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\nand nothing else.
One of my friends bought the Problem Child Tantrum Pack (contains the first two \"Problem Child\"s in one disc), and we decided to watch the sequel because it was \"funnier\".
There were many funny moments in the movie (the vomit scene, that's all I need to say.), Nippy the dog after eating CHOW DOWN, and numerous others. The movie is nothing but toilet humor, but it's hilarious. Other than the funny moments, though, this movie has little to offer.
John Ritter annoys the crap out of me, because it sounds like he's reading out of a book. The man can't act in this one, sorry.
Although I can't say if I would find the movie funny now...(we were blown when we watched it), it's a perfect movie for a rainy day...but nothing else. Don't expect Oscar material on this one, guys.
\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 sequel to Problem Child is just as bad as the first one. It still teaches kids that it's O.K. to be bad. It's impossible for me to 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\nI saw this movie in the theatre and it was a terrible movie. The way Michael Oliver who now turn even worse in the sequel is the biggest intolerance I cannot bare. Junior upset his father because he would not go to school which got his father Ben madly insane. Also the Crazy Dance ride operator is not fair to Junior for not letting him go on the ride. And that Lawanda Dumore is as horrible as a serial killer to Junior because she made threatening insults to Junior which is why I cannot tolerate this movie. Even if the movie is re-released back into theatres in the extended version, I still would not see this movie because this movie is not something I can even tolerate. In fact, it stinks!
\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 was just an awful movie. I've watched it once when I was roughly 12, I am now 19 and I don't think I will ever forget this movie.
I still feel sick whenever I think about it, it was just everything horrible that could possibly fit in one movie. I really don't understand what kind of person would enjoy this utter rubbish. It's not enough to simply turn off your mind to enjoy this movie, I can enjoy the dumbest made-for-TV Disney movies as much as the next person, but this is something else completely.
Usually I don't like to judge a movie until I have seen it myself, but believe me I am doing you a favour. Do not watch this movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSeriously! You've just got to see this movie to understand everything that is wrong with it. It came out during the time period where everybody was trying to make family movies that everyone could enjoy (The little rascals; Mr. Nanny, etc.) yet it lacked any charisma or enthusiasm. Every single character in the movie is driven by rage, with the exception of Trixie's mother, who shows only aggravation and weariness, possibly at the tired cliché's this movie enjoys.
To put it simply, the biggest flaw in the film was not the acting, nor the filming, but most notably the writing. The lines we receive are reminiscent of Disney classics, although this film lacks the whole-heartedness IL' Walt managed to pull off. Junior's Dad, (John Ritter) makes you mad without even doing anything, simply because he allows Junior to run around unsupervised, and only gives him a stern warning when he tapes a 200-pound behemoth to a chalk board.
Also, Junior's grandfather is particularly excruciating. For those of you who saw the first one, found it nauseating, and thus, did not see the second one, \"Big Ben Healy\" as he is referred to in this movie, is still a total douche. He basically barges into John Ritter's house uninvited, settles himself in Junior's room, even though he says that he hates Junior, and basically does nothing to accelerate the film's speed, or to support the film in any way. Rather, he ticks off the audience by being a lazy free loader.
Finally, we are introduced to a wide variety of new characters, such as the smug, obnoxious, Trixie, who carries dynamite in her backpack, which she first lights, then hands, to Junior, who simply stares wide eyed at. Also, Gilbert Gottfried returns in this film, this time playing the obnoxious principal at Junior's new elementary school. If Gilbert Gottfried ain't enough to get the point across, I will put it simply: This film reeks!
2/10 stars, because the actor's convictions shine through the film, even though the script sucks.
\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\"Problem Child 2\" was a complete waste of my time. The original film wasn't very good but its a classic compared to this film. The first film went over the top with its scenes of a devilish child wrecking major havoc in the lives of everyone he's around. Here, it goes even further over the top. And one scene in this movie proves that theory. That carnival ride sequence was too much for me to stomach. It's awful. This movie shouldn't have been made.
