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\nFirst of all, since I'm one of the people who never saw the MST3K chopped up version of this movie, I can't comment on that.
However, I DID see the original version of this movie on the Sci-Fi Channel and I thought it was just as good as anything else on that Channel. In fact, I thought it was one of their better offerings.
I've noticed in perusing the comments here that the people who write in detail about SOULTAKER with a modicum of intelligence, thoughtfulness and maturity tend to like at least a FEW things about this movie and rightly so. In it's original cut, most reasonable people I think would probably rate it at least 4 or 5 stars out of 10. Five is average to me and I think this movie is about average for a Sci Fi pic.
In contrast to the above, I've also noticed that the reviewers who seem immature, dull and flip and as a result come off as boneheads from where I stand, are the same ones who can't find anything good about this movie and basically trash it without cause based MOSTLY on seeing it chopped up and fricasseed on MST3K. Or if they have seen both cuts it seems they were greatly prejudiced by the MST3K viewing to begin with.
\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 have seen both the MST3K version and the uncut version. I rather enjoyed it. Either way, it wasn't that bad of a movie. Sure it moved a bit slow at times. I liked it.
As far as MST3K goes, they only did the movies they could get the rights for. Not all the movies they ripped apart where bad movies, it was just so easy to make fun of them. Take SoulTaker for example.
Joe Estevez and Robert Z'Dar's characters where so inanimate and boringly silly I couldn't help but laugh. I couldn't take them seriously. It really created a unique feeling though.
Vivian Schilling did an excellent job with the script. A world better than 95% of the garbage in the theatres today. Her role was played well. Not too screamy not to masculine but just right. The camera really likes her in this movie. I would have casted her in that role after ready the script.
Anyways, this movie deserves a bit more credit than it is given. Please watch the uncut version if you see the MST3K. It deserves that much.
\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 Camals Are Coming is a rather disappointing British comedy from 1934. I purchased this because I like desert adventures and states on the box that it is a drama. It certainly isn't.
It is about a couple who head for Egypt to capture some desert drug smugglers.
This would have been much better if it had been done as a drama instead of a comedy, which lets it down a lot. It is quite silly in parts. Depsite this, there are some good action and location scenes.
The cast is lead by Jack Hulbert with Anna Lee as the love interest.
One viewing is enough for this movie. Overall, a disappointment.
Rating: 2 stars 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\nAbysmal pulp adventure exploitation in the jungle woman genre. Lousy audio thankfully obscures the dumb dialog. And it's awfully talky for a movie about people who don't speak English. There's no adventure to be found here; it's a jungle adventure with cliffhangers and one wild animal attack that happens in flashback.
Three pale-face dopes wander the African wilderness and encounter warring man-hungry tribes of Amazons. These wild women have advanced out of the Stone Age only so far as to invent makeup, shoes, and underarm hair removal technology. Despite their desperation for \"hus-bahnd,\" the ladies insist that they will fight the men and burn the weaker ones.
The only thing of interest, as if there were any question, is the assortment of young women clad in animal skins cleverly designed like the bathing suits of 1951. Plenty of wrestling and bad dancing mixed with stripless 1950s stripper moves. No nudity or appreciable violence. On the other hand, you may be humming the catchy native song for days.
\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 plot has something about white hunters captured by a tribe of white women in the African jungle/ plains.Its a turkey and the some. What it really is is wildly mismatched footage from early sound and silent films mixed with badly shot recent(to the release) footage of men on a safari. There are scenes of a man in a gorilla suit, south seas natives at sea (used to represent people in the middle of Africa), women in bikini's, horrible narration and a guy in a loin cloth with make up all over his body (racially insensitive I think so). This is a movie to sit and make fun of- but only with lots of alcoholic drinks and witty friends. At any other time this is going to be a chore to get through. Its a bad bad bad movie. Beyond that I'm speechless
\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 story is about a safari in Africa that meets some guy named Trent--who convinces them to look for a tribe of white babes. Naturally, they turn out to be amazon warriors and capture the men. The rest is pretty predictable.
