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\nMickey Rourke ( who was once a famous movie star ) plays Martin Fallon an IRA terrorist who accidentally blows up a school bus full of children who is so disgusted by his actions decides to leave the IRA and goes on the run in London
!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!
The movie's opening is rather disturbing as the lives of little children are ended in a fireball . Things like this happened throughout the 1970s and 1980s and into the 1990s in Northern Ireland which gives A PRAYER FOR THE DYING a stark realism . However as soon as Fallon decides he's going to give up violence ( What ? He's a terrorist and he's never blown up innocent passerbys before ? ) realism disappears and clichés and ridiculous plot twists take place . Martin is employed by the London underworld ( Don't they have their own hit men ? )to commit a hit while he wears an IRA \" uniform \" ( Never knew the provos wore uniforms ) at a cemetery in broad daylight ( Wouldn't an IRA man use a bomb placed under a car ? ) where he's spotted by a priest who recognises him while he was in the SAS . Hands up who thinks I'm lying ? I'm not and we're half way through the running time and there's still several clichés to come
This all sounds very silly and it is but what do you expect from a novel by Jack Higgins ? Everything is clichéd , contrived and stereotypical and the bits that aren't are just plain bizarre . The critics slaughtered this movie when it came out , most notably they stated that it might have some potential if the movie had Bob Hoskins playing gangster Jack Meehan and Alan Bates playing the SAS soldier turned priest and for once the critics would have been right . They should also noted the film might have been less dire if Fallon was played by someone who was capable of doing an Irish accent . Rourke might be hunky and macho ( Oh gawd another movie with an IRA uberhunk ) but accents aren't his strong point any more than character acting is . To give you an idea how disappointing PRAYER FOR THE DYING IS the director ended up disowning it which is always a bad sign
As a footnote the original release of PRAYER FOR THE DYING in Britain was delayed for several months because of \" The Enniskillen bombing \" . In November 1987 the Provisional IRA exploded a bomb in the centre of Enniskillen where a Remembrance Day parade which commemorates Britain's war dead was being held . Eleven ( 11 ) people were killed and scores more injured . It wasn't an accident and no one left the IRA because of 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\nWhen I was a little girl, I absolutely adored The Swan Princess, it was reliving the same fairy tales of Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, and Cinderella, the princess and her prince who saves the day is always a timeless story that will never die, well, hopefully. But I figured that I would check out the sequels for The Swan Princess to see what they were like and unfortunately, this is the typical cartoon sequel that just disappoints more than entertains. The only character I found still very amusing was the Queen, she was very funny in this movie and had the best part. But with the voice changes, they were noticeable and also bothered me quite a bit, I don't mean to be picky, just it was too weird for me. The story also was just more or less borrowed from the first Swan Princess, just the villain in this movie is following Rothbart's footsteps.
Odette and Derek are about to celebrate their one year anniversary, but Derek has been too preoccupied with fighting for his kingdom to keep it safe. With his mother's birthday also coming up, he forgets about that since there is a new villain in town, Clavious, who is hoping to go above and beyond where Rothbart's powers went and kidnaps the Queen on her birthday. But Odette must change back into her swan self in order to help Derek fight him and save his mother.
The Swan Princess 2 is of course more than alright for the kids, that I never mind, it's good clean fun for them. The reason why these sequels are disappointing though is because it is usually just for the kids, that is the audience they aim for, but it's more enjoyable when the jokes and story can be enjoyed by everyone. Now there are a few laughs and giggles here and there, but this wasn't as clever in my opinion to the first Swan Princess. I would recommend it for the little one's, but if you're looking for a fun cartoon movie, I'd recommend staying with the first Swan Princess.
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\nI was disappointed with the sequel to the Swan Princess. I can see what they were trying to do with the story, show how married life was going for Odette and Derek but the story wasn't interesting enough to hold my attention and it seemed to cover the same bases as the original.
It isn't funny. The only bit I found humorous was when Jean-Bob was turned into a prince and then back into a frog and no-one saw it happen and he was trying to convince them that it really did.
The villain is rubbish and the animation isn't as impressive as the first film.
The Queen is a very irritating character and instead of cheering with Derek to rescue his mother, you're hoping that the villain puts a spell on her voice box to stop her talking.
It is a shame because I really liked the first movie but it didn't live up to my expectations.