1/2* (out of four)
\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 only good either of the Problem Child films caused was bringing together Amy Yasbeck and the late John Ritter. Aside from that, the flicks are as demonic as their hero. In this basically unnecessary sequel, freshly separated Ben (Ritter) and his little hellraiser Junior (Michael Oliver, who never needs screen-time ever again) move to a new town infested with willing bachelorettes. Ben eventually picks Lawanda (played by the most underused original SNL-er Laraine Newman), whose Blanche DuBois tendencies don't suit Junior in the least. To add on to Junior's torture, it seems this town already has a little firestarter in younger girl form with Trixie, who coincidentally has a sweet, single mother played by Yasbeck, the same actress who played Junior's first horrible mother-through-adoption. You can see where the plot goes from here. Searching for my favorite scene is like pulling teeth, so I guess I'll go with the \"cherry bomb in the toilet\" gag that makes Back to the Future's James Tolkan one of the many grown-up victims (that guy's always playing school authority figures). Jack Warden and Gilbert Gottfried return as their parts from the first film, but sadly, there is no appearance from the Bow-tie Klansma- er, I mean Killer (Michael Richards) that made Problem Child all the more fun. On a serious note, I'm sure these films, whether abusive parents saw them or no, did wonders for the red-headed children of America. Let us also salute these proud American flicks for their terrific promoting of adoption. Oh, and dog poop jokes - gotta have dog poop jokes.... Shmucks.
\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\nTen minutes of people spewing gallons of pink vomit. Recurring scenes of enormous piles of dog excrement - need one say more???
\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\nJunior and his dad start a new life in a new town. It's the same life because Junior hasn't changed one bit. He is still the same rotten brat as before only he's gotten bigger. This time he has a pal named Trixie and she is only slightly worse. Junior doesn't like his dad dating and messes up every opportunity that he has. Then grandpa moves in and the dog comes along. I thought that the two of them would have made it a good movie but they didn't even become buddies until the end. This is a movie for the most immature people. It has diapers, farts, doggy do do, and toilet humor in it. Only someone under the age of twelve would find this to be super hilarious. I hope when I have a son, he is exactly like Junior.
\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\"Problem Child\" was an okay movie, but did it really merit a sequel? I don't think it did. The original movie's only redeeming asset was Gilbert Gottfried, and he wasn't even good in this sequel.
I can't really put my finger on why this movie was bad. For starters, it just wasn't funny. Even when I saw this as a nine-year-old, I didn't sympathize with Junior (Michael Oliver) at all. His character came off to me as whiny, self-loathing, and perhaps most importantly, a rebel without a clue. He appeared to hate every woman that his father Ben (John Ritter) dated for the sole sake of hating them. It also doesn't send a good message to kids with divorced parents (who constitute over half children in the U.S. these days) when the one woman Ben decides to (almost) marry is a Southern aristocrat who is vindictive and who happens to hate children as it is.
And as cool as I thought it would have been to see original SNL cast mate Laraine Newman come back to the big screen, she couldn't even save this movie. I also found it strange that she was a white Southern débutante whose name was Lawanda. That sounds more like an African-American woman's name. But of course, that has nothing to do with why I disliked this movie.
I think the movie didn't work because you had antagonists you were supposed to hate, along with protagonists you weren't supposed to hate. John Ritter's character was supposed to be a good parent who tried desperately to teach his child right from wrong without conforming to authoritative parenting. Instead, he came off not only as a wimpy parent, but also one who was desperate to find a wife in a matter of days, regardless of how well he knew the woman. Did I mention this sends a bad message to children of divorced parents?
In a nutshell, the rest of the things that went wrong with this movie included Amy Yasbeck unnecessary and unexplained return to play an entirely different character, that young girl who was even more obnoxious than Junior, completely uncalled for toilet humor, and even more outrageous and outdated homophobic humor (involving the dog catchers). The movie was just a mess, and really doesn't deserve a DVD release if it hasn't been given one already. It should just rot on VHS along with all the other bad, forgettable 90's comedies.
\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\nDid the first travesty actually make money? This is another sequel (along the lines of ANOTHER STAKEOUT) that no one asked for. But we've received it anyway. The sequel is like its predecessor, completely brain-dead. It's also pretty disgusting (remember the dinner scene?) To think I almost felt sorry for Ritter, Yasbeck, and Warden. Did they need the money that much?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhenever someone tries to tell me that they think a movie is the worst ever (and it's usually some movie that's \"cool\" to hate, like \"Manos, the Hands of Fate\" or \"The Avengers\") I ask them, \"is that movie a comedy about an orphan who is constantly trying to murder adults? Does anyone utter the line 'I'd rather eat a turd' in that movie?\"
This movie is WAY too infantile and moronic for adults, and WAY too violent and irresponsible for children. Is there that much money in the Beavis and Butt-head demographic to make a series of movies like this? There is a Problem Child 3, but I haven't seen it. I'd rather eat a turd.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat an awful movie. Full of cliches, perplexing scenes, very bad acting, and an atrotious script. It is hard to believe the same guys that wrote The People vs. Larry Flint and Man on the Moon wrote this garbage. Man, this makes my list of Top 10 Worst Movies of All-Time. Didn't this guy, this director, if you can call him that, realize that the first Problem Child was bad enough? Let alone make a sequel for it!!?? Amazing that piece of trash films like this can be shown to children let alone be released! 1 out of 10 *'s
\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 having a hard time finding the words to explain just how much I detested this movie. The historical trial of Henriette Deluzy-Desportes and the Duc de Praslin is a tragic and compelling story that, I feel, had the potential to be a fantastic film, but failed.