This movie has everything you'd expect in a bargain basement movie about Africa--the substantial use of often irrelevant stock footage, film of animals that are NOT native to the continent (such as Orangutans, Moose, Coatamundis and Ground Hogs),a white actor in dark makeup playing a native, bad acting (particularly from Trent--a handsome man with the personality of balsa wood), comic relief (sounding like Chico Marx), a guy dressed up in a gorilla suit and bikini-clad white women with perms who are supposedly fierce jungle warriors--like a tribe of angry female Tarzans. By the look of it, my assumption is that the movie was made for under $49.95--including developing costs and paying for rental of the gorilla suit! But, what I didn't expect was an IMDb score of 4.9. This is poor, but not that poor considering that this is a schlock production in every possible sense and there is no conceivable reason why the film is rated that high! Now I am NOT saying the film isn't worth seeing--it's campy and stupid enough to make enjoyable viewing--particularly with friends. Just don't expect anything resembling a professionally made or competent film.
Finally, here's a smattering of the dialog from this jungle classic:
\"Oolama like strong white man. Oolama want strong white man...\"
\"oonga-bunga\"
\"me-te-tonga....no,....keeel ('kill') man\"
\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, although well shot and superbly acted, was awful. I felt as if I was watching a car accident--sure I kept watching but I really wanted to turn my head. The plot leaves little to be desired, was extremely disjointed, and the ending was abysmal. Although, it did fit the tone of the movie, I was hoping for something to improve this movie. I still don't understand what the references to rabies and the child get bit by the fox at the beginning of the movie. Fifteen minutes of plot that really didn't do much. It's really sad to see a movie with fine actors and a beautiful set wasted on such an awful, awful, story. There's not much more to say about this movie. Save yourself the time and watch c-span. It'll be more uplifting.
\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'll have to admit that I'm at a disadvantage here; when I learn more about a film from other reviewers than from watching it myself, then that's a problem. Although the plot of \"The Man Who Knew Too Much\" seems generally straightforward, the movie allows too many cryptic elements to get in the way of what could have been a satisfying mystery. By the time we get to the scene where a witchy looking woman establishes the secrecy of \"the first degree of the seven fold ray\", I didn't know whether to laugh or rewind to see if I missed something.
In retrospect, the cryptic note retrieved by Mr. Lawrence (Leslie Banks) from the handle of a shaving brush was a craftily written message, leading to a dentist named Barbor, and eventually to the Albert Hall, a place, not a person as indicated by \"A. Hall\". But for all the intrigue, it's never made clear why the assassination target was being eliminated. Okay, so Louis Bernard was killed because he knew of a plot to assassinate a diplomat named Ropa, but why was Ropa a target? Come to think of it, why was the note even written and secured in the shaving brush? Did Bernard have to refer to it every now and then to remind himself what was going to happen?
With it's disjointed scenes, \"The Man Who Knew Too Much\" is hard to follow and a bit disorienting, however I'll give Alfred Hitchcock credit for this early effort. For perspective, I'll have to watch some of his other work of the same era, though this movie certainly can't hold a candle to his later works like \"Psycho\" or \"North by Northwest\".
\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 through his career Hitchcock did great films; this was not one of them.
A man knows too much, his daughter is kidnapped to secure his silence, and in the denouement all is resolved to the accompaniment of gunfire and rooftop drama.
Anyone who has seen 1930s Fritz Lang films- 'M' comes to mind- will know how far this urban narrative of crime and conscience falls short of what had already been done in that genre at that time. There is an altogether amateurish air about much of the staging and acting which subverts any sense of menace, darkness, and depravity that Hitchcock might have been seeking to instil.
What it is worth watching out for, however, is the sequence associated with the shooting at the Albert Hall. Once that kicks off it is as if the film has been given a blood transfusion. The camerawork is lively, the cuts are interesting, and the way that everything combines to a climax is masterly. Here you can see the future master: Hitchcock effortlessly orchestrate all the resources to impressive and memorable effect: when the scream comes you really feel as well as hear it.
\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 think the manuscript of this movie was written on the piece of toilet-paper. No respect whatsoever to many important details which intrinsically make the movie. For example, the names of some Serbian terrorists (that I remember) are Caradan Maldic, Ivanic Loyvek and Leo Hasse. What kind of names are that? Certainly not Serbian! By the way, Caradan Maldic!!! What a name, I laughed for days thinking about it. Probably an implication on Karadzic and Mladic. Secondly, there have never been any cases of terrorism done by Serbians. A journalist like the main character ought to have known that. Thirdly, the actors playing Serbian terrorists are not even Serbs nor do they speak Serbo-croatian. All this aside, this movie is solidly acted but the story is paper-thin and full of holes. At times it makes no sense whatsoever!!!
