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\nOK everybody is so enthused by this film I hardly dare add a negative review but I just did not enjoy this movie.
I have to say first I saw the film in Russian language overdub so I will have missed some dialog, but not much.
Nice things first. There are some hilarious moments (the Elvis impersonator for instance). Actors seem well casted, also the Russians. Efremova is great and Goldblum is very good. Which brings us to the downsides of this movie. First of all. There is hardly any story and the end we know already: Yeltsin wins. So no drama or suspense. They tried to solve this problem with an emerging affair between the actors mentioned above, but that story kind of evaporates.
More importantly, the film does not represent reality. The Russians at the level of politics and society portrayed in this movie are not funny, they are a serious and dangerous lot. I am willing to believe that flying in some spin-doctors from the states helped Yeltsin win his campaign, but the real interesting questions that should be addressed are: who financed the campaign, what did they get in return, how was the opposition handled apart from airing some commercials?
So what we have here is a film, loosely based on reality (but strangely avoiding anything that could make the film either historically relevant or just a very good political thriller) without plot or subplot.
\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 creators of this movie must have sat down one day and said \"let's make fun of the Russians and at the same time show people how advanced we (Americans) are\". The movie portrays the Russians as an inferior people who are unable to understand the brilliant ideas put forward by the Americans. It is true that American campaigns are probably more professional and more based on expensive studies than campaigns in any other countries are. However, this movie goes to far and it exaggerates the differences between East and West. To me it looked like a propaganda movie made during the Cold War.
\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\nlet me get started with a terrible storyline and an awful control system. good animation but not too good graphics. that is why I'm giving this game 4 of 10. THIS GAME REALLY NEEDS AN Improvement IF YOU ASK ME!!! i would remake it and make this control system better so jaws is not so damn hard to control. if i made it to improve it i would make those graphics look better than on the movie. it will drive anyone crazy when you are getting killed so freaking easy. i played this and got killed by a diver when he had one of those flick knives in 2 hits. the dolphins will kill you so much that the shark will be begging to go to the bottom of hell. this game sucks some fat ass. sorry about all the cussing i think I'm done now. it just that this game sucks so bad that it should be taken off the store's shelf. i dare you to play the garbage and you will probably get so mad by dieing so easy so Don't PLAY 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\nThere's not that much to say in the end. One would have expect much more from a director who made way better movies in the past. It just seems like he did it without actually caring. The actors are doing their job (though Belmondo is far from amazing), but you just don't get hooked. In a word, it's boring. This is even more disappointing since I heard several time that this movie could be considered as a reaction to all the big American blockbusters, which are considered to be a threaten to the French exception by those who just can't admit they should turn to another job. I tell you, if that's the best reaction we're supposed to get, boy, I'm going to be really depressed soon...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAfraid of the Dark left me with the impression that several different screenplays were written, all too short for a feature length film, then spliced together clumsily into this Frankenstein's monster.
At his best, the protagonist, Lucas, is creepy. As hard as it is to draw a bead on the secondary characters, they're far more sympathetic.
Afraid of the Dark could have achieved mediocrity had it taken just one approach and seen it through -- and had it made Lucas simply psychotic and confused instead of ghoulish and off-putting. I wanted to see him packed off into an asylum so the rest of the characters could have a normal life.
\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 would not be giving away too much of the film to tell you that there are many, many, many, MANY scenes of Lucas (the young protagonist) walking and looking at things! Yep. And you'll be happy to know that the first third of the movie is pointless, meaningless, and pretty much ignored for the rest of the film!
This movie is populated by dull people who do dull things, and the dullest person of them all is young Lucas, who is going blind and needs an operation. You see, he has delusions, terrible delusions! He thinks a killer is preying on blind women! He walks around a lot and acts like an insufferable jerk!
Patience does NOT pay off with this film. By the end, the plot and events are just as confusing and lethargic, and it is very hard to care one way or the other about what any of the nightmarish images meant. Nothing is made clear, the film moves at a snail's pace, and it left me with the same effects of a hangover.
Judging from \"Afraid of the Dark,\" the British don't make stupid thrillers like the Americans do; they make boring ones.
