empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was sitting at home and flipping channels when I ran across what potentially sounded like an interesting film. I like Destruction type movies and decided to watch it. I don't know why but I ended up watching it the whole 2 hours. We have seen this type of movie I don't know how many times.
Back in 1998 - 2000 there were dozen of films that dealt with global destruction of some sort. The best one on my list so far is Deep Impact which was more believable than this one. Here are my problems with this film: 1) cheap special effects, like something out of the old computer. 2) no background information or explanation on weather patterns. If you are going to make a movie about weather, at least have some decency to entertain the viewer with technical details. 3) How come only 2 or 3 people figure out that the storm is converging on Chicago... no more experts left in the field? 4) where are some interesting characters? I truly don't care for anyone except maybe the pregnant woman. I felt that there was no character development. 5) no thought provoking moment what so ever and factually incorrect theme. And this is only the first part of the film. I bet the conclusion will show us few destruction scenes and a search and rescue operation just like it has been done many times before. And judging by the special effects in the first part of the movie, I can only imagine what we are to expect. Of course, at the end, the main characters will survive and life will go on... how original
\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 hope that Matt Dorff's original script for this was much better (there are signs of it - dialogue that should happen well before big f/x scenes (to introduce characters) that would make sense much earlier, is jammed in later in the time-line; perhaps the original script was for a longer running-time. But maybe not -- in any case, this reeks. Every character is uninteresting, and *everybody* speaks expository passages as if they are speaking the word of god. There are characters that are entirely expository -- Dianne Wiest's \"Secretary Abbot\" is just awful, explaining things to her assistant (and incidentally us), in endless speeches that NO ONE would say to anyone, ever, in real life (when she isn't explaining things to her assistant that she already knows, her assistant explains things to HER that SHE already knows._ There are characters who are entirely one-dimensional -- the evil power company guy; the pilot who will just NOT SHUT UP about his personal life and concentrate on his job. The \"well-meaning\" power-company superdooperuber hacker-guy who can crash
*everything* in Chicago (including the phones) -- and then gives the oh-no-what-have-I- done speech (but not leave himself a back door?). The crusading reporter who abandons her principles at the drop of a hat? The power-company shift supervisor who ABANDONS HIS POST in the middle of the worst crisis in Chicago since the Fire -- with no consequences? Hospitals ABANDONED by the doctors and nurses during the crisis (I'm not kidding, that's in the movie.)
Oh yeah, and it's filled with Hollywood morality clichés -- generally women are good, men are evil, unless influenced by a woman (the ultimate is the punk with the gun -- deprived of a woman's influence, he literally goes insane); an evil stupid act (like what the reporter did with hacker-bozo) is all right, so long as you 'mean well'. Evil men die, capitalist evil men die as horribly as possible, everybody else lives (well, except Randy Quaid). And did I hear someone say that the nuclear electrical power generating stations had to shut down because there wasn't electricity to run the safety systems (think about that one)?
There is one ray of sunshine (if you'll pardon the expression) -- Randy Quaid basically plays his character from \"Independence Day\" (you know -- \"Hello boys - I'm baaaack!\") -- this time as a storm chaser with an infinite-range SUV and superdooper batteries for his camcorders. Nevertheless, they kill him -- mostly, it seems, so that the audience will appreciate that tornados are pretty dangerous things (kinda shallow, that.)
Give this one a pass.
\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 wasted effort. On the surface it's a typical disaster movie: we're involved in the lives of a few people who get caught up in the Big Event. However, the script is so awful and there's so much explaining of the characters' background within the dialogue that we feel we're being treated like morons. Even Sesame Street didn't explain the origins of Mr Snuffleupagus or how Mr Hooper died: we can work it out. Someone thought that entering 'Enron' into the script would give it currency when discussing power companies. The acting is by and large bland, with the exception of the older performers (Randy Quaid, Brian Dennehy), and after the first hour, I couldn't care less about who the storms took out.