\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\nJeremy Irons and Forrest Whitaker are good actors. But this movie was badly written. First of all, during the hijack scene, Irons sits too comfortably in his chair...he appears to be READING something, and rather calmly too! Perhaps the director shot the actor in between takes? Also, the violence at the hijacking was a big letdown. Slow-mo, bullets flying--how his wife and daughter get killed is just not that interesting and the tension is lost. His grieving afterward wasted another 10 minutes. Then he decided to \"get revenge\" and talk to all his industry journalist friends and ambassadors (he's a journalist for the stuffy Economist rag) and lo and behold, they actually give him tips on where to find the bad guys! How do they know? But what really made me turn the movie off halfway through was when Irons finds his way into a warehouse where baddies are hanging out--BUT NOT THE BADDIES WHO KILLED HIS WIFE--and blows them away anyway. so he's just a murderer. he gets away and, well...I shut it off. I mean I couldn't figure out how his friends knew anything, and also I thought he was after the remaining 2 guys in custody who were the original hijackers. Instead he's going after their friends, I guess, or anyone who hangs out in warehouses and leaves automatic weapons laying around. The suspense was just totally conventional and the dialog was lame (\"it's OK son, crying helps,\" he says to his son. Son says \"no it doesn't\" and father says \"You're right..it doesn't.\")Irons takes on questionable roles--like that one dragon movie he did. He was excellent in Brideshead Revisited, which is a completely different animal than this lukewarm thriller.
\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 can't believe some of the scores this film is getting on the IMDb website! Have I been issued with the Special Edition naff version? Edited by Dewhurst, produced by Bernard Matthews, this film should be housed in Battersea. I'm sorry for all the UK-centric references but if you're elsewhere and you've got no toenails to cut or you haven't got a beer mat collection to catalogue then this film might just be worth 90 mins of your remaining lifespan (as long as you haven't got any paint to watch drying). The plot has more holes than a pair of fishnet stockings and the direction and editing is astonishingly ham fisted. What on earth is Irons doing in this film?
\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 core message is strong, the cast has given it their best shot, the packaging is excellent, but the screenplay is seriously over-dramatized and every cliche in the book on women's suffering in India has been over-used to the max.
\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\nIn case you dear readers never heard, this movie was the main inspiration for last year's Samuel L. Jackson-Eugene Levy clunker The Man. This 80s-drenched buddy action-comedy pairs short 'n stubbly Billy Crystal and the late Ethiopian Shim-Shammer Gregory Hines together as some witty Chi-town cops who don't play by the rules. That's pretty much the extent of the movie. Interest is somewhat peaked by Hines' line delivery that is spookily similar to Will Smith's and by cameos of now-more-famous actors like Memento's Joe Pantoliano and \"NYPD Blue's\" Jimmy Smits. My favorite scene is, I dunno, the car chase on the tracks, I guess. Basically, I just view this movie as a major helping hand in the demolition of action buddy flicks. Well, this and Lethal Weapon 4... and Rush Hour 2... and The Man...
\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\nSometimes there's a film so bad that you just keep watching in awe. This is one of those films. Of course I can't help that I'm biased. I'm from Chicago so I watched the scenes closely for accuracy and I don't find Billy Crystal funny at all. And I can't stand all that English style photography(Tony Scott etc) with the smoke machine working overtime and all the flourecent, soft lighting. I suppose we're supposed to believe that Billy Crystal is really from Chicago because he wears a Cubs jersey. Oh and the plot. If you really think about it, these guys should be locked up, not the bad guys, since they're more dangerous. And of course there's the cliché of the cops on the verge of retiring. But the funniest scene is the climax where the good and bad guys machine gun other to death in The Thompson Center(A state building!) Of course it's a cool building, but it's the equivalent of making a huge drug deal at the White house.
\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 you are home on a weekend, very bored and lack the will to move, with absolutely nothing better to do with your life for the next couple of hours you could enjoy making fun of this movie. The acting and script and general movie making of this film isn't actually all that bad, which is why it makes it possible to actually sit through this. This is defitnly a movie they would show in high school health class to teach the dangers of pre-marital sex. Or they could also show it to teach the dangers of very lame music - that 'rock' band Brian Austin Green is in is really terrible, I think thats a much greater threat to society than unwed parents.
\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 because the cover was cool looking, the first 15 minutes of the movie are okay and somehow interesting, but once the young woman and her little sister go on their trip everything goes to hell and the movie becomes boring.