\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 still not sure what the hell this movie is about. i guess the boy was afraid of becoming blind and began imagining all sorts of strange things. this does not explain why he wanted to kill his new baby brother , however , or the unrelenting boredom found within this film. while watching this movie you will wish you were blind so you did not have to see this experiment in futility. skip this steaming pile and opt for anything else at the video store ..... anything 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\nThis movie changes its way a third of the way in.its totally pointless boring and stupid.i hated this movie so much that i will never watch it again.some bad films can be really funny. this is just a British art house picture that should never of been made.1 out of 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\nAnother example that we should stay away from trying to do spectacular action movies in Sweden, it doesn´t work, except for Widerbergs still unsurpassed MANNEN PÅ TAKET. Stormare does the best he can, I suppose, and some scenes are mildly effective, but the plot is FULL of holes. Why does Hamilton continue the attack on the base, knowing that his wife is held hostage? It was fun to see Mark Hamill, but his Bad Guy-part was very underwritten. I´m constantly amazed that relatively big Swedish movies like this get made without a sensible, functioning script. 1 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\nIf this is the best Commander Hamilton movie, I have no curiosity about the others.
A movie actor's greatest tools are his eyes, but when Peter Stormare wants to show great emotion, he closes his, so for five or six seconds we get to admire his eyelids while his feelings remain unknown behind them. Lousy acting technique.
Stormare also flinches sometimes when he fires a gun, turning his head away and clamping his eyes shut. Watch carefully. James Bond can rest easy with competition like this.
There are some interesting supporting performances from other actors, but not enough to hang a whole movie on. The cinematography is good-looking, doing a fine job of capturing the Nordic cold. Even the Sahara winds up looking cold. Perhaps Hamilton carries his own climate with him.
There are some individual good action sequences here. Unfortunately, the only sense of humor on screen belongs to the villain, which turns the hero into a big pill. James Bond's jokes may not be particularly good, but at least he doesn't look constipated all the time.
One positive point in the movie's favor is that the psychotic, contorted, vicious hatred of Israel in Guillou's books has been left out. What has been kept in is worship of a noble, heroic PLO, that he shows us functioning in Libya without the dictator Khaddafi's knowledge or supervision. This fantasy is hard to believe, since Khaddafi actually threw the PLO out of Libya for four years at a time. And at the end of the film, Hamilton gives the PLO a very disturbing gift. Where will they use that gift? Hamilton doesn't care.
We're a long, long way away from \"For Whom the Bell Tolls\" here.
Commander Hamilton will remain a local phenomenon. While Henning Mankell's books sell well around the world, Jan Guillou will never have the same success.
As for this film, bleeeeaaahhhhh.
\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 film just doesn't work. No two ways about it. I saw it for the first time back in '98 when it was released and I didn't like it. I just bought it on sale a couple of days ago, 'cause I thought \"whatta hell, I'll give it a try\". I don't regret for the money I put out for Hamilton, but the fact remained the same.. this movie is pointless, dull and uninteresting.
Stormare is usually a delight, but that's when he's making films in the US. Back home he doesn't do the trick. Sure the movie is well made (if you forget the odd stock footage here'n'there), but in the end the only thing that REALLY lifts Hamilton above one star garbage, is Hamill's turn as the bad guy Hawkins. He seriously has fun with the character and is also responsible for the only two good moments in the movie.. \"Swedish intelligence, huh? Now there's a contradiction in terms\" and when he allows Hamilton to have a word or two with his wife over the phone towards the end of the flick. And that's really pretty much 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\nThis is without doubt the worst film in the Hamilton saga and the worst actor to do Carl Hamilton.Peter Stormare just cant pull it off,with his psychotic looks and no style at all.He may be good to do killers and psychotic maniacs like in \"Fargo\" or \"8mm\" but in this type of roles,he is just useless.
Lena Olin's presence did no use for this film.She couldnt save it from being what it is:an americanized copy of big budget action movies like \"Goldeneye\",\"Die Hard 3\",\"Broken Arrow\" etc.This film has nothing swedish in it but the actors.Its clear that some norweagian upstart director with McTiernan as model director has made this.
Mark Hamill's presence is only laughable. 2 out of 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\nYes. It takes a Norwegian to ruin and slaughter two great books and a concept that would work well on film - this film truly is The Worst Swedish Film Of All Time. I hated it so badly that I even considered walking out on it, something I have never done. But it was so awful i was almost compelling. I just had to sit through to the end. Much like some early-80's Stallone action reel, this one REALLY takes Swedish action back to the stone-age. So full of logical errors and stupid mistakes it is almost amusing - but who could ever see anything good in the terrible acting, Mark Hamill's surviving a mine-field or the dumb-ass, useless and irrational action?