But maybe there are the special effects to watch. Sadly, no. Even on a 20-year-old TV set I could see one tractor and trailer were computer-generatedbadly. Maybe there are budgetary limitations, so I can forgive that one. Footage of a plane trying to land looked pretty real, but I kept telling myself I had seen that before. This site confirms it: it was from an earlier film, Nowhere to Land.
So in summary, the only good bits are from another film, and when you see the best action sequences compressed into a 30-second network promo, it makes Category 6 look quite good. My advice: rely on your network to do some good 30-second clips, watch them, and save yourself two nights.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you thought Day after tomorrow was implausible, wait till you see this.
Okay so the premise of most disaster films is usually a 1 in billion event occurring, compounded by other circumstances. In this case, the even is the joining of two huge storm systems. Fair enough so far. Oh but hold up, no, the \"event\" is the sabotage and subsequent destruction of the power grid.
Next throw in loads of human interest elements - in this case a cheating husband, a psychotic gun-wielding boyfriend, a rebellious daughter, a hacker with a point to prove, a senator trying to push an agenda, a reporter trying to stand up against \"the man\", and a pregnant women stuck in an elevator.
Finally add a handful of taster events to add excitement.
Jeez if the director tried to fit in any more meaningless plot lines, there would have been no time less for the actual disaster, which, given the pitiful state of the computer graphics, was almost certainly the intention.
Jeez, if you can't even model a truck convincingly, you really should not be taking on twisters, exploding power stations, Las Vegas getting ripped apart, or destroyed oil stations.
In case you didn't already gather how appalling this movie is, let me just add that all three bad guys get killed in separate, and wholly ungratifying, implausible manners, that stunk more of moralising that good film-making.
I'm have no problem with first month film students writing jaded, hackneyed, cliché-soaked scripts, but for god's sake, that doesn't mean anyone has to make them into movies!
It manages to make the abysmally implausible 10.0 Apocalypse look not quite so dreadful. Avoid them both.
\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\nAnyone who complains about Peter Jackson making movies too long should sit through this CBS \"event\". There's about 45 minutes of story padded by 2 hours of unnecessary subplots, featuring bland by-the-book TV drama clichés. Bad science is a staple for crappy weather disaster movies, so I'm not going to complain about that. Silly science can be fun to watch if it's executed in an amusing fashion. What kills this movie is it's 10 subplots... all of which could be excised without destroying what is supposed to be the central plot. The one character that is entertaining to watch in Category 6 is Tornado Tommy, despite being a very annoying stereotype.
Note that I also didn't bother commenting on special effects. Their quality should come as no surprise.
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\nI expected this movie was originally supposed to show before the election. CBS's last shot at throwing a dig at Bush. This movie was just awful yet I'm still watching it. **Minor Spoiler** I think CBS got the same people who \"provided\" the memo's to do the semi cut in half sequence. What is with the bad boyfriend storyline? Can the acting be more contrived or the dialog more like a Ed Wood movie. Who ever came up with this script please do us a favor stop writing. If you want to see decent B grade disaster movies then see Earthquake, Flood etc. Avoid this mess of a movie. Hint to CBS avoid showing us this crap. Give us re-runs of CSI instead. Better acting and more believable.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is something horrible. I was laughing all the time. I was forced to stop in some scenes because my mom thought it's not polite to laugh when people are dying, but in this movie, even death looks ridiculous. Especially when Tornado Tommy is sucked into one tornado.
Explosions of cars thrown onto buildings by the forces of wind look like ones from the old school side scroller game called R-Type. Dialogues are very bad and I am interested how they managed to persuade some of the actors to play in this movie. It is simply amazing how such bad movie can make it into the TV.
Only real reason to watch this movie is to have some fun of nonsense and absurdity.