\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\nYawn, that is my reaction to this film. I was really hoping this would have been a good modern day slasher but it doesn't even fall into the category of slashers. Instead, it tries to be something it isn't, which is a psychological thriller, and it fails so miserably at this. Even the title \"Freak\" suggests that this might be interesting. Match this with the cover art on the DVD and you think \"OK, maybe I will give this one a try\". Not worth the time.
The story actually starts up a bit interesting with a poor deformed child with bandages wrapped around his head being chained up by his fat Mother. She yells at him and probably beats him since in one scene we see her actually slap him for no reason. After all this, he decides he has had enough and smashes her face in with (I believe) a rock. Present day, he is now in insane asylum and is being transfered. On his way he breaks out of the van he is in and escapes. Introduce also the 2 leads characters, a little girl and her older sister. They are moving and hit the road. So most of the movie is them riding around in the car talking amongst themselves. But, the bandaged \"Freak\" is now on the loose and is about go on a rampage of grueling murder! (This is me being totally sarcastic)
I can't believe how boring this movie turned out to be. The budget was on the smallest ever with absolutely no special effects and the dialog I could just care less about. This is one of those movie where the packaging is better then the flick itself. And to compare this to Halloween?! Rubbish! I am not even a fan of the the Halloween series (except the 3rd one) but Halloween is far superior than this. At least with Halloween we have a great score and some genuinely creepy moments. With this, there is virtually no music except some piano here and there and there is nothing creepy about this movie. Maybe this movie would have fared better if it had a solid score because even the worst of movies are tolerable if the music is good.
Well, that is just my opinion on the movie. I thought it was just a complete waist of time and money. But, since the movie has over a 4/10 rating on IMDb, there must be people that like this movie. I am not one of those people. 2/10
\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\nThe title, although singular, will undoubtedly remind real horror fans of Tod Browning's immortal classic about a troop of circus freaks and how they were misunderstood by the outside world. I can assure you, however, that this \"thing\" has absolutely nothing to do with \"Freaks\" or even with the art of professional film-making in general. This movie was recommended to me, supposedly because it's raw, disturbing and thought provoking despite the low budget production values. Yeah right The person who recommended it to me may now consider himself to be my personal foe! The low budget factor is correct, but that about sums it up. \"Freak\" is dreadfully slow, poorly made and every character that gets introduced is downright insufferableand that includes the freak too. Two siblings on their way to a new life encounter a deformed mental patient who escaped from the transport truck to another hospital and heads back to the house where he killed his mother at age 9. This could have been an interesting slasher with good isolated filming locations but, instead, Tyler Sharpe decided to make it boring and pointless family drama. The lead actress' attempts to look emotionally devastated are pretty laughable and the total lack of suspense and action can hardly be blamed to the limited budget. Total failure!
\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 seem to be disagreeing with a lot of folks here. but I really did not find this movie as scintillating as the reviews I read claimed. It was no doubt a touching story and the partition background provided the scope for an epic. but, the movie was a let down. specially for neone who has seen 'gadar'. inspite of the lead being played by sunny deol and the incessant songs, I must say gadar is the better of the two. the story being virtually the same. partition failed to create any depth in its characters as well as the scenes that were supposed to hav an impact. over looking kristin kruek's accent and the smallvile image, which in itself wasn't an easy job. the characters just did not seem too real. not that I am criticizing the acting by any of the lead. it just did not work. the atmosphere was well drawn up, but the movie really lacked in substance. not that I am die hard rambo fan, but some action cud have seen the movie through, or some character development. it all seemed like a rush to the finish. and the ending only added to the viewers dissatisfaction.
nonetheles, I must say that it was at least a good effort in seemingly unfamiliar territory by the director. and if U haven't seen gadar, then u mite even like it.
\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\nAs we are well aware, movies are not set out to be a direct incorporation of history, but it is a disgrace when a movie is made which has absolutely little to no correlation. I wish the director and/or the screen writer had done his/her research in this topic. All this movie does is create a forum for hate between people, while causing a rift that should not be there. This movie portrayed the Sikhs and Muslims in a very negative manor, while making the third group (Hindus) look as if they were non existent in the brutal killings of the people of both nations. The inaccuracies, coupled with the sear disregard for one's faith as portrayed by 'Gian Singh' was a disgrace to the highest format. Though on a more positive note, the actors did a great job in acting in their roles. Both Kristen K and Neve C played their rolls exceptionally. I hope those that watch this movie do not see or use it as a template for the actual historical event.