\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 worst sequel I've ever seen. really awful songs which is upsetting considering how fantastic the first films score and story is! also, which ruins the film for me is the fact there is no John Cleese so jean bob might as well not even be in it and the new villains are dreadful. it is really annoying how that old woman type thing cant string a simple sentence together properly without repeating her words over and over and over again. but to be fair Uberta not shutting up is a little bit funny. but the fact it was her 50th birthday: why do they draw her looking like an 80 year old? i was going to give this a 1 but now i think... i might give it a 2. but still the story line is no where near as good as the first film . it is similar without the humour from certain characters. Overall i disliked this film entirely because of the disappointing music, the severe lack of voice talent: having changed the voice of prince Derek and jean bob, the new villains, disappointing storyline the annoying habits of some characters, and the very simple animation.
\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 outline of this movie is similar to the original. Someone gets kidnapped, the prince is incest with saving her, Odet turns into a Swan, the turtle/frog/puffin first the \"bad\" magician as best they can, and in the end.... Anyways, there is not much new here. With the exception of a lack of well known voice talent. Sorry, no Palance nor Cleese and thus Jean-Bob was a disapointment.
\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 really enjoyed BG Seasons 1-3 and really couldn't understand those who didn't like it. But I can't defend this nonsense. Spoilers follow.
The first problem is that the characters are now doing inexplicably stupid things on a regular basis:
So if Starbuck thinks she knows where Earth is why not send her out in a Raptor? Would the Admiral accept the resignation of his third most experienced officer? Would the Quorum elect their newest member, the non-elected Adama Junior? He has about three weeks political experience under his belt, and is the son of a man they distrust. Would Adama send Gaeta AND Halo along with Starbuck leaving himself short of senior officers? Would Adama put a man into having sex with cylon prisoners in charge of the fleet?
I just don't buy any of this.
Secondly, while I accept there have been miracles and references to god up to the end of season 3, it's now all totally over the top. I started watching BG because I thought it was Sci Fi, not some biblical epic. I expected the characters to continue to behave reasonably intelligently, and wanted some satisfying explanations regarding some of the odder developments in the series.
Baltar was the best character in the show, but he now seems to be totally insane. Not illogical considering what he's been through, but very unsatisfying.
All the characters appear to be just puppets dancing to an unknown third party's behest (some godlike entity). This isn't good drama, it's annoying and a writing cop out.
OK, so what are the good points? Nice battle at the start of 4.1. Some good dramatic scenes (well acted) when viewed in isolation. A good final scene, a nice cliffhanging curve ball of a development.
But this isn't Sci Fi, it's turned into Fantasy. I can't imagine how the writers can recover 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\nThere's only 2 reasons I watch this show...I invested the time already in previous episodes and Col Tigh. For all you supposed Sci-Fi fans out there who love the new BSG, give me a break! Go read some classic Sci-Fi novels by the true greats or watch some of the milestone films and TV shows from days gone by and you'll see what hacks these BSG writers are. Their only gimmick is \"who is the fifth cylon\". Poor writing and really, truly no sense of character development. If Adama resigns or tries to take power or cries again or discovers the inner father he should have been one more time...ahhhhh! And Roslin is as annoying a character that's ever been put aboard a starship. Out the airlock with her. I could care less if it's six more months before they conclude. These wannabe writers were out of tricks in season one. If you don't know that, you just don't know writing.
\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 this terrible film was made by the same people who made Lepa Sela Lepo Gore. Watch that and skip this. The plot is muddled and the characters are mostly two-dimensional stereotypes. I suspect the editor went on vacation halfway through the film because quick, choppy cuts start to appear that only confuse matters rather than elucidate them. The ending doesn't make sense either.
This is predominantly a propaganda film made so Serbs can feel sorry for themselves and vilify America for the NATO bombings of 1999. They do this by perpetuating lies about Serbs being our allies during WWII, claiming the whole world is unjustly against them, and completely ignoring everything said and done by Slobodan Milosevic, like waging war on three neighboring countries. They seem intent on making a political film but only show a few seconds of Milosevic on a TV screen with no sound. A nationalist agenda obviously superseded any consideration of art which was not the case with Lepa Sela.
Regrettably, I recommended this film to a teacher when it played last week at the Seattle International Film Festival. He also cited the bad editing and confusing plot, and I had to apologize for the bad advice. You've been warned.