Let me ask you: aren't we through with clocks ticking down to zero, the hero escaping in the nick of time and two friends become enemies reuniting by the end? STUPID!!!!
And one more thing: the product placement in this film is unbelievable. While other countries have understood that it shouldn't be so OBVIOUS, the Swedish film industry apparently hasn't understood at all: just look at the credit card Hamilton uses to open a window? Or or or.... this film really makes me mad.
\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\nTwo page boys working at a radio network go from trying to solve murders to performing in black-face in between work shifts. Jack Moran and Sidney Miller star in this whodunnit from 1945. Lots of fast talking, everybody yells at everybody, and the two page boys call the police detective \"Marty\" (played by Ralph Sanford). It's a real \"shortie\" at 59 minutes, and it has the feel of being adapted from a play, since it mostly takes place in a radio station soundstage. We don't really care about any of the characters, which is probably why its hardly ever shown. No big deal. This was Phil Karlson's second film as director. We're not given any clues as to who might be knocking people off, so we just kind of follow the police detective and the page boys as they all try to solve the mystery first. I'll say no more so as not to give away any spoilers.
\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 admit that this isn't a great film. It practically screams \"low-budget\" yet oddly I still found myself liking the film because although it lacked quality it abounded with energy. It was like the Little Engine That Could and a movie merged into one!
The film takes place at a radio network and concerns some of their low-level employees--two page boys (one very pushy and brash and the other one a wuss) as well as a new receptionist. All three have visions of radio stardom but must for now content themselves with their lowly jobs.
Into this story appears a murder that seems somewhat out of the blue. I didn't know that this was a murder mystery film and was taken a bit by surprise. However, like most B-mysteries, the cops are lamebrains and it's up to our pushy hero (Moran) to try to save the day. Throughout all this, I had a hard time deciding if Moran was obnoxious or endearing. I'm still not sure!!
There is a moment in the film that is high on the 'cringe factor' and that is when the two pages try out for the roles of radio comedians. They show up in black-face and do a 3rd or 4th rate imitation of Amos n' Andy. Apart from being very insensitive, it also wasn't funny. Fortunately the producer of the show they were trying out for seemed to feel the same way.
Overall. it's easy to skip this film and I wouldn't blame you if you do. However, the weird and frenetic pace of the film actually seemed to make up for the artistic deficiencies of the film and I am glad I saw it. A good film? No. But one that is still worth a peek for fans of old Bs.
By the way, perhaps I just don't have very good taste, but I thought BOTH female singing divas really had poor voices despite how everyone in the film is captivated by their warblings. Listen for yourself and let me know what you think. I just couldn't believe either was allowed to sing on film--even if it was just for lowly Monogram Studios.
\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 a bottom of the barrel type of B-film from one of the poverty row studios, Monogram, in the mid-'40s, the kind that filled out a double bill.
Only reason I watched was to see what JACKIE MORAN was like in a leading role as a page boy at a radio station who attempts to solve a murder. He played Phil Meade in GONE WITH THE WIND only two years earlier and this was one of his last teen-aged roles. He's no Mickey Rooney.
The script is as hapless as the production values and is full of cliché ridden situations with a cast of uniformly untalented individuals. WANDA McKAY is the switchboard girl who is \"discovered\" by a radio producer and SIDNEY MILLER is the nerdy friend of the hero who's afraid of his own shadow.
Mercifully, it's over in an hour when the murder is solved after a round-up of all the suspects. Terribly overacted, the only quiet performance of any interest is given by JON GILBREATH as Tex, the cowboy, but he bites the dust after too brief an appearance.
There are several songs, but all of them are forgettable, as are the lame jokes and dialog.
\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 a awful re-make of a very good movie called \"Up In The Air\" starring Frankie Darrow, Mantan Moreland and Marjorie Reynolds. I was only able to get through about 20 minutes before turning it off. Almost all the lines are identical, I have no idea why they would re-do the movie. I totally disagree with a previous post that dislikes the songs ( there the same also), In the original the singing is first rate, I'm not sure if Marjorie Reynolds actually did her own singing, it's hard to tell since the vocals were usually added later, and the songs are very good, surprising in a \"B\" movie. If you get the chance see the original it's available on DVD. You'll be pleasantly surprised.