\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 tried watching this movie, but I didn't make it past the first 15 minutes. It's a terrible disappointment, considering the cast, but I can't look past the fact that the dialogue is in English and some of the actors pretending to be Indian are not even close (read: Kristin Kreuk). Considering that India alone has 1/6th of the world's population and one of the biggest movie industries, I don't think it would have been hard for the film-makers to have found an excellent Indian actress to play the part. And I don't say so because of some blind patriotism, but because it's absolutely and totally absurd for a non-Indian to play the role of an Indian/Pakistani. Now some people say that 'as long as she's convincing who cares?' but my point is exactly that she's NOT convincing and never can be - not due to her acting skills, but due to her ethnicity. For example, however good an actor Tom Hanks may be, he'll never be able to play an Australian Aborigine!
But that is still minor to the biggest faux pas the film-makers made: having the dialogue in English. It totally destroys the mood, as well as any semblance of authenticity. Had the same movie been made in native languages (Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi) with English subtitles, this may have been an excellent movie. Unfortunately, as things stand, I would not recommend anyone seeing it, apart from film students who want to study \"What not to do\" in movies.
\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 am not quite sure I agree with the director of this version of The Scarlet Pimpernel. I imagined Sir Percy Blakeney a very calm, seemingly lazy aristocrat. This particular Sir Percy Blakeney appears to be teeming with overwhelming energy and volatility. I did not appreciate the Houdini, James Bond, Mission Impossible style escapes that Sir Percy engineered either. In the previous versions, wit was the tool for escape, not technology. Neither were the characters of Marguerite and Chauvelin adequately portrayed. There seemed to be little energy or chemistry in the interaction between the characters.
I do not wish to assign any blame, for perhaps the reason for my dislike of this movie might simply be a matter of difference in interpretation. Had the director's interpretation coincided with mine, perhaps I might not have been irritated by what seemed to me bad character portrayals.
I much preferred the version from 1982. Anthony Andrews was quite efficient as the imperturbable, calm fop. So were Jane Seymour and Ian McKellen. In my opinion, the style of this period piece seems to have been lost with this latest adaption. I recommend sticking with the previous versions, either the one from 1934 or the one from 1982.

\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\nHaving read the books and seen the 1982 Anthony Andrews/Jane
Seymour version, I have to say that this is not good at all.
According to the books, Percy is supposed to be a seemingly
foppish aristocrat when he's being Percy, and witty and clever
when he's being the Pimpernel, but here he just looks bored as
Percy and mean as the Pimpernel. Marguerite is supposed to be
the most beautiful woman in Europe, not a tired and frumpy-looking matron (she looks middle-aged, probably due to
bad make-up). Richard E. Grant has done much better things, and
Elizabeth McGovern's acting is uninspired and flat. The wit and
dash of the books and the Andrews/Seymour film is here replaced
by brawn and flashy editing that just don't make the cut.
I might add that to a person who hasn't seen any previous version
or read the book, it would probably look ok.
\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\nBefore I start to tear apart this movie, mark you--I LOVE THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL. That story is one of the best romantic adventures ever written. The movie staring Jane Grey is very good and the musical on Broadway is the hottest thing there. So, I thought when I heard that this film was coming out that it would be great since it was a BBC film.
To my surprise, it was a weak, totally stupid story that UTTERLY failed in capturing the gorgeous tale.
There were no exciting escapes with daring disguises. There was no deep love that made your heart flutter as Percy left the room and Marguerite sighed as her husband was leaving her again.
All it had was a confusing plot and a lot of out-of-the-blue sex and violence.
Sink me! What a horrible 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\nI don't know why they even kept the name. How they could call the series 'The Scarlet Pimpernel' after they deviated from the novels so much, I wouldn't have a clue. The character names are the only things they kept, and even then they changed a few of those, and mixed them up, and changed Percy's relationships with them. Admittedly, I only watched about two hours at the most of it, but that was enough for me to realize that the series was nothing like Baroness Orzcy had portrayed her characters, and probably would have been rolling around in her grave when it was filming and airing. Poor lady. I hope that when the next person wants to make a movie/series of the book they don't ruin it as completely as this series did.
\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 have read almost all the books by now, and have seen the musical production in two different languages. I absolutely adored everything that I have been acquainted previously. But lately I've been running out of resources to sustain my fancy. I still have couple of books left, but they are either in transit or they are the sequels which I am not in a hurry to read. So an idea dawned on me - Sink me! There are movies which I have not watched! Thus, I must watch them immediately.