\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\nUh, oh! I just said the this \"classic\" film has a plot that STINKS! Well, it's true,...so get over it! This film was a vanity project for Joseph P. Kennedy in which his mistress starred and money flowed to make her an even bigger star. Today, only a fragmentary copy exists--one that was retored a few years back. However, even if the film had been in perfect shape, it STILL would have stunk for many reasons. And, without further ado, here are some of my reasons:
First, Gloria Swanson, aged 31 plays a girl in a convent school--perhaps aged 16 or 18! Come on--she looks old enough to be the mother of many of the kids.
Second, the movie all hinges on the stupid concept of \"love at first sight\". While some people believe it this, it is ridiculous to believe that a prince would throw away EVERYTHING on a woman he didn't even know! What a lot of hooey!
Third, the movie is histrionic and the plot is nuts! After leaving the school, Kelly goes off to East Africa and then becomes \"Queen of the Whores\"--and later, after the evil queen back in Europe dies (that's convenient), the prince is able to get out of prison, actually finds Kelly and marries her and she then becomes queen of a real honest-to-goodness country! Gimme a break--this is RIDICULOUS, even in the days of silent film this plot was a groaner!
So, in summary, this is a poor film with great production values (mistresses need to LOOK good) that is parading around as a classic! There are so many BETTER silent films out there--see them first and avoid this tripe.
\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\nWow! I truly regret watching this picture... Funny, I agreed to see it just for my wife, who endured the torture of seeing it about a half an hour before retiring, while I stayed in front of the TV, but only to feed the the masochistic in me and I because I wanted to know if this movie was so bad in its entirety or if there were some redeemable aspects which might alleviate the feeling I had of being a stupid for watching this **** called Two Girls and a guy...
Everything in this picture is wrong, totally wrong... since the initial, absurd, premise of two women stupid enough to stay with their common boyfriend, until the awful, but merciful, end, not forgetting the horrible acting of the three actors... Don't believe the rumors, the junkie's acting is bad and I don't see how Graham has made herself a known name within the movie industry...
I wonder why, after the producers saved some bucks with just three actors and an only location, they didn't hire a person to write the script instead of putting a monkey to do it with his ***...
At least, I felt a little fine when I destroyed the DVD and threw it to the trash... Anyway, I liked somehow (and just a little) the brunette actress, Natasha something, but that was not enough to beat the incredibly stupid and crazy premise of Face-off (changing faces), so Two Girls and a Guy to the bottom goes...
Stay away from this ****!
\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
The author tried to make a Kevin Smith´s style movie , but he definitely failed. The result is a boring film that cannot sustain itself using only the dialogues. Fortunately I had my remote control and could see the tape using the 2X speed.
\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 most self-indulgent movie I have every had the misfortune to
rent. Unwatchable. Much of the movie is obviously improvised,
and not well. It looks like Toback took the first take of
everything. The movie gets good for a couple of minutes when
Robert Downey Jr. shows up, then goes to hell again real
quickly.
\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\nAfter an intriguing start, this little drama quickly descends into the ranks of sheer mediocrity. The start of the movie sees two women (Heather Graham and Natasha Gregson Wagner) meet each other while waiting for their boyfriends to get home from their holidays. Natasha Gregson Wagner is a lovely looking actress, and she plays Louise; a cute girl whose beloved boyfriend is an all round entertainer; music, movies you name it, he does it. While she's telling the other girl, Carla (Heather Graham) all about her wonderful boyfriend, it soon becomes apparent that the similarities between their two male friends are too much.... and it's obvious that the two girls are dating the same guy. Oh Dear. Enter Robert Downey Jnr, the sleaze-bag that has two girlfriends while some poor guy somewhere has to go without one. Downey plays the sort of guy that the ladies like, but men find repulsively annoying; he is, basically, a mummy's boy. The worst kind too; on the phone ringing mother all the time, continually showering his girlfriends with ambitious (albeit empty) promises etc. It's enough to make a normal guy sick.