\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\nYou gotta be a fan of the little man but I found Burlesque on Carmen dull, unimaginative and totally not funny.
Chaplin is retelling the story of Carmen and plays a big role himself as Don Jose. It's a story about men and the women they love, although it's unclear why one would love such a woman as Carmen, as she is playing the men against each other.
As I said I didn't think much of it. Chaplin made dozens and dozens of better movies so you can leave this one on the shelve.
Oh and I'm curious what the difference is between this movie and the 1915 version... or is it just an IMDB mistake?
On the whole: 3/10.
\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\nThis movie starts out with kids telling each other urban legends such as the poodle in the microwave and getting something extra at a chicken place. Unfortunately, it then turns to your basic anthology movie. The first being about a janitor with a bit of a secret. This one is okay at best. Then it gets worse as the next story about this kid obsessed with dead flies is on and it goes on and on and on. It is way to long and not all that interesting to begin with. After that you get the typical shock scene and it ends. You need more than this in an anthology movie. You need at least three stories and one shouldn't be so long it becomes dreadfully uninteresting especially considering you can see how it is going to end a mile away.
\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 Willies starts late one night as brother's Josh (Joshua Miller) & Kyle (Jason Horst) are camping outside with their cousin Michael (Sean Astin), they decide to pass the time by telling scary stories...
First up is Michael with a story entitled 'Bad Apples' in which a young boy named Danny Hollister (Ian Fried) is bullied at school, however the sinister new janitor Mr. Jenkins (James Karen) decides to help him out...
Next up is Kyle as he tells a strange story called 'Flyboy' in which an overweight bully with a worrying fascination with dead flies gets what he deserves in a horrible twisted way...
Written & directed by Brian Peck The Willies didn't do much for me & I doubt it'll do much for you either. The script is strange as far as episodic anthologies go, instead of the usual three or four stories it only has two main tales & a few bizarre 'urban myth' type mini scenes at the start, these consist of the person who orders food from a fast food restaurant only to find a dead rat in her chicken, a man who dies of a heart attack on a ride & someone who tries to dry her poodle off in the microwave only for it to explode. I have no idea what the purpose of these scenes are but they add nothing to the film, as for the two main stories they are both weak. For a start they are too long which is a huge mistake in these types of films, usually the stories in anthologies are short, sharp & quick with a nice twist at the end usually involving people getting what they deserved. However in The Willies the stories last for the best part of 40 minutes each which is longer than the average TV episode & I must admit I found both stories very boring, they have very little going for them & seem to be aimed at children. The first story is the better to watch as a whole but it has no twist ending as far as I could see while the second one has a nice 'just deserts' ending but the build up to it is weak & drawn out for no good reason. I really like horror anthology films so The Willies comes as a disappointment, frankly it lets the genre down.
Director Peck was obviously working on a low budget & as a whole The Willies is pretty tough to sit through, there's plenty of continuity errors & it's poorly made. There's no atmosphere, there's no scares, there's no gore, the special effects are poor & it features unnecessary shots of a dirty toilet several times. Overall it's a pretty unappealing film to sit through.
Technically The Willies is rough around the edges to say the least, the effects are far from special & it has an extremely drab & grainy look to the picture. The acting is poor, no ones going to win any awards thats for sure.
The Willies is a poor film, it's not scary, it's not fun, it's not entertaining & it only features two overlong stories. Definitely not recommended.