Although the cinematography certainly had something to say for itself, it in no way could make up for the terrible structure of the film, the badly written script and most of all the horrendously overacted characters. The worst of them were the Duc's children who were so over-the-top-corny and sickeningly fake that it was almost painful to watch.
In conclusion, this film left me feeling nothing more than irritated and profoundly disappointed.
\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 was incredibly stupid with meaning what so ever. i fell bad for all the actors and actresses that ruined there career to be in this stupid movie. the entire movie was based on how unrealistic they could make it, to make little like it which made it even stupider. even some of the names were unrealistic. the film is fun to watch which is why it had 2 out of 10 stars. this is probably the 3rd stupidest movie ever made. i got really made after i realized that it had mostly adult actors in it yet in was a kid movie. the most upsetting one was Danny Trejo a horror movie actor who is always dirty. the other actors were pretty much clean as far as i'm concerned.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMy kids enjoyed the movie, but I was bored. There were a few good lines and a handful of funny parts, but the plot was pretty lame and relied on the special effects and gadgets to pull it through. Still, it hit the center of the bullseye that it was aiming for: it was good for the kids.
\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 kids movie it is great. For the family it just sucks. I was truly hoping for something like the Goonies which is a great film for all ages. This movie was just geared too much to the kids with the silly script and characters calling each other little names like booger breath. ??? Alan Cummings was however a delight. And why do people compare Willy Wonka to this movie...just because there is a theme song closely resembling the Willy Wonka song doesnt make this film anything like Willy Wonka.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAll the actors in this film seem bored. They are not really interested in their roles and the dialogue is all delivered in monotone. It's a problem because I think the basic idea for the film is really very sound. I suppose it's just bad direction which leaves the actors drifting.
\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 couldn't help but look at the time every 5 to 10 minutes because I found this movie a total drag. Childish humor, cheap looking sets, cheap looking effects, a plot that makes \"Legally blonde\" look like \"The Usual Suspects\" and so many coincidences that I can now officially say that Robert Rodriguez had brain surgery somewhere after 1996. The only thing he left as his trade mark are some cool camera moves, but there's where it ends. OK, so the guy decided to do something new for a change, a children's spy movie. Well if I were 12, I'd feel insulted. The best thing in this movie is the absolutely amazing Carla Gugino that just stole every scene she was in. Sadly, there weren't many. 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\nOf all the kids movies I have seen over the years this was probably the worst. I took four kids aged from 7 to 11 and none of them liked it.
The script seemed to be based on a Willy Wonka style story but it just didn't have anything to it.
If you are considering seeing this movie dont waste your time, it is bad.
They are making a sequel, so it may be worth watching to see if they can even make a worse movie, but I don't think it is possible.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWow, what a cheesy movie this is! It starts off looking like it's gonna be a backwoods slasher, with the camera following dogs running through the woods. It then gets a bit boring and follows the story of some girls moving into some house haunted by Indian spirits. We then get plenty of shots of one partially clad girl and another naked girl in the bath. It suddenly gets really cheesy when the \"Zombie Indians\" arise from the earth and start terrorising the girls. We even get a samurai Indian.