The film knowingly rips off superior three-way love triangle films such as Jules et Jim. This film doesn't work though; mostly due to the fact that it's story is so unbelievable. Seriously, if two women had just found that they were dating the same guy...they wouldn't stick around to talk about it. Another reason why it falls down is that it's just so turgid. There's no end of possibilities for the outcome of the situation that this movie presents, especially with the claustrophobia of setting it all in a small apartment; but all the movie does is get lost in masses of dialogue; badly written and poorly delivered dialogue, that is. The film is also massively overacted; it just isn't believable that people would act like they do in this film after finding themselves in this situation. Robert Downey Jnr is one of the many things that is wasted in the film. With Natural Born Killers, he proved that he could give brilliantly entertaining performances, and that is something that this movie could do with. The two females aren't wasted because nobody expected anything from them anyway, but Downey could definitely have been better utilised. Overall? A waste of time. Don't bother, see Jules et Jim or Natural Born Killers instead. That's my advice.
\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\nWhile the prominent and over use of the play-like format is in total operation throughout the film, it is not however this that lets this picture down. Rather it is the unconvincing female performances and rather tedious script that the film so obviously relied on a little too much. With an idea that had potential, the simple plot is diminished still by Graham's failure to truly express the devastation her character so adamantly claims to experience. The use of improvised scenes by all the actors would not be such a bad idea if only the two leading ladies could take advantage of this privilege. As Downey Jr proves as usual what a gifted actor he is, he shadows the two actresses in their scenes together which is constantly noticeable. The pointless yet intense sex scene seems merely to exist in order to prevent the film from being too verbally expressive giving the actors a much deserved break from talking. With an unsatisfying conclusion, Two Girls and a Guy has very little to recommend it other than Downey Jr's formidable if not out of place performance.
\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 storyline seemed fine, the actors seemed fine, the movie should
have been fine. But it sure wasn't - It didn't lead us anywhere, the
scenes are weird. Maybe it was meant to create something new, to make
us think. That atleast it did: Where is the rest of this film? To me it
was waste of money, time, and talent. Someone might want to see this
for curiosity, to see if they can figure it out. Other I personally
wouldn't recommend this to anyone.
\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 being in no way facetious when I say that this movie was worse than any other movie ever made. Worse than \"Batman & Robin\". Worse than \"Manos, Hands of Fate\". Seriously, it's that bad. When people tell me that a movie is terrible I use the \"Two Girls\" scale to figure it out. If the movie is comparable to \"Two Girls\" then I won't watch it. If it's twice as good, maybe I'll watch it, but only to laugh at the retards who paid somebody to make it, because a movie twice as good as this one would still be a piece of garbage.
\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 my local video rental store, they have a special place for Two Girls and a Guy. It's a long running joke really. The clerk lets people rent it for free. They value their customers too much to let them waste their hard earned money on it.
I was extremely surprised to see that people gave this movie a good review. Maybe someone can explain it to me. (or maybe the positive comments were jokes? Did people involved with the movie write them? Perhaps the mother of the director/writer?)
Maybe I've just seen so many good movies that this one fails in comparison.
\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\nAfter sitting through this god-awful 82-minute excuse of a film, and having previously wanted to gouge my eyes out after having watched another James Toback-directed mess called \"When Will I Be Loved\", I've come to the conclusion that he has the best agent in the world. How else can these horribly written, painfully-directed pieces of trash get made in the first place.
I like Robert Downey Jr., but perhaps being in this movie drove him to substance abuse.
Heather Graham has to be embarrassed about her zombified performance. Half the time the camera is on her she just is looking off in a daze.
Such a crappy script. Prepare yourself for Hollywood name-dropping galore (example: five minute meandering discussions on Denzel Washington's acting....etc.)
There's a great character in Joseph Heller's novel Catch-22 named Dunbar. He spends most of the time in the novel shooting skeet, which he abhors. When asked why he shoots skeet all the time if he hates it so much, he replies that it makes time CREEP by, and he'll have a longer life. Well....if you really want to feel time creep by, watch this film! I swear...the 82 minutes will feel longer than a 4 hour David Lean epic. It goes on and on and on and on...
I hope I never watch another James Toback film again. If I could give this NO STARS, I would.
\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 about pathetic, spoiled, ego-driven winers who think they have something interesting to say, performed by pathetic, spoiled, ego-driven winers who think they are interesting. Straight from the coke-filled gutters of New York's arty farty incestuous drama scene.
How so many viewers get tricked into making them think this carries any substance remains a mystery to me. Maybe they secretly long to belong too to this overpaid and overestimated 'actor guild' or maybe they have never seen a decent movie?
Get out, put your hands in the dirty earth and get a real job. Otherwise, kill your self with a real gun.