\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\nGrim instead of amusing, mean-spirited instead of playful, boring instead of interesting. It won't give you \"the willies\", but it just may gross you out or send you to sleep. And it will certainly make you wonder: \"what were they thinking?\" (*1/2)
\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\nGeorge Burns returns as the joshing Almighty after enjoying a big success with 1977's \"Oh, God!\", an upbeat fantasy made successful by a sudden need in the 1970s to switch from devil-driven thrillers to comedic redemption (although it made money, the original was more in line with the \"Topper\" comedies of the '30s than a return to feel-good religious cinema). Here, God appears to a young girl (Louanne, who had earlier starred in a stage production of \"Annie\") and asks her to spread his Divine Word, causing her nothing but trouble from grown-ups in the process. Peculiar, family-oriented film appears to be warm-hearted enough, and Burns gets to chime in with a nice barrage of wry jibes, but the writing is half-slapstick and half-seriousness, with the adults of the piece considering putting little Louanne away, all of which makes God seem more like a troublemaker than an elderly friend. Louanne is another problem: a perky kid with wizened little eyes, she is untrained for screen-acting and occasionally seems awkward. The medium-budget production has a gloppy, TV-movie appearance, with few graceful touches. The final scene mimics the climax of the first \"Oh, God!\" in that it brings a wistful sentiment to the mix, which is welcomed. It's the most subtle moment in the movie. ** 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\nOh,God! Book II is more of a bad remake of the original than a sequel to it.It is not all that funny,its plot plays too much
like a rejected situation comedy pilot,and the use of the slogan \"Think God\" is a different variation on the idea that worked so much better in the original.John Denver had not returned for this movie and that made a BIG difference.George Burns,as
wonderful as he was playing God,does not have the same chemistry with the little girl that he did with John Denver.
I would give this movie a rating of 3 out of 10,but only for
George Burns;the rest of the cast is nothing special.
If you loved the first one,don't bother to see 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\nLance used to get quality support work from James Cameron. Heck, he even had his own tv show (Millenium) for a coupl'a seasons. Why is he doing this? Couldn't he find some better way to pay his bills?
I love a good low-budget movie. Some of them you can laugh at simply due to their ludicrous premise, their textbook stereotyped characters, or often times because the actors are related to the director/producers. But, this movie has no redeeming value. I didn't laugh. I didn't cry. I only had this sick feeling in my stomach. That feeling was quickly identified as pity. At one point, Lance Henriksen was an A-list support actor. He's been in Terminator (he was going to BE terminator before Arnold showed up), Aliens, AliensIII, classic B-movie Pumpkinhead, among so many others! I wanted to send him money after this. Maybe we should start a support Lance fund or something.
Then again, for making this thing...maybe 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(r#64)
Unredeemable, merit-less, and above all dreary trash. You know a movie is going to be bad when its sole star power is Lance Henriksen. The French title for this movie says it all: \"Inexplicable\". How can you possibly make a movie this unbelievably bad in this day and age? Whatever Jonas Quastel's trick is, it worked. This is über-trash, I'm talking 'Manos'-level crap, meaningless, unwatchable, not-even-so-bad-it's-good, cinematic bile of the highest order.
Lance Henriksen IS Harlan Knowles, a character who could have been interesting if he wasn't so utterly devoid of characteristics or personality. He, along with a bunch of morons, goes on a field trip to search for an evil Sasquatch which is believed to have attacked a plane which crashed out in the woods, or something. Not much else happens. There's some soft-core (meaning: Teletubbie level) nudity and some blatant rip-offs of \"Predator\". After 92 minutes of utter pain and another ripped off scene, this time from \"Blair Witch\", the movie finally staggers across the finish line and ends. As a bonus, we only see the monster itself for about one or two scenes in the entire movie.
There's really not much to say about this film. All you need to know is, this is a very bad movie and not even worth viewing as a \"so-bad-it's-good\" flick. \"The Untold\" is to entertainment value what Orlando Bloom is to character acting. Avoid it like arsenic.
\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\nHarlan Knowles (Lance Henriksen) brings a group of people to a mountain to help find his missing daughter (Erica Durance). What they don't know is that she was killed by a sasquatch (Taras Kostyuk) and it's still out there... waiting for them.
It was a late night when I poped this into my DVD player. I seriously wish I could go back in time and stop me. Most people will tell you that films like \"House of the Dead\" or \"S.I.C.K: Serial Insain Clown Killers\" will be the movies you wish you've never seen. Wrong. This will be.
I've seen a lot of crap, but this is the only crap that's haunted me. How I wish I never watched this! The acting actually isn't so bad. It's just the writing and the directing and the pacing and everything! I am actually a fan of Sasquatch films. But not this one.
Please, listen to my warning. Don't watch 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\nDeveloping movies that are based on actual events involving cryptozoology or the supernatural has always been a challenge for directors and screenwriters. You have to mainly reconcile reported testimonies, conflicting info sources, and Hollywood creativity to produce something the audience can get into. Unfortunately, for SASQUATCH, none of these things seem to take place.