This movie starts off pretty boring although I did find the story of the four Indians who buried themselves alive quite interesting. Once the Indian zombies (or whatever you want to call them for they aren't technically zombies) start terrorising the girls is when all the fun begins. This is not a special flick and can't be taken seriously, it's just something fun to watch when you're bored or when you're drinking with friends. I can't help thinking though that it would have worked better as a short story because the first half is tediously boring.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nLadies and gentlemen, allow us to introduce to you . The Toltecs! This ancient Latin American tribe, even preceding the Aztecs, supposedly had the most malevolent and bloodthirsty sorcerers, yet they get their asses whooped by a couple of college floozies and a one-hundred-and-seven-year old lawman with a whip! But before you get to see this, however, you have to struggle through more than 40 minutes of sheer boredom, infantile pranks and sleazy sequences that don't contain any actual sleaze. In case I haven't made myself entirely clear yet: \"The Dark Power\" is an indescribably cheesy and inept piece of 80's horror crap that still manages to be amusing because of its sheer and somewhat charming stupidity factor. Writer/director Phil Smoot's intentions were obviously admirable, but he  as well as the rest of the cast & crew  lacked the talent and financial means to deliver something even half-decent. Smoot carefully watched \"The Evil Dead\" and other similar demonic-themed movies, and somehow must have thought he could pull this off as well. The movie opens with an old Indian guy dying in his isolated countryside house; barely speaking out his last word above a whisper  Toltecs. His grandson promptly rents out house to a bunch of college chicks, including a typically 80's aerobics babe, a cute black girl and a racist redneck gal. Soon they will discover why exactly the old Indian lived like a hermit, as he was actually the guardian of an ancient Toltec burial ground. Toltec sorcerers buried themselves alive, only to emerge again thousands of years later and feed on the flesh of the living. And, honestly, is there any better tasting flesh than that of bimbos? As hinted at before already, the first half of \"The Dark Power\" is terribly lame and sleep-inducing. The clichéd pranks, the retarded dialogs and the ridiculously overlong footage of Lash LaRue swinging around his whip seem to go on forever. Then, the movie loses its last smidgen of credibility when the Toltec sorcerers emerge from the ground. Instead of menacing, they look like drugged out hard rock stars with imbecile masks and drunken gestures. Exactly ONE gory moment is worth mentioning, when a guy's lips are stretched out over his entire skull, but overall even the carnage aspect of this movie is disappointing. The only remotely worthwhile moments are utterly senseless, like when a 9-year-old kid (named Cletus!) goes joyriding with his uncle's truck or when the vulgar naked chick sips beer in the bathtub after working out. Seriously, unless you get turned on by the sight of a 1940's western veteran swinging around his whip at nothing, I'd advise to skip this film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWow... I suspected this one to be bad... But now I find myself just at a loss for words... Honestly, no words of mine can do this movie any justice...
I'll try to say something anyway...
This truly is one unique gem. One of the worst kind.
Lash La Rue - given his background as an actor - doing a whip-fight with a Toltec sorcerer-zombie during the movie's climax...??? A true stroke of genius, without a doubt.
It rarely happens that I laugh out loud when watching a movie alone. It happened numerous times with this one.
The accents of the actors, man, the accents... And the dialogues I heard them speak... And the acting itself... I just couldn't believe what I was hearing.
That fat uncle farting so loudly (when walking up to the house together with his little nephew) for no apparent reason whatsoever...
Tits! Yes, there's titties! And female ass! There's even a naked chick in a bathtub sipping a beer...
That one \"stretch his mouth over his face\"-kill was the bomb! A true highlight.
The comedy-aspects were just totally bonkers. I just couldn't believe what I was seeing and hearing. For a while I even thought that they were unintentional, shaking my head in disbelief. But about halfway in the movie, I started to get the bigger picture. Guess it took me half a movie to dumb-down half of my brain, to finally get it.
I had a really hard time believing this movie... But it's good, really, I think. It had one black chick walking up to a very tiny cupboard, opening it and then saying \"Wooow, look at all the storage space!\". And she said it like she meant it. I mean, that's good dialogue and good acting, right?
Oh, and perhaps needless to say: Lash La Rue's whip-skills suck major ass in THE DARK POWER. It's really sad and pathetic to behold. That's all part of the comedy, of course. Or wait, I might be wrong. No, yes, I'm wrong. Lash La Rue was amazing with the whip! It was the editor's fault. He messed it up, cutting his lashes together and all. Or wait, it might have been the camera operator. He filmed from the wrong angles... Then why didn't Phil Smoot say anything? That's it, it's the director's fault.
But it's a good movie.
I'm just gonna quit talking about it. I have nothing meaningful to say anyway, except for the fact that I hope my brain will recover from this experience... some time soon.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film started off really tense when a poor young boy is set upon by a pack of savage dogs. After a tense chase he is saved by said grandpa with magic whip.
We are then introduced to a string of annoying house mates, including one tart who is always half dressed. During this stage the film heightens tension with strange \"plinky plinky\" background noises that had me on the edge of my seat.
I stopped paying attention for a while but when I looked back on the screen there where weird creature type things going around grunting and killing. One word of advice if you are ever trapped in your home by some nutter - get some cardboard boxes and a tray.