\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 big problem I had with this movie was that Lombard's character is, as another user put it, \"unnecessarily cruel\". Lombard plays the role of Ann Krausheimer Smith, who believes she is married to David Smith, played well by the sharply dressed yet appropriately bumbling Robert Montgomery. The movie has some funny moments, especially when Montgomery's character goes to great lengths to try to get his \"wife\" back. Understandably, she is upset because the marriage is technically not legal, but she only finds out three years into it.
Lombard's character seems quite cold to her \"husband's\" sincere attempts to woo her back. While not being highly adept in that effort, Montgomery is nevertheless visibly loving, and yet Lombard is as cool as a pillar of ice. There are almost no clues suggesting any sort of reconciliation between the warring couple for much of the movie, and it is hard to see any sort of comedy- even dark comedy- in that aspect. To some extent, the movie almost suggests a sadistic undertone, with Lombard's character getting a \"kick\" out of her husband's feeble efforts. While one might consider this another 'Battle of the Sexes' type of movie, the reality is that it is a highly lopsided battle, if that: Montgomery's character, while certainly flawed, is not flawed enough to make it a typical exemplar of the masculine chauvinist/misogynist (an excellent example of that is Michael Douglas in 'War of the Roses'). In fact, the character is largely effeminate, as revealed by not only the sharp dress of Montgomery (which probably owes largely to the perennially sharply dressed actor himself), but also to his discomfort in attempting-but failing- to play the role of a womanizing bachelor. His only major flaw is his vanity, but that fault does not balance out with his partner's excessive cruelty. And there is no suggestion that she is trying to instill any jealousy out of subconscious love. This is what makes it so cruel, and sad. Montgomery's character simply looks weak. In reality, no wife would want a man so weak unless she \"wears the pants\" in the marriage. But then again, a woman who wears the pants in a marriage would never seek to be so cruel because she has already affirmed that role early on. Hence, the whole theme seems weird. This movie is neither a champion of feminism (Lombard's character does show some signs of the sort of independent-oriented woman of the 60s, but that idea is soon quashed and the character falls back into the 1940s), nor an even-sided battle of the sexes (as Montgomery's character is truly a cipher of masculinity and therefore a lost cause).
This movie is, on the surface, a slapstick, but beneath that veneer it is really much darker, with sadistic undertones. All of which makes its resolution appear, well, odd. (Maybe that oddity was the whole point?). In any case, slapstick this movie is not.
\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\"Mr. and Mrs. Smith\" is one of the not too well known early American Hitchcock's movie. But if \"Lifeboat\" (wich unfortunately also belongs to this category) is an underrated masterpiece, not all the movies signed by the master of suspense in that time (the early 40's) are really worth seeing. And to tell the truth, not discovering this film isn't really a lost.
\"Mr. and Mrs. Smith\" is an average and conventional screwball comedy, where it's rather hard to find the Hitchcock's touch. Maybe you can catch a glimpse of his shadow (wich isn't much) in the cruelty that Carole Lombard is sometime capable of (but it's well hidden in an impersonal package), in a vertigo scene where two of the characters are trapped on top of a trade fair attraction, and maybe in the character of the mother. And that's about it ! Even for the Hitchcock fan, there is little to connect with.
And for the screwball comedies amateur, there isn't very much more: none of the situation are exaggerated enough for being really funny, and we're far from the masterpieces of Hawks for instance. And if one or two scene are quite amusing, there're not even the funniest in Hitchcock's filmography, who created comical situations in almost all his movies (even \"Psycho\" could be considered full of very dark humor). So, there is really little to save in this movie, that can without annoying anyone (or maybe only both hardcore fans of Hitchcock and screwball comedy, who are in love with Carole Lombard), stays one of the not too well known early American Hitchcock's 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 am astounded that so many people find this film even close to good. Let me make it clear that I am a HUGE Hitchcock fan and went out of my way to own as many of his films on video as I could but this one I felt was so below par not only for Hitch's films - aw heck, I'm being far too nice here. This pictured really sucked. I don't care that Hitch did a favor for the very talented Carole Lombard, but I have seen 50s sitcoms with more cleverness and style than this boring turkey. Chemistry between Lombard and Robert Montgomery? Listne I like mashed potatoes and ice cream but I wouldn't want to taste them together. I have seen better chemistry in chemical spills on th highway than here.