The movie starts out in typical film noir when a research team crash lands somewhere in the Cascades via airplane. From there the research team disappears, and despite attempts from law enforcement officials and local rescue parties they remain missing for some time. While one of the passengers is walking, infra-red-like images are splashed on the screen (a la Predator) which subtly hint that the legendary Sasquatch is the cause of the passengers' fates.
Cue Harlan Knowles (Henriksen), CEO of BioComp Industries and father of one of the crash victims. Knowles puts together his own search & rescue team with the explicit mission of finding his daughter and the rest of the research crew, along with the invaluable technology lost during the crash.
After Knowles' tailor-made rescue team is put together, the entire movie traverses down the path of uncolorful characters, dizzying cinematography, and a totally unoriginal plot line. I literally had to keep myself from falling asleep during this movie as it attempted to frighten me out of my wits. The only member of the cast that held his own was Henriksen, which doesn't make up for the lack of depth presented in all of the other characters. The over-done sound effects were annoying as well; basically, I didn't know if I was watching a movie about Bigfoot or grizzly bears.
Neither was the plot line all that great. It was too underdeveloped as the viewer is mainly subjected to typical fright music found in anything similar of the genre. Obviously you didn't have to be a genius to figure out who would be pulling off all their clothes by the middle of the movie, or who'd be the first unlucky soul to get mauled by Mr. Sasquatch. As far as good points, there are none, and therefore I gave this movie a 2 out of 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\nOne minute into THE UNTOLD and it`s already ripped off techniques from THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and PREDATOR . Does this mean we`ll be seeing lots of trees ? We sure will . Will we be seeing an Austrian bodybuilder blowing things up ? Well this film has the budget of a TVM so the answer is a resounding no . Does anyone like these soft porn shows like BEDTIME STORIES ? Good because there`s a scene in this that resembles these type of shows . Unfortunately the only thing you see is cellulite . Do you like it when the screen fades to black during a TVM ? Great because this happens between every scene in THE UNTOLD . In fact it happens during every scene too . Did you enjoy MILLIONAIRE - A MAJOR FRAUD ? Fantastic because one of the characters looks like a bearded Major Charles Ingram the contestant who tried to swindle the show out of one million pounds . Seriously one of the characters looks like Major Ingram . I kept expecting him to say \" It`s bear. It could be a bear . But it might be a bigfoot < Cough , cough > , yes it`s a bigfoot < Cough > , it`s definately a bigfoot < Cough > Yes I`m going to shoot it . Final answer Chris \"
Oh and have I mentioned that all the above are the good bits ?
THE UNTOLD isn`t the worst bigfoot movie I`ve ever seen , that accolade firmly goes to NIGHT OF THE DEMON which I saw over twenty years ago and I think I`ve only seen less than a dozen films that are worse in all of that time . But that said THE UNTOLD is still a very poor film in just about every aspect , especially editing . As some other reviewers have pointed out it feels like whole chunks of the film are missing while there`s other bits where scenes are spliced together in the wrong order . This is a really bad film that deserves far less than its rating of 5.1. I give it 3 out of ten and I`m being very kind
\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 Untold... Is one of the worst films I ever saw. The story really seems original, but it was badly bestow on screen. Lance Henriksen, a good actor, ended up in this crap. But, hey he made a lot of low budget films... you need to pay the bills, you know? Kidding. Lance is a great actor, but he ended up with this bunch of silly actors. Seriously, Andrea Roth was there just to have a nudity scene, and other actors... well they were just there. There was constantly a fade out-fade in editing, and that makes me sick! That was the most horrible move that just keeps on coming and it really makes you angry. It was also very predictable, boring and slow. It has a bizarre tempo that goes just... wrong.
Can't say more... don't rent it, or buy it. You can watch it, if on TV.
\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 looks decidedly like \"the amateur\" hour. How this piece of trash was ever released is beyond me: the acting, the story, the characters, the supposedly special effects, etc...it's ALL wrong. Why Lance Henriksen accepted this will remain one of the great mysteries of cinema. Maybe he was in dire need for money or maybe be was under the influence of some illegal drug.
It is pointless trying to explain you what this movie's about. It deals with the big foot legend but done in the worst possible manner. In fact, this stinker smells like a direct-to-video release.