Although we did skip half the film, because it was totally non interesting or memorable, we are now at the stunning conclusion, the last surviving creature thing fights a \"Whip Duel\" with grandpa and his magic whip. I wont say what happens here, but I can say the whip battle is full of tension, with aerial fights, split level fights and all manner of drama.
I am now going to shove this film through the door of a neighbour i don't like.
\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 a group of dumb kids (including an unlikable. racist bitch) stay at an old house, it awakens four murderous Toltec spirits. Can Lash La Rue save the day? Will you be able to watch until the end due to the horrible comedy on display.
\"The Dark Power\" is the kind of really bad horror/comedy hybrid Troma used to release regularly. Thing is, they didn't. release this. That doesn't excuse the whole thing, as it has a dreadful synthesizer score (including bad attempts at Native American music and even worse \"comedy\" music), bad make up effects (basically Halloween masks), and atrocious acting (Ok, the fat guy was alright, though everyone else is terrible, and La Rue, a Western movie vet, seems embarrassed to be there-not that I blame him really.)
The worst thing though, is the comedy aspects. Sure, dumb teens is one thing, but when the movie keeps talking about the Toltec spirits as if they are the ultimate evil, only for them to turn out to be horribly annoying, bumbling fools, all hope is dashed. Combining horror and comedy takes at least some skill. There is no skill on display here, as it all is just stupid, and not \"so dumb it's fun\" either. I mean \"smoking pot and listening to bad Punk Rock aren't I dumb\" dumb.
Not even a decent ripped off face and a chick in little clothing can save this disaster. Terrible movie, and not even worth a rental.
\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 total and utter travesty of a movie.'Dark power'is the kind of film even troma would be embarrassed to release.The script,direction,acting and action sequence's are so dire as to be almost painful to watch and one cant help thinking that it's mere 75 minute running time could have been better spent. The above reviewer must be related to the director as that's the only reason i can see for his/her appraisal of this rubbish,some might call it b-movie fun or 'so bad it's good' just to excuse there enjoyment of it,but when the lead actor ( and most experienced cast member) cant deliver his lines convincingly you know you've got a very,very bad movie.Avoid at all costs.
\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\nGlenn Ford, a New York boy who has been saving his cash, thumbs and hobos his way to the Arizona ranch he has bought, where he hopes to find HEAVEN WITH A BARBED WIRE FENCE.
A film with a Dalton Trumbo script and story, directed by villain extraordinaire Ricardo Cortez, and starring the frequently twitchy Glenn Ford and the restless Richard Conte just shouldn't be so bloody nice. Though the system -- mostly seen as mean cops and railroad bulls and real estate con men -- is as awful as one might expect from the leftish Mr. Trumbo, every single proletarian is just so sweet and nice and salt of the earth that one feels nausea. It doesn't help that the heroine -- a sweet blonde thing who is an illegal alien refugee fleeing Franco's Spain -- is annoying for reasons of both scripting and acting.
So why watch? Richard Conte, in his first role, already has his persona and a pretty good part. And there are some moments of 30s leftist camp that are pretty astonishing. (Did Dalton absolutely have to set a major portion of the movie in the Russian Worker's mission? All that was missing was a portrait of a beaming Joe Stalin!) Also, this is Glenn Ford's first substantive role (though his performance isn't good).
Why not watch? Essentially, the movie offers an unconvincing vision, is wedded to a political viewpoint that is risible, and the two leads have made much better movies. Also, the strengths of Dalton Trumbo as a screenwriter are nowhere in evidence. Instead, we get a film that the Coen Brothers Barton Fink could have written in a flash (and avoided that hellish bout with writer's block).
\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 one \"chosen\" to see this movie in a sneak preview.
first you should know that this film is based on the video game \"far cry\", a for its time really good game (2004). second you should know that the regisseur of this flick is the great uwe boll. this is a man, who takes video games (dungeon siege, bloodrayne, postal, etc.) and makes movies out of them (VERY horrible ones....).
i still remember when i saw boll's \"the king's swords: a dungeon siege tail\". there were so horrible mistakes in this film (like 3 scenes playing at the same time, 2 at day-time, and one somehow at night.....)
so lets come to \"far cry\". if you expect cool action, forget it. really cheap tricks and a plastic helicopter are far away from real action. if you expect a cool story, forget it. orientating by the not-so-bad story of the game, this movie is a laugh. the actors' playing makes the movie in a lot of moments funny, but in a no-good way.
i had the chance to see this movie for free. so do not do the mistake and pay for this trash. its one of my favorised flicks for the bottom 100.!!!!