If you really love Hitchcock, avoid this film and see any one of his better ones. For crying out loud, the bits Hitch did on the old TV show were funnier than anything this film fails miserably to deliver.
\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\nAlfred Hitchcock made this comedy of mis-marriage in 1941 but his heart doesn't appear to be in it. Carole Lombard and Robert Montgomery are the couple who discover they were never legally married and spend the movie bickering their way back to true love. It doesn't have much of a reputation and it is easy to see why. The jokes are familiar from better films but here they don't gel. And the leads are uncharismatic. Lombard's performance is clipped and starchy and it's doubly sad to think she was dead only a year later. Robert Montgomery seems to know he's in a sow's ear and tries his damnest to make a silk purse out of it without much success. The best performance comes from Gene Raymond as 'the other man', (he has a lovely drunk scene). This is one of the few really bad Hitchcock films.
\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 only voted it 2/10 mainly because Hitchcock agreed to direct it.He certainly had an off-day with predictable plot lines, stupid childish characters who are desperately trying to be funny.There were \"twee\" hygenic, sanitised, emasculated \"sex\" scenes at a time when the Hollywood Production code was in full force.Lazy male characters in the film who like \"soap\" characters never do a stroke of work for which they are paid.It always irritates me when food is usually never eaten by actors (one exception was in the eating scene in \"Tom Jones\" (1963); although copious amounts of drink are consumed - actors have to leave their mouths free for the next line! Carole Lombard certainly fitted Hitchcock's \"cool blond\" idealised image of a heroine, but what ever possessed him to direct this worthless unfunny script, he should have stuck to his thrillers.It certainly has not worn well over the last 69 years.I couldn't wait for it to end as it gradually irritated me no 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\nThe good things first: I agree with another viewer who said that Gene Raymond has a marvelous drunk scene. He does -- I was tickled to finally get a chance to laugh. And there were other moments I found amusing -- Raymond's parents in the bathroom with the defective plumbing, and the scene in the restaurant with Robert Montgomery trying to make Carole Lombard jealous by mouthing sweet nothings to a stranger.
But overall, I was dismayed. I love Carol Lombard and most of Hitchcock. And I understand the restrictions laid on productions by the Hays Code. But this was embarrassing and awful to watch. Of course I knew they'd end up together, this is a romantic comedy after all. But it made no sense, it happened too fast. Plus I can't believe the professions of love when confronted with such hurtful behavior, both physical and confrontational.
\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\nKomodo vs. Cobra is not going to set the world on fire. It's not a hallmark of cinema history. What it is is a group of underfunded filmmakers trying to make another movie, make another paycheck, and continue to support themselves and their families. As such I give these efforts a lot of slack. I mean, come on, it has to be hard to be a Russian special effects technician. Not a lot of big budget films getting made there. BUT-- they are a dedicated bunch and more than willing to throw their all into whatever lame American monster flick needs affordable SFX. And I get a kick out of looking for the same locations appear time and again in these flicks. If for some reason you find yourself watching this again, look at the sequence where Pare and company are walking through a \"jungle.\" Look at their feet and you'll see paved walkways. And if you happen to still have a copy of \"AI Assault\" (shown a week or two earlier also on SciFi), you'll see the folks in there tramping through the same ersatz jungle. Come to think of it, I think the helicopters land in the same clearing in both flicks. I can admire the thriftiness of these films. Every dollar really does show up on the screen! Too bad there just aren't enough dollars......
\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 group of environmentalists travel to an island to uncover a secret lab that is experimenting on animals. When they arrive, they discover that they are to late. Apparently the government made a scientist test his experiment on a komodo and, yes, you guessed it, a cobra which made them grow very large. I'm not sure that this movie really needed or deserved explaining since it is almost identical to Curse of the Komodo which also sucked. The computer effects are as cartoony as ever an the komodo roars like a dinosaur which really got on my nerves. Like Boa vs. Python, this movie is not worth seeing and is about as much fun to watch as it is to nail your hand to a table. Avoid!
