how this movie portrays non-Christians. Apparently they're all slovenly bullies.
6. For something positive - David White is a decent actor. He gives the movie a little bit of credibility, even if he is the only one. He pretty much holds this film together on his own.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAll those who criticize The Sopranos for its stereotypical portrayals of Italians haven't seen anything until they've gotten a good look at this cornball gangster film which focuses on a family so irritating, you almost want them to be rubbed out.
The parents in this clan aren't so bad, but their two little boys--one a total brat, one cloyingly cutesy-poo--are insufferable, while their older good-for-nothing son and Pollyanna daughter ably compete for audience contempt. But the granddaddy of them all is, well, Granddaddy. As played by Chic Sale (in full \"Dag-nabbit!\" mode) he serves as the films moral compass, throwing in lots of diatribes about \"dang, dirty foreigners\" for good measure. If these are the good guys, it's no wonder the actors of that era who played baddies became the big stars.
Not that there are any stellar performances to be found among the criminal actors, but they at least acquit themselves better than the grating Leeds family. The incompetent police officers aren't even given enough screen time to bring things down any further. Only Walter Huston, as the district attorney, elevates the cliché-riddled material in his futile attempts to breathe some levelheadedness into these dolts.
The film deserves credit for being an early entry in what would prove to be a very popular silencing-the-witness formula, and it doesn't flinch in its depiction of the hard-bitten underworld lifestyle, but there are quite simply better--and less xenophobic--examples in the genre.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAside from a few good moments of fairly raw violence, this painful film is most notable for making 68 minutes seem like two hours.
It starts with an interminably long intro where the Leeds family is introduced, including two insufferable tykes and their adult brother and sister, completely clichéd Pa and Ma, and incredibly annoying Grandpa (played by Charles \"Chic\" Sales). While sitting down to dinner the family is disturbed by the sounds of gunfire, and rushes to the window in time to see two men gunned down by mobsters in the street. The mobsters flee through the family's house, leaving them as witnesses to the crime.
The rest of the movie consists of Walter Huston as the crusading DA occasionally interrupting long anti-crime speeches to make half hearted attempts at trying to protect the family from the mob. It all winds up in a predictable manner.
Good points about the movie include a couple of decent shootouts and a truly nasty beating, Nat Pendleton as one of the mobsters, and the gorgeous Sue Blane in a small role as the Leeds daughter.
If you want to watch Huston play his early trademark crusading lawman, try 1932's \"Beast of the City.\" Avoid this one if at all possible.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWarner Brothers social responsibility at its most ham-handed, with sermonizing every five minutes or so about how we're Americans, we don't run from trouble, we face up to our responsibilities. It also suggests that if you're willing to perjure yourself to protect your family from clearly deadly gangsters, you're un-American. Walter Huston, looking bored, is the frustrated DA, and the \"average American family\" includes such familiar faces as Sally Blane (looking a lot like her sister, Loretta Young) and Dickie Moore, as an allegedly adorable moppet. Both are regularly crowded out of the frame by Chic Sale, only 47 then but playing an octogenarian Civil War veteran, ponderously jumping and \"amusingly\" nipping at Prohibition hooch and moralizing about how we're Americans, dag nabbit. His St. Vitus Dance old-coot performance is tiresome schtick; it's like Walter Brennan based his entire career on it. William Wellman directs efficiently and quickly, much like his earlier \"Public Enemy,\" but he and the screenwriter neglect to show what happens to this family after the happy fadeout -- i.e., they'd probably be rubbed out by the Mob.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat annoys me with so called 'science' programs such as these is that it is presented as if it were a FACT that dinosaurs live 'millions' of years ago. Firstly, nobody can even conduct a scientific experiment to prove that the earth is millions/billions of years old. It's a shallow theory based on inaccurate radiometric dating methods with huge assumptions thrown into the evolutionary pot.
Secondly, nobody can prove that evolution ever happened. All Darwin's missing links are still MISSING ! If you look at all the fossils anywhere in or on the earth, they are complete animals of a certain kind eg: a dog or a cat. Nobody has ever found the skeleton of a dog turning into a cat or in the example presented in this series, a dinosaur turning into a bird.
This is utter hogwash. There's more proof that Santa Claus exists than any animal changing into another kind of animal.