\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\nMr. \"Uwe Fail\" strikes again, transformed a classic game in a cheap piece of crap. Poor acting; Poor Directing; Awful adaptation; I mean, Far-Cry game was awesome, its like a true FPS game, cool weapons and lots lots lots of \"point and shoot\". In the movie we had nothing compared to the game.. Well we had some of the \"point and shoot\" thing but... i don't know how to explain, but if you ever watched another \"Uwe Fail\" movie you will understand. If you don't believe me, go to the website \"petition online\" and do a check for one named \"Stop Uwe Bowl\".
That movie made my eyes bleed, someone must stop him for once.
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\nOne of Bolls better attempts. Just shows that if you do something long enough you have to improve just by chance. It is still not good but it is at least watchable which is an improvement over the bloodrayne. The main difference between Bloodrayne and FarCry really is that the story from Farcry wasn't the games strong point whereas Bloodrayne had a strong story and thus Boll had more chance to mess it up.
The action in this movie is actually fairly good. Occasionally a touch overdone but in a good way and worth a watch just for that.
Acting wise it was pretty decent. Most of the actors are pretty good but you can tell they aren't taking it seriously based on comparisons with other performances. But the lighter mood this gives to the film actually helps.
While I think sticking a little bit closer to the story of the game might have made for a slightly better film the changes made are pretty practical and not big enough to make a difference. Especially given the plot of the game was hardly Oscar winning just a vehicle for FPS carnage. Would have liked it set in the Jungle as that was a pretty integral part of the game but Canada doesn't have a great deal of Jungle and it is at least set in a kind of rainforest.
Why Boll feels the need to change already professionally scripted and directed game plots I don't know but he does. And until he starts letting the source material speak through his adaptations will always be lacking. Watch the film for a laugh its good for that and maybe for watching during a party as drinking party fodder.
\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 is only one reason this movie is watchable. Till Schweiger. He is such a good actor the movie isn't completely terrible. Uwe Boll please take up another career. The special effects and action are acceptable. All other aspects were very disappointing. All I can say is that Kevin Smith (An evening with...) talked about Tim Burton not ever reading the Batman comics and it showed. Uwe Boll must not have ever played the video games that he keeps making movies about. If you two ever want to know how it is done go see Andrzej Bartkowiak. Doom was one of the best video games to film adaptations ever. Some people may disagree, but if you watch the movie you can see that the guys at ID had a lot to do with Doom. It doesn't seem like anyone at UBIsoft was even near this production.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am deeply disturbed by some posts I am reading on the message boards for this movie, people saying it is actually a good movie! Just because this movie is Uwe Boll's best to date does not make it a good movie at all, no way in hell! Far Cry is a clichéd mess full of bad acting, poor direction, and an uninspired story with a shoddy script. This is Boll's first pure action movie, and news flash people, action movies aren't too hard to make because for a basic action flick all you need is explosions and gun battles scattered around a flimsy plot, and hey, Mr. Boll succeeds in doing that. House of the Dead, Alone in the Dark, and Bloodrayne, all horror games adapted into movies by Boll are far worse than this (they have no redeeming qualities). Far Cry boasts two things which make it his best yet: two good leads and a couple of well-done action sequences. Til Schweiger is quite good as Jack Carver, and Emmanuelle Vaugier is a strong female lead. The usually great Udo Kier is passable as the clichéd villain and the supporting cast are pretty damn bad. Towards the end of the film there is a surprisingly tense chase sequence which came as a shock considering Boll was behind the camera.
Unfortunately the rest of the movie has an incredibly cheap feel to it, with bad CGI, lame one-liners and clichés around every corner. Oh, and the worst lead up to a sex scene I think I have ever scene. Not only have the two only known each other for six hours, but all it takes is for him to say he kept warm while in the army by spooning his fellow soldiers. He already got her to take his clothes off by merely telling her to. Then he took his off and climbed into bed because he was afraid of hypothermia.
Anyway, to summarise, this is a bad movie. It is mindless action movie that can kill 80 minutes if you are totally bored. One could probably do worse than popping this in and watching it, but I'd personally say watch a classic action film like Die Hard or Predator and stay away from this derivative mess.