\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\nSo, Wynorski remakes Curse of the Komodo a second time, this time replacing the interesting characters of the original with a bunch of obnoxious environmentalists / anti-capitalists. And he adds a Cobra. Most of the movie is spent listening to the self-righteous characters prattle on about the evil capitalist pigs, while sandwiched between this cavalcade of condescension are flashbacks to what happened on the island before they got there. DNA experiments were conducted, critters started to grow, people spoke to each other without coming off as being morally superior jerks, etc. Needless to say, it would have been a much better movie if they would have made the flashbacks the movie and forgotten about the sanctimonious do-gooders. Lest I forget, there are a few short scenes scattered here and there where the holier-than-thou posse gets picked off one by one, but they probably comprise less than 2% of the film. The main event pitting our title characters against each other lasts about one minute and is as exciting as watching the previews for the latest Dino-Crisis video game.
The acting is pretty bad overall, even for this sort of film. Half the actors seem like they're more concerned with pronouncing every last syllable of every word than speaking their dialog in any sort of believable manner.
I actually did make it through to the end, but it's one of those movies I wish I would have recorded and then watched later, because there are plenty of parts that need to be fast forwarded through. Overall, I give this effort one star, it has absolutely none of the elements that make a B-movie fun to watch. It's a sad day indeed when you can say with sincerity that the makers of this movie could have learned a thing or two from watching Boa vs. Python.
\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 a total movie geek with the fortunate job of video store manager, I tend to watch all sorts of movies, from good to very very bad. This was a movie with so many corn-ball lines, cheesy CGI effects and predictable plot points that I ended up laughing extensively before switching it off after 30-40 minutes. The \"creature feature\" genre of movies has been putting out some pretty awful stuff in recent years (Godzilla 2000 anyone?), but this movie makes me think the creators weren't even trying. It might be worth checking out just for the \"make fun of me\" potential (count the gunshots!), but I couldn't in good conscience recommend this movie to anyone.
\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 Hilarious what is better than watching two creatures battle one another? GIANT cgi versions of these beasts which battle! However I do require one of the guns used in the movie. Because apparently they are using cheats. Count the amount of shots they use before having to...oh wait that's right they never have to reload. Regardless count the shots... it's hilarious.
The sound effects used in the movie for the Komodo vary from a tiger to an elephant. Oh and did I forget to mention that apparently these GIANT Komodo dragons are stealthy as hell? Because somehow even when the actors are looking in the direction that the beast comes from they are surprised when it appears.
Whenever someone dies you can tell its coming because they all brace for it, they put their arms up in the air and cross them to save themselves... it never works.
The final gem is that these script writers brains are just a gland full o' knowledge. With \"facts\" such as both of these creatures being amphibious to comments such as \"helpless animals\" they are just full of fun facts.
\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're looking for a movie that's fun to watch simply because you can make jokes about the not so great acting, cheesy \"special\" effects, and typical sci-fi plot...then this is the movie for you! Not at the acting was bad, in fact, a few actors were actually fairly decent. The special effects weren't the greatest (to say the least); the animals looked completely computer animated. There was an annoying squawking to cover up the swearing and there was only one song played over and over again throughout the entire movie. Overall, a good movie if you're looking for something completely cheesy and fun to make fun of. Not a good movie to watch if you're looking for something serious.
\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\nKomodo vs. Cobra starts as 'One Planet' environmentalist Jerry Ryan (Ryan McTavish) & his girlfriend Carrie (Renee Talbert) hire Captain Michael Stoddard (executive producer Michael Paré) to take them to an island in the South Pacific, at first Stoddard is reluctant since the island is a top secret military research base but soon changes his mind when a load of cash is offered. Along with TV news reporter Sandra Crescent (Jeri Manthey) they set sail for the island & once ashore find out that the military have been funding illegal DNA genetic experiments which have resulted in huge Komodo Dragon's & King Cobra's that have eaten almost every other living thing there & Stoddard & co are next on the menu...
Co-written & directed by the ever awful Jim Wynorski under his Jay Andrews pseudonym this is just plain awful, this is just plain hard to sit through & is even worse than the usual rubbish 'Creature Features' the Sci-Fi Channel have the nerve to air if that's possible. The script is terrible, predictable & utterly boring, some giant monsters of some sort are created by scientists messing around with DNA, a group of people are trapped with said monsters & have to try to escape being eaten. That's it, that's the whole plot of Komodo vs. Cobra, maybe this was trying to rip-off AVP: Alien vs. Predator (2004) with the title but all the 'vs.' bit amounts to is a rubbish thirty second stand-off between the two titular beasts at the very end, boring as hell & surely a big disappointment to anyone hoping to have a full on monster mash. The character's are poor, the dialogue is awful, the pace is slow, the story is predictable & cliché ridden & the whole film just sucks really with a lazy script that states wrongly that both Komodo Dragon's & Cobra's are amphibious which they are not. Hell, Komodo vs. Cobra isn't even worth watching for any unintentional laughs since it's so dull & hardly anything ever happens although the sight of a woman hiding behind the smallest rock on the beach from the Cobra is quite funny for the wrong reasons.