All the ideas presented in this series is an attempt to eliminate the idea that the universe and the everything in it, was created.
This series is NOT SCIENCE. It is a religious world view that hides under the banner of science. Science is something we can observe and repeat. What you are seeing here is SCIENCE FICTION.
If you want to watch a science fiction program that has the decency to admit that it's a science fiction program, then rather watch Star Trek or Star Wars.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBased on a Edgar Rice Burroughs novel, AT THE EARTH'S CORE provides little more than means to escape and give your brain a rest. A Victorian scientist Dr. Abner Perry(Peter Cushing)invents a giant burrowing machine, which he and his American partner(Doug McClure)use to corkscrew their way deep into the earth to explore what mysteries it may hold. They soon discover a lost world of subhuman creatures having conflict with prehistoric monsters.
Cushing comes across as an absent minded professor to the point of being annoying. Instead of being a bold adventurer, he comes across effeminate. On the other hand McClure overacted enough to make himself also laughable. Caroline Munro plays the pretty Princess Dia that refuses to leave her world near the center of the earth. Also in the cast are: Godfrey James, Cy Grant and Michael Crane.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nCompared to director Kevin Connor's later ARABIAN ADVENTURE, this is a masterpiece. However, that's not saying much. In fact, AT THE EARTH'S CORE is a silly fantasy adventure in which Peter Cushing - who appears to be on something strong - and some other actor (whom I don't know) use a giant digging machine called the \"Iron Mole\" dig their way down to the Earth's core - only to find that the inside of the Earth is pink and populated by ape-like creatures who have enslaved the humans. There's also a giant bird that controls the apes by means of telepathy, and we get to see it blink its eyes in closeup throughout the film. Most importantly, Cushing and what's-his-name also encounter the lovely Caroline Munro in the subterranean caves. And here's what I've really got against this little flick: why oh why is it that whenever Munro's in a movie, she only gets approx. 5 minutes of screen time? In THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, MANIAC, DRACULA AD 1972, GOLDEN VOYAGE OF SINBAD - always she's in the background! How can Kevin Connor possibly think that we'd rather listen to Peter Cushing's fake accent and look at some ridiculous ape-man whose voice sounds like a scratched cd than gaze at the beautiful Munro? I don't get it. Please, somebody direct a movie where this English brunette is on-screen all the time!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA brilliant professor and his sidekick journey to the center of the earth in a huge machine which screws its way to the core. There, naturally, they find all kinds of things that are intent on killing and eating them. Plus, of course, a love interest for the young sidekick. Ho hum, does the plot never take a different tack?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMildly entertaining and self consciously cheezy -- but what else could it possibly be? Cushing in one of his poorest roles, and he often sounds dubbed. McClure is just too Cheezy to be believed, but who can blame him in the wasteland of this movie whose plot about ancient dinosaur birds ruling humans has 19th Century throwback \"period charm,\" but not enough and unfortunately the script carries the racist connotations of the literary genre into films. Nice effort from the actors, but a poorly conceived production.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere I am sitting at home in the morning, suddenly my brother flips on what appears to be the stupidest looking movie i have ever seen. Considering it was the 70's and special effects weren't to sharpe, this movie just about equaled the definition of crap. The stupid monsters, the stupid story line, and the stupid setting made this the worst movie I have ever seen. So bad in fact I didnt even finish it, I made it up to a certain point then proceeded to see how long I could go without putting a rope around my neck and hanging myself. (im just kidding haha) AWFUL MOVIE
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDoug McClure has starred in a few of these British produced genre adventures and this one has got to be the worst of the lot . I know THE LAND THAT TIME FORGOT has its critics but please at least that movie featured location filming and relatively good production values . That's the problem with this movie - The production values go way beyond \" So bad they're good \" affectionate territory and become \" so bad I think I'll go and see what's on the other channels \"
One case in point is the first scene featuring the intrepid Cushing and McClure encountering a monster . It's painfully obvious the monster is an average sized man dressed up as a rubber monster being made to look over twenty foot tall via overblown back projection . It becomes even more painfully obvious that our heroes are trying to escape the monster by running on the spot . Have I mentioned that this is one of the more convincing set pieces ? No really this looks like it was filmed in somebody's living room with the spare change left over from that year's DOCTOR WHO budget . Even former DOCTOR WHO Peter Cushing is bland and what should have been an amusing line \" You can't mesmerise me - I'm British \" is delivered in a very flat way ( A very similar line is spoken by Cushing in HORROR EXPRESS ) in a script devoid of characterisation , plotting and memorable dialogue . It's not just the fact that the dialogue is unmemorable it's also infrequent and rare since the monsters don't speak . Wouldn't it have been better having the chief bad guys humanoids like in WARLORDS OF ATLANTIS so that they could explain the plot . Does anyone here know what the plot actually is ?