The first five minutes of these series were... acceptable. In fact, I quite enjoyed the variation of the reason for the denunciation, however different it had seemed. It went all downhill from there, though. Chauvelin was too... foppish? And, I daresay, too old for this role. Not nearly that dark and dashing figure with his dreadful either-or. (And what was that with random bed scene featuring him? It was way too creepy - wasn't his only love the Madame Guillotine, and his only interest - his job, and his only obsession - Sir Percy?) Marguerite... Prettiest woman in France? Cleverest woman in Europe? I think not. Although, whatever compelled her to break into the study of Sir Percy I haven't the faintest idea. And whatever my Lord Tony has done to deserve this death? Yes, every member of the League did pledge his life to Sir Percy, but he would have never endangered any of them nor would have run away like a coward when his dear friend faces mortal danger. And if by any means he had to mourn his companion, he would have done that, mourn, not just move on as if nothing had happened. Which brings me to another point, Sir Percy. His portrayal was most dreadful. He was neither a lazy fop, nor a gallant and elusive hero who is a master of transformations. Nor did he care too much about cravats (his pronunciation of that word alone made my ears bleed) And with his own hands he had never killed anyone. So what was that with him randomly walking around and slaughtering people?
The costumes were just too flashy for that time period as well. This is post-revolutionary France we are talking about! Not pre-revolutionary. People in dresses like that stand out in a crowd quite easily. It was all just... gah!
Although, I must admit, after I watched other parts my opinion did change slightly. Watching it as a separate work, independent of Scarlet Pimpernel series, it was tolerable. Just your other average hero in the mask. But for what they tried to pass it, it is still miserable.
\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 screen writers for this mini-series should have been sentenced to the guillotine themselves. They butchered a very fun story and squandered the talents of Richard E. Grant. The only thing the writers kept from the original books was the name. All of the characters were totally altered and the story was not the same. I strongly suggest watching another version of the Scarlet Pimpernel. Any other version is better than this one.
\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 have read each and every one of Baroness Orczy's Scarlet Pimpernel books. Counting this one, I have seen 3 pimpernel movies. The one with Jane Seymour and Anthony Andrews i preferred greatly to this. It goes out of its way for violence and action, occasionally completely violating the spirit of the book. I don't expect movies to stick directly to plots, i gave up being that idealistic long ago, but if an excellent movie of a book has already been made, don't remake it with a tv movie that includes excellent actors and nice costumes, but a barely decent script. Sticking with the 80's version....Rahne
\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\nAs someone who has read all of Baroness Orczy's books and seen most of the movies based on them, I must say that the 1980's version, with Anthony Andrews and Jane Seymour, was better than this. It was better written and stuck more to the spirit of the story than this one, which seemed to go out of its way to involve people getting shot. This new adaptation is less light-hearted, yet does not have as much depth, either. Although there is some good acting, the actors did not have much to work with. Nice costumes, though.
\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 by far the most repulsive and atrocious version of The Scarlet Pimpernel ever to be devised. As a Pimpernel fan, I was sincerely offended by what they did to the characters--but this atrocity is not worth watching, even if you aren't familiar with the story.
Percy Blakeney, for example, would never stab people in the back just to get down a hallway. Chauvelin would never have a string of women in his bed. Marguerite never had an affair with Chauvelin, nor Armand with Minette, whoever the heck she is. Chauvelin would not randomly shoot Tony in the head. Chauvelin's name is not, nor has it ever been, Paul. They have completely eradicated any reference to the Pimpernel's disguises, replacing them instead with James Bond-esque gadgets and gizmos.
As to the film itself... The makeup is horrifying. The women look like clowns. Elizabeth McGovern's beauty mark wanders around her face at random. The poor, pitiable actors have no script to work with, so it's not really their fault that their characters are as thin as wet tissue paper. The dialogue... oh, the dialogue. The dialogue is unbearable. And whoever is responsible for all those little captions at the bottom of the screen should be forced to watch this movie as penance. (I counted 13 location captions in the first half-hour before I gave up. As if we can't figure out that the body of water between England and France is the English Channel.)
The film--if I can bring myself to call it that, since it's really just videotape with a filter--is absolutely without redeeming value. Do not waste your time and brain cells on this rancid drivel--instead, go watch the 1982 Anthony Andrews/Jane Seymour version, or the 1934 Leslie Howard film, or indeed ANYTHING but this one.