Avoid at ALL costs! 0* out of 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\nHey all, I just wanted to give you all a few crazy facts about this movie. I was actually one of the Make-up FX artists that help create the \"beast\" for this movie and I have to tell you the original creature looked absolutely amazing. I remember when we got the first photos back from the set we were all talking about how much of a shame it was that this creature was in a movie that would probably be pretty poor.
What actually happened though was that Jason Palmer did the original make-up for the Sasquatch, but for some reason they had to go back and re-shoot much of the creature. The sad part was that Jason passed away a few weeks before that and so the re-done creature was no where near as awesome as the original one.
For me it was quite sad because this was Jasons final movie, and he sort of got cheated out of his final fame due to the bad re-shoots. Anyway, I thought you guys may find that a tad interesing, and if you would like you can head over to mmmyeah.com and check out some \"behind the scenes\" photos.
Later, Jeff
\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 that this is one of my top ten worst movies I have ever seen! There's like fade out every two minutes. If this was on TV, they would have a preview every 2-3 minutes. But there is a seen I personally enjoyed: which is when the blonde goes to take a bath in a pit of boiling water with a man watching and for about 10 seconds you see her whole body with no towel on! That was the best scene in the whole film because you see sasquatch starring at them but the last 10 minutes is when we see his whole body. Plus, most of the deaths are off screen and just the scream or roar. And I was expecting the Sasquatch to die. But he dosen't shoot him and only 4 or 5 people die in the whole film I was expecting 8-10 people to die. Don't watch this movie. I give it an F-. Don't waste your time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBigfoot movies tend to be bad, so I'm not inclined to watch them. However, there were some good commercials on The Sci-Fi Channel, so I decided to watch. A climbing expedition heads into the Pacific northwest to find a a fallen airplane carrying the daughter of the expedition's leader (played by Lance Hendrickson), and have brought a revolutionary DNA detector that could be used to prove the sasquatch's existence. And it actually generates some suspense at first. The sasquatch is unseen, but sees the mountain climbers' body heat (like the alien in \"Predator\"), and I did wonder when it was going to strike. The acting is passable, as is the background music. The dense wooded location is well-used. And when the creature is finally seen, the costume is not bad, though nothing great. But as the film grinds on, it becomes increasingly annoying and absurd. Most of the characters are unpleasant people, rude to each other and only in the expedition for money and publicity (except for Lance Hendrickson's character), so that it's impossible to care about what happens to them. And their behavior become increasingly stupid. One man shoots the creature (not fatally), then gets drunk and sits alone in the dark. One female camper puts on a slinky silk negligee before crawling into her sleeping bag, then barely escapes being dragged into the woods by the sasquatch, without getting her hair and make-up messed up. Then, the survivors conclude that the sasquatch is really after the DNA detecting machine and will let them live if they leave it behind (\"a creature knows what threatens it\"). Obviously, the instinct doesn't apply to these actors, or they wouldn't have appeared in this movie. And the ending is so stupid, you'll want to kick the TV screen. If it weren't for the script, it would have been a decent horror 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\nA plane carrying a rich scientist's daughter goes down in thick wilderness. He assembles a group to go and find her and the others, but the rescue party soon suspects that something is stalking them. Then ulterior motives for the expedition are revealed and that only adds to the already existing tension.
The movie is a decent idea and a take on the popular Sasquatch legend was bound to wind up on film sooner or later. However, the film's direction breaks a fundamental rule of horror/thriller directing and that is showing too much too soon. Of course the audience knows there is something stalking the characters, just read the title! But showing what should have been the film's kicker that early just ruins most of the suspense and, as a direct result, much of the fun. The film also lacks a good atmosphere and there are almost no landscape shots that show the expanse of the wilderness, but there are plenty monster point-of-view shots that add nothing to anything. They actually knock off 'Predator' quite shamelessly. The low-budget horror film 'Wendigo' did what this film tries to do much better.
Some of the character tensions and a non-cliché ending manage to make up for this rise above the crap pile, but it is still poor and given the premise and potential, very disappointing. --- 4/10
Rated R for some violence and profanity, but it's pretty tame compared to most R-rated horror.