A very tedious British movie that even the twin talents of Caroline Munro can not save . The whole mood of the movie is summed up by the final sequence featuring two keystone cops
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"At the Earth's Core\" was on television yesterday. I was at my computer working and happened to glance over and see what must have been some of the worst action sequences ever made. I was instantly enthralled by the film's shoddy production values, appalling acting (by all included -- even Peter Cushing) and horrific, unintentionally hilarious action sequences and puppet-monsters.
The film is about a Victorian scientist who takes a stereotypical Buff American Hero on a ground-boring trip in the Welsh countryside. Little do they know that a great evil lurks at the center of the earth's core....
Forget the fact that the title doesn't make sense. (If they were really at the earth's core, they'd be about 2700 kg/m3 underground and burning alive in a sea of iron or whatever it is down there.) Forget that the puppets used in the production rival \"The Beast Master\" for being the fakest-looking of all-time. No, the real genius of \"At the Earth's Core\" is its naive stupidity -- a gung-ho action spectacle without real action and without real spectacle. It is in essence just a gung-ho movie and a stupid one at that. People who enjoy MST3K-style stuff will love this -- it's appallingly bad, and indeed so bad it is almost enjoyable in a strange way.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhy is impossible to write in french ? Very Kitch! This journey in the center of the earth is despicable technical possibilities nevertheless current in 1976. These big \"Casimir\" of monsters is completely ridiculous! The film deserve however a \"remake\", as was \"KING KONG\" (the last one), with a little more supplied scenario. The professor has resemblances with the Professor Calculus and is rather funny. David (the character) is enough inconsistent but cross(spend) to the people from below a good message \" you unite and will overcome you! \" Altogether we would say a film made in the 40s. Now that I said everything (or almost) the evil of which i thought of it, we can say that if we have the brain get tired or anything has to see of the other one, then the thing(matter) is even rather entertaining. Hugh! Such is my opinion! (translating French to English with \"Reverso\" : sorry for possible mistakes !)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOf all the E.R.Burroughs screen adaptations that Doug McClure starred in the 70s, this is the stagiest of all. It's so stagy, you can taste the dust of the sets and feel the heath of the lamps above. The thing looks like a very, very big budget school play, or indeed, a very very low budget action movie, which it actually is. It's been said on many occasions that this was the last of the genre entries, and I do hope it was. The genre didn't die peacefully, but in horrible agony, amidst a lot of smoke, fake blood and lousy sound effects. Peter Cushing must have felt a boy again, as a nutty professor whose shirt stays white as snow after the gentlemen has dragged himself through the slimy crap-holes of the Underworld. What a sport he was, to accept a part in this mishmash and carry it so bravely.
Shot entirely on a sound stage and accompanied by then trendy, now unbearable synthesizer soundtrack, the main anti-attraction of this film are the cardboard monsters. Yes, there are always monsters like that in a Burroughs adaptation, but they rarely manage to be so completely ridiculous, helpless or void of any credibility. On a few occasions, during the elevated action-combat scenes where Mr McClure heroically attacks the creatures, you can almost hear the empty, hollow sound as his head bangs against the side of a triplodactocryptosaurus. Fortunately, the animals explode and go up in flames the minute they trip and fell over. Indeed, there is a great deal of unmotivated exploding as the film (and the genre) draws towards the finale. And lovely Miss Munroe loses her underworldly accent.
The triple bill, currently on the market, features this film plus two others - The Land That Time Forgot and The War Lords Of Atlantis. The first two are quite strong entries, especially the first one, with a lot of money invested and occasionally even fascinating script turns. Don't expect any of these qualities from this film. Get drunk with pals and laugh shamelessly at what you see. After all, the makers didn't have any shame either.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"