\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\nBack in college I studied marketing and, even though I missed a whole lot of classes and never really paid any attention, I will always remember the main and most essential principle of marketing, namely: it's not what you sell; it's HOW you sell it! This principle fully applies to \"The Devil's Triangle\", as it's basically a beautifully wrapped and enticing yet empty package. Writer/director Richard Winer knew exactly that he had to divert the viewer's attention away from the major inaccuracies, so he threw in some elements that never fail when it comes to providing a creepy atmosphere, like the sinister voice of narrator Vincent Price and the oddball music of King Crimson. And I'm guessing Richard Winer's dirty little tricks worked very efficiently, as there was a huge Bermuda Triangle hype going on during the mid-70's and literally every movie production  whether it was an inaccurate documentary or a sleazy exploitation flick  covering the topic earned big money at the box office. \"The Devil's Triangle\" overwhelms you with data that is unstructured and often irrelevant, but the severe dramatization of the facts and of course the intimidating stark voice of the almighty Vincent Price generates an ambiance of fright and creepiness. The narration constantly jumps back and forward in time and covers a massive amount of \"strange occurrences\" and \"mysterious vanishings\" of ships and airplanes in the Bermuda Triangle throughout a period of nearly one whole century, but the reports remain extremely vague at all times and the eloquent Mr. Price invariably ends every chapter with the sinister words \" just another unsolved mystery of the Devil's Triangle\". After a couple of cases the whole formula simply becomes laughable and almost pathetic, but I guess it caused genuine mass hysteria back in 1974. The documentary expands a little more on the most notorious Bermuda Triangle mysteries, like the five planes of military Flight 19 that inexplicably disappeared all at once and the peculiar case of the vessel USS Cyclops, but still even in these chapters only a minimum of serviceable information is given. The cameras never at one point go underwater to explore the depths of the Bermuda area, for example, and the testimonies of the supposedly real-life witnesses of the dramas suspiciously look like staged acting scenes. If you're looking for an informative and objective documentary on the Bermuda Triangle, I certainly wouldn't recommend this movie, but in case you want to sit back and listen to Vincent Price's hypnotizing voice for nearly a full hour, this is your chance!
\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 saw this turkey in the theater, but I had a good time. The special effects aren't worthy of a grade school production. A toy boat, representing a freighter, moving at speedboat velocity on flat waters while wind driven fog blows in the opposite direction. The red and blue flood lamps add that extra dramatic touch. Whatever cache Vincent Price was supposed to bring as narrator is completely overshadowed by dreadful production work. Calling this a documentary is like calling Britney Spears a musician. About 20 minutes into this, something struck me as very funny. Maybe it was Price's overly dramatic intonation of the oft-used line \"They vanished into the Devil's Triangle! [cut to black; next story] Once I started laughing, my friends joined in. Next time Vinny said the crucial line, someone in the back yelled out: \"Good!\" After that, it got almost as many laughs as a Marx Brothers film. Nobody stayed for the dreadfully serious second feature \"Chariots of the Gods.\"
\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\nThough it's better than most made-for-TV movies, \"Buried Alive\" is nothing more than a run-of-the-mill revenge tale. There are so many plot holes in this one, it makes you wonder why the screenwriters didn't go through a series of re-writes. The ending has a nice twist to it, but it's hardly believable.
The acting by Jennifer Jason Leigh is terrific, as always, but Tim Matheson hams it up with cheesy one-liners that reminds one of Jack Nicholson in \"The Shining\". Don't bother with this one.
\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\nIt beats me how anyone can rate this film very highly. It is no understatement to call it far fetched. How the guy managed in such a short space of time to construct a wooden maze of underground rooms is quite ridiculous or maybe he was the greatest carpenter since Jesus. The obese sheriff played by Hoyt Axton looked like a refugee from the Jerry Springer show and I found the blonde female lead Jennifer Jason Leigh rather plain. We have an expression here in the U.K. 'mutton done up as lamb' which suits her perfectly. It wasn't all bad however, I enjoyed it immensely when the end credits rolled and 'The End' came up was quite brilliant for this hotch potch of a T.V. movie which if it had been a cinematic release would have been put on video and in discount stores in no time at all.