1½/5
\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\nI don't really mind the creative ideas interjected in these movies, but seriously. There isn't one coherent part of the game in this movie. That seems to be the trend, buy the rights and then just make a movie that has zero to do with what the fans want. This butchering is almost entertaining because you know you are getting away with hiding behind a lack of skill, and control of money (not yours) that allows you to do this. Play a game, or hire someone to, and please make a real movie, or stand in the boxing ring and have your butt handed to you as you so claim won't happen.
wow, 9 lines of text and i was done. had to add blah to bug you, sorry
\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\nUwe Boll slips back in his film-making skills once again to offer up a scifi horror tale of mercenaries and reporters taking on super soldiers on a remote island. An okay cast headed by the excellent Udo Keir is cast adrift by Boll who makes the worst of script that should have worked. The mad scientist being investigated by a reporter has been done to death but this script is amusing enough that the plot should have worked, additionally the effects and super soldier design with their dead lifeless eyes have some degree of creepiness, however Boll somehow manages to film everything in an off handed way. Its as if he couldn't be bothered to actually figure out what would work and instead rattled off stock camera placements and walked away. Additionally the assembly of scenes has no spark or life, I'm guessing that Boll only shot one or two takes and just used what he had. It really stinks. Clearly Boll is in one of his periodic retrograde films where anything he's ever learned about film gets flushed. The last film he made that was this bad was Seed a serial killer movie that is one of the worst films I've ever seen. This isn't that bad, but it is close simply because it should have been better. Then again Udo Keir is good enough that he does make watching his scenes worth the effort and make this a an almost so bad its good film. I'd take a pass unless it's late at night and you're catching it on cable.
\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 liked the Far Cry game, nice graphics, good level-design, interesting and clever enemies, above-average length and even a somewhat decent plot. I am not by default against movie spin-offs of games. I thought \"DOOM The Movie\" was hilarious. But what Uwe Boll has done here, is to take the game and modified every one of its good aspects and turned them into something horrible (well not the length, the movie runs only a merciful 90 min) The characters are even more stereotypical than in the game, which is quite an achievement. The entire plot is told without any twists or mystery. Several blatantly ridiculous scenes tell you every bit of the story. And come on \"Genetically Modified Soldiers\"? they could have come up with some better name.
However, this film should get some award for the most idiotic love scene. I have never seen anything of the like. I could not believe they were trying to be serious \"we have to get out of the wet clothes\" \"I think I'll get hypothermia\" (although everybody is wearing T-shirts) \"we need to cuddle together for body warmth\" \"Is that your gun?\" But... but ... weren't there people who consciously did this? There must have been a scriptwriter, a director, actors, a gaffer, an electrician, some food guy! Why didn't anyone jump into that scene to stop this evil from happening? Was this film done by ravaging, inhuman, genetically modified film people? I won't start at ranting about how many logical errors, inconsistencies and scriptwriting flaws there were, but even to the die-hard action-fan, this can't be anything but insulting.
This film did actually ask for being rated 2 out of 10, so I'll do it that favor. But that leaves me to explain where the second star comes from. Special-effects? Nah. Acting? Not really. References to the game? You wish. Wait! they used the font from the game for the title and the credits. That was neat.
If you are looking for a flick for a bad movie night, go for \"2012 - Supernova\", this one is just - sad.
\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\nClearly this would have had potential in more capable hands, but given Uwe Boll's track record it would have been surprising if there would have been any merit to this farce.
The first 5 minutes are classic monster movie madness - even the horrible one-liners delivered by GI Joe type soldiers feel as if they were lifted off another venture into the same genre.
You will be doing yourself a favor if you exit the movie at this point. You've already passed all the highlights and you will have spared yourself the suffering of sitting through some of the worst acting in recent history.
Next, enter absolute rubbish talent. The leading man has the same amount of charisma that you will find in garden slug.
There is an awkward bit of contrived romance thrown in - this feels so wrong that you can only speculate why this scene was conjured up in the first place. Normally the genre uses interludes of romance and nudity to inject some humanity and sympathy into otherwise cardboard cut-out characters - here it backfires on all cylinders.
The effects are bad and the action unbelievably boring. Where other classics show originality and imagination in the face of budget restraints - here it just seems like everything was spent on catering.
There are in fact no redeeming features here - not even the \"it's so bad it is almost good\" applies. It's just bad, and in a bad way.
Our hero questions the leading starlet about the night they spent together and how she would rate him. She gives him 2 out of 10. I give the whole affair 1 (I'd have gone for 0 if that were possible).
Don't waste your time on this dribble, there is plenty of crap cinema out there, which exceeds this ridiculous rumble in the jungle.