How does Wynorski keep getting directing jobs? He is probably consistently the worst director currently working, how can he keep getting fun sounding films set on beautiful locations with half decent casts & still churn out such an awful film? I think this was cut to get a PG or for it's TV showing since every time someone swears it's masked by a Parrot squeak! There's zero gore or violence & the monster scenes are limp, people just sort of stand there, the monsters just sort of stands there too hissing or roaring & that's about it. The CGI computer effects are terrible, this is really poor stuff that just looks horrible.
With a supposed budget of about $450,000 this looks as cheap as it was, the Hawaiian locations are nice to look at but that's about it. The acting is poor from an uninterested looking cast.
Komodo vs. Cobra is an absolutely terrible Sci-Fi Channel 'Creature Feature' from Jim Wynorski, films don't get much worse than this.
\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\nWhere do I start? First off, the story sucks. The acting sucks, the effects really suck, I guess I'll start with the story. The story for Komodo vs. Cobra: number one, it doesn't explain how or when the Komodo and the cobra even got there. Or for that matter, how it was created. The acting: TERRIBLE! It seems like the director just pulled a few people from the street (which is probably what he did). And last and definitely the least, the effects: they are so horrible that the komodo doesn't even look like a komodo, just a dinosaur, that looks incredibly unrealistic. The water doesn't even move when the cobra appears. All in all: terrible piece of crap, don't even think about renting 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\nWriter & director Jay Andrews, a.k.a. Jim Wynorski, serves up more of his characteristic shlock with a decent cast menaced by grade-Z computer generated reptiles in \"Komodo Vs. Cobra,\" as generic a rip-off of \"Mysterious Island\" meets \"Jurassic Park\" as you can imagine. The chief problem with this predictable yarn about monsters dining on mankind is the incredibly phony special effects. The cobra and the Komodo are hilariously awful. However, the graphics people do an okay job of integrating the monsters with their victims, not that any of this is in the least believable. Clearly, \"Komodo Vs. Cobra\" had a budget that so low that virtually everything non-human in its looks as fake as all get out. This cheesy monster epic takes place on a remote island where the U.S. military conducts top-secret DNA testing on animals. The result is that gigantic Komodos and cobra thrive in this tropical island paradise. As the action opens, the primary scientist is gobbled up by a cobra that likes to swim. After, we are introduced to a group of 'Greenpeace' like environmental protesters and a journalist. Planet One organizer Jerry Ryan (Ryan McTavish of \"Hellbent\") pays charter boat skipper Jim Stoddard (Michael Pare of CBS-TV's \"Houston Knights\") five grand with the promise of another five grand if he will take them to this forbidden island. Meanwhile, the U.S. military suspect that something is amiss on the island so they send their own team of men who give eaten by the supersized predators. Our heroes run into the last remaining scientist on the island, Dr. Susan Richardson (Michelle Borth of \"Wonderland\"), the daughter of the scientist responsible for this insane science project, who tells them that the military is going to target the island for destruction. The title match between the two overgrown predators occurs in the last quarter hour after our heroes, who have been consistently whittled down by the monsters, find a helicopter and take off in time before the military pulverizes the island. There's no tension, suspense, or anything worthwhile in this substandard creature feature. The best thing about this yawner is composer Chuck Cirino's orchestral soundtrack; it gives \"Komodo Vs. Cobra\" an epic feel. Usually, Jay Andrews writes and directs tolerable drivel, but this ranks far below his low standards. The sexy women fare better at survival than the guys. In one scene, our heroic group fords a river and we don't get to see any wet T-shirts. Drat! There's nothing in the way of memorable dialogue or relationships in this dreck. I think that the military guys do far too much saluting when they get their heads together to conspire. Let's hope that Michael Pare got a good payday out of this garbage. The ending as one of the scientists takes on the characteristics of a lizard comes strictly as an afterthought. It's not so bad it's good, it's just bad.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"