\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\nFilmmaker Bryan Forbes, who once displayed a light, sardonic touch with beguiling material such as \"Whistle Down the Wind\" and the original \"Stepford Wives\", completely bottoms out here. Not only is his direction inept, he also sloppily adapted Sidney Sheldon's early novel; the results are atrocious. Roger Moore plays a psychiatrist framed for the murder of one of his patients; Rod Steiger, chewing the scenery, is a hot-under-the-collar cop (it's easily his most embarrassing performance). The only actor here to exhibit some life is Elliott Gould, who knows a thing or two about enlivening a bum script. Bland, choppy, and produced on the cheap. NO STARS from ****
\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\nAlthough this series and the mini film in particular were very important at the time of release, I feel that the series as a whole was actually fairly poorly written with a weak cast. The issues at heart are extremely well portrayed yet it is difficult to relate and understand the problems within the film when the acting and script isn't convincing enough (especially when looking at the mini film).
I also don't believe that this mini film or series has stood the test of time as now many of the scenes are quite laughable. The issues are still crucial but Boys From The Blackstuff cannot fully aid the cause of understanding the problems in Britain in the 1980s.
\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\nHow anyone can praise this crude film version after seeing the marvelous WATERLOO BRIDGE with Vivien Leigh and Robert Taylor, is beyond comprehension.
MAE CLARKE's Myra is a far cry from the role as played by VIVIEN LEIGH in the remake. She plays a common American girl with a Brooklyn accent and the \"Yeah\" responses are a bit jarring when one is expecting a less coarse character. DOUGLASS MONTGOMERY (billed in final credits as KENT DOUGLASS) is wildly improbable as a soldier smitten with her no matter how many times she lets him down. BETTE DAVIS has a nothing role in a bit part.
Their melodramatic confrontations during the last twenty minutes of the film are beyond belief (extravagant bits of overacting)--even given the fact that this is a cruder version of the story when sound was only a few years old and silent acting was still the rage.
Just awful. And it ends abruptly with Clarke losing her life during a bombing on the bridge. The End.
It has none of the beautifully shaded performances in the MGM remake of 1940, including a sterling supporting cast. Instead, this one is mounted with low-budget production values (and I mean a shoe-string budget) with no subtlety at all. And there's no pre-code braveness in the scene where Myra tells the aristocratic lady why she must not marry her son, Roy. She simply says, \"I picked him up on Waterloo Bridge.\" Explanation over. Nothing bold there.
Summing up: For once, the original is not the best version by any means. VIVIEN LEIGH and ROBERT TAYLOR have never been surpassed as Myra and Roy in the tender, exquisitely acted 1940 film classic.
\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\nWithout saying how it ended, it is sufficient to say that the whole thing degenerates from about five minutes before the end. If the standard had been maintained throughout, the movie would be worth a seven.
One wonders in a way why a woman was added to the cast. (Well - not really!) The premise is a good one The situation the victims find themselves in is pretty terrifying and it's rather well done, but you get the impression the makers of the film lost interest towards the end, or as a previous contributor said, they changed writers and handed over to someone else.
\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\"Opposing Force [1986]\" wasn't as good as \"Dr. Strangelove\" and it wasn't as good as \"The Bridge on the River Kwai\". Heck, it wasn't even as good as \"G.I. Jane\", which is pretty sad.
The film revolves around a basic ethical problem: In a simulated prisoner-of-war situation, how far can you go before you start breaking the law? What exactly IS the law in such a situation? How can you simulate the torture of someone without actually torturing someone? Can you intentionally inflict pain? How about breaking bones? Mock executions? Sexual abuse? Severe blood loss? Real guns with bullets? Death? Somewhere between these is a really fuzzy line dividing \"acceptable\" from \"atrocious\".
Now, what could you do if you found yourself in such a training program and the lines between simulation and reality begin to vanish? What could you do? This movie attempts to portray this dilemma.
I found it interesting to see the types of tactics used in \"resistance training\". I have a brother who went through the USAF's POW training program. According to him, it was pretty close to the mark technically.
The film has a fairly good premise, but it doesn't have a particularly good story. I wondered if it might be based on some actual event, but it became pretty apparent that it wasn't when the explosions started. They must have changed scriptwriters three quarters into the film, because it takes a real extreme turn and devolves into a somewhat pointless shoot-em-up with lots of distracting explosions.
I found it to have a rather unsatisfying ending; again, kind of pointless. I'm left wondering what the point of the whole thing was - I'm beginning to suspect there simply wasn't one. It could have been much better with just a little more story to go along with the fireworks.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"