Oh and finally, the movie has little to nothing at all to do with the popular game Far Cry (at best it is extremely loosely based on it).
Horrible, move along!
\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\nSadly this film lives up to about 1% of the hype that the game created in 2004 and leaves a very sour taste in the mouth. For video game enthusiasts, book worms and movie fans alike there is nothing more disappointing then a film that is based on an original concept (whether on paper or gaming console) that does not deliver. And not only that, goes well under the mark. Far Cry the video game released in 2004 created such a cult following that making a movie from the content should have been easy and scores of gamers would have flocked to watch the film. If you are a gamer that has played Far Cry; do not watch this film. Anyone else who hasn't played the game; it'll still seem like a B grade acted / B grade directed movie. Uwe Boll, hang your head in shame...this should've been easy to make into a blockbuster. The storyline of the game was incredible (think Jurassic Park meets Alien) and yet you still managed to take it and mould it into your own terrible recreation of an instant classic. Video game companies be warned - if Uwe Boll comes a knockin', lock the door. Oh & Til Schweiger...I look forward to seeing you make up for yourself in Inglourious Basterds. What were you thinking taking this one on? Sigh.
\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\nNot too good a movie. Sure, it contains action, but the effects aren't all that good for a '08 movie. Gunshot effects are downright horrible. Acting is \"meh\"
It is nothing like Far Cry, other than names and the very basics of the story (genetically enhanced super soldiers going amok). The super soldiers are very different, the mercenaries are different, the setting are completely different (tropical island in the pacific in the game, island in northern-ish America in the movie).
I loved playing Far Cry. I loved the story and setting. I hated the 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\nBarely came trough the whole movie... Acting is bad, dialogs are even worse. Felt kinda st00pid 4 watching it, but it was named the same as one of my favorite games, so I struggled trough. They even screwed up the sound. At certain parts of the movie the background music is so loud, that i had to turn the volume down. It would be great, if this was a competition about who can screw up more.
Oh and PS: I don't know what's this guy \"Uwe\" capable of creating... I certainly don't think this movie is bad just because he's the director. I checked the list of his work, and this is his first(and probably the last) creation that I've seen.
over&out.
\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 actually fairly surprised to find out a movie based on the Far Cry game had been created. The story here is not something I would consider to be a strong point in the game universe. No worries though as in typical Boll fashion the story in the movie has very little to do with the game it is based on. Now I understand that certain liberties need to be taken to make a transfer from one form of media to another but it seems like he really just doesn't even try to make a connection. Not only that but the acting and action sequences are so corny it almost makes you feel like the whole project was one big joke. It has been said a million times before but why couldn't someone more talented pick up the video game rights to create a 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 a huge fan of the Farcry Game, HUGE fan. It still holds a place in my top-10 games list of all time! The story line was new, fresh... A truly brilliant foundation to base a movie on... or so i thought...
Farcry the Movie is no less than another directors attempt at cashing in on a successful game franchise (see Doom: The Movie, and many more...).
The Video Game begins as the player (Jack Carver) awakes in a sea side cave after been shot off his boat by an RPG from an unknown soldier. Jack then finds a communication device where (Harlan Doyle) guides him across islands, shipwrecks, jungles, installations and VOLCANOES, to find his (lady friend?) (Valerie Constantine), all the wile battling mutated super soldiers, and genetically enhanced animals.
The Movie plays out very, very differently: 1: There's a needless 30 mins (1/3 of the movie) of \"backstory\" before we even get to the 'boat blowing up' scene. 2: Jack then walks onto the beach, kills some goons, then drives off... Nothing like the game... 3: There is no communicator with Doyle on the other end... 4: The 'Modified Soldiers' look like albinos with singlets on... And there was no mutated 'monkey-like' creatures jumping out of the bushes. A part of the Farcry game i enjoyed allot... 5: There is no sun filled beach scenes, no aircraft carrier, no communications stations on huge cliffs, LITTLE reference to any in-game contents (characters/items/vehicles), in fact no attempt to follow the story line at all. 6: The climactic Volcano scene from the game is replaced with an old industrial building. 7: There's an Ending scene... where everyone (except Krieger) live happily ever after... WHAT THE!
I recommend avoiding this movie at all costs! If you are a Gamer, you will HATE this movie will all your soul. It is a movie clearly intended for males, so girls, stay away... So if your a male, 12-29 years of age, have never played Farcry, and are not disgusted by directors attempts at porting books/games to the cinema... then this is for you...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"