\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\nWell, I read the other comments. Didn't think it sounded any good, but decided to tape it anyway. Perhaps not so smart to read all the poor reviews before watching this movie, because of course I would be noticing all the same weird things. Excessive use of fade to black, a few weird camera angles and crosscutting dialog for different conversations with the same people taking place at different times! But noticing all that I thought to myself: Well, this would probably be really boring if it was all going chronologically. The conversations aren't that exciting, but kind of mandatory. And the constant fading to black after really short scenes really makes it feel like the story is fast forwarding too the interesting part. Skipping the boring bits. At the end of the movie it gets a bit exciting too. Will they survive?
So I actually liked this movie? No, not really. The director had some interesting ideas on how to keep the audience from being bored while he is trying to introduce the characters. But he is overdoing it. It gets annoying, and sometimes confusing. This was apparently only the second movie he directed, so maybe he will learn and make really good stuff in the future. And if you're sitting there (in the future) reading this wondering if the now famous directors second movie is worth a watch. Well, if he is good in the future, sure, watch this crap and wonder how he ever got to make a third one. Otherwise this movie isn't really worth watching unless you very interested in film-making, and want to see one way you can cut the mandatory boring introductory scenes into something watchable.
\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 big waste of time is all you'll get out of this bag. I rented this hoping for a suspenseful movie with maybe a few believable scenes, but boy was I ever dissapointed. I think the title should've been \"Camping 101\", or something to that effect. Well, anyway, stay the hell away from this film. It numbs you to death. Don't be afraid of big foot, be afraid of this crap!!
\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\nAn airplane transporting some scientists and a prototype of a DNA machine, a powerful and revolutionary invent, fall in a jungle in Pacific. The insurance company sponsors a rescue expedition, commanded by Harlan Knowles (Lance Henriksen), the owner of a huge corporation, which owns the prototype, and father of one of the scientist. There, the group finds the rests of the plane five miles far from the expected location and the machine and the remains of the persons. Further, they realize that a Sasquatch, a kind of Big Foot, is chasing them. This movie is so ridiculous that I do not know what I am doing, spending my time again in this garbage. The direction is awful, the actors and the lines are horrible, copying parts of `The Predator' and even `The Blair Witch Project'. To summarize how bad this movie is, its best scene is when Marla Lawson, the character of Andrea Roth, is wounded, and the guide of the expedition says that she needs to have an injection of tetanus vaccine. Andrea undresses her jeans, and the guide says: 'Nice butts, but the shot needs to be in your arm'. Ridiculous! My vote is two.
Title (Brazil): `Sasquatch, O Abominável' (`Sasquatch, The Abominable')

\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 Jonas Quastel debut as a director and to be honest, it shows. It looks like he threw in every type of camera trick that he learned in film school to try and add some style to a badly written script, which he helped write! Film has Lance Henriksen and a group of others searching the pacific northwest for a plane that crashed that his daughter was on and also a special machine his company has built that he wants to also retrieve. The first 5 minutes of the film is either blurry or shaky or out of focus! Quastel tries to capture the \"Blair Witch\" mode with these type of shots and they grow tiresome very quickly. And there is also the POV shots that are right from \"Wolfen\" and \"Predator\". These shots are from the point of view (POV) of the Sasquatch. The editing is very choppy at times as a scene seems to shift right in the middle. I have heard this film was shot in about 12 days and I suppose instead of \"Starting back to one\" they just restarted without stopping and edited the scene together. And the rest of the film is fade-outs from one scene to another. They're are so many scenes that fade-out that I lost count. Now, the nude scene with Andrea Roth. Its not her. you can easily see its a body double. And you know your watching a bad \"B\" movie when in the middle of the pacific northwest a hot chick decides to go to the nearest hot spring and bathe! ********SPOILER ALERT********
And the Sasquatch himself is not bad when you don't really see him and he's just a blurry image behind some trees or bushes but when you finally see him at the end your of course disappointed. First of all, he's not that tall. The actor who is playing Sasquatch is only hairy in certain spots on his body. Its a partial suit! And he's bald! I have heard that a make-up person died during filming and maybe that explains why the costume looks hastily made. Some of the sound effects that are coming from the Sasquatch are nothing more than the familiar lion roars that we have all heard in other films. I do have to admit that Henriksen is not to bad. Yes, he's working with bad material but he has one of those interesting faces that can actually enhance certain moments of the film. People keep saying that a good Bigfoot film has never been made but I disagree. I have always said that \"The Creature From Black Lake\" is a good film and I highly recommend that one. I'm a sucker for a Sasquatch film but this one is just to amateurish.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"