\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 has to be the worst film I have seen. There is a reason it was made to be a MOW (Movie of the week). The continuity was all wrong (palm trees in a Chicago setting even though it was filmed in Toronto, Canada), the effects were left to be desired for the year of 2004. HELLO. \"Lord of the Rings\" had better CGI than that. But I guess they also had the money for it. The budget will for sure affect the outcome but anyone that calls this MOW more than a 2 needs to go back to Film and TV school. Next time remember that care and time make a classic not rushing for a tornado box office or TV smash hit.
Also, I know networks can reuse footage from old networks or affiliates but using 80's footage for 2004? I have a hard time buying that.
\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\nContains Major Spoilers, on the off chance you would actually care about the story line.
OK, we have storms that destroy a city and a computer hacker who clobbers the power grid.
Predictable schlock from the start, and if that weren't enough, the 5 second action bumps between the movie and the commercials kill what little suspense there might have been. For example: will they make it to the airport in time? Things look dim as we go to a commercialand the action shot before the ad shows them bouncing around inside the plane! Well, I guess they're gonna make it after allbut then again, they had to because they're good guys.
The acting wasn't any too impressive (exception and welcome relief: Randy Quaid as Tornado Tommy) , the effects were kinda lame, the bad guys got it, and the good guys came through. The real disaster of this movie was the script, especially the ending. Not only did they wrap things up happily as quickly as a soap opera given 24 hours notice of a cancellation, but they glorified the hacker as well-intentioned. So he caused a bazillion deathshe meant well. And, of course, an uplifting final TV report about people coming together. Barf. It was everything I expected from the commercials, and I'm glad I wasted my time watching it. It will make great conversation at the lunch table tomorrow.
Is CBS insulting us by making this? Surebut we watched it, didn't we? Did you count many ads there were for home backup generators during this pig?
Here's hoping for the next Plan 9 from Outer Space (which gets better with each viewing). This isn't it.
1 star.
\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 i hate most in this garbage is the arrogant attitude of the film makers and network execs who foist this nonsense on the public because they really think the audience is so stupid, so undeserving, so tasteless as to deserve these kind of cons. There is an inherent entertainment is seeing disaster movies and with the magic of today's CGI effects artists are given powerful tools to explore what before was denied them. With that allure we sat down to watch some mayhem and destruction. Well, guess what, the only mayhem we saw was in the ads touting next Wednesday's episode. What a let down! But wait, there was even a bigger one. The script itself was the bigger disaster! And then there was the direction and the flaccid acting by everyone involved in this turkey. But we knew this before right?! We knew that effects alone do not an entertainment make, but yet the network bozos who Okayed this TV movie didn't care about that because in their mantra is the everlasting line \"never underestimate how stupid the audience are\". These guys must actually live by this motto, and I am so fed up of it. No wonder the audience has abandoned US drama in droves and pitched their camp in reality shows. at least in those programs no one is trying to make it look like anything different from what it is: intellectual pornography. Well, Category 6 is worse than that because it assumes to be different and \"original\". Yes this was a disaster movie alright but the disasters are not what they advertised!
\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 reason I know this film exists is because I wanted to see what Nancy McKeon had been up to since The Facts of Life ended. When I searched her name, up came this relatively new TV movie. After much investigation I managed to locate a copy & was thoroughly disappointed with what I viewed. D Grade acting, poor script, terrible FX - it was like watching a toned down, more stupefied version of Day After Tomorrow that went for 3 hours. Despite the long running time the characters remain fairly under-developed, we do not care about them in the slightest & in most cases are longing for their demise. Combine that with terrible lighting & cinematography & you have a real disaster of a film. How they con-viced so many \"name\" actors (i.e Dianne Weist, Randy Quaid, Brian Dennehy) to appear in such trash is mind-blowing. In summary - I want those 3 hours of my life back!!!
\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 one was truly awful. Watching with fascinated horror, I kept on asking \"why have they done this?\" That is, taken all the scenarios out of \"The Day after Tomorrow\", \"The Perfect Storm\" and \"Twister\" and remixing them in a three-hour miniseries, directed by long-time junk TV director Dick Lowry, with every disaster movie cliché known to man and not an ounce of real suspense. Many of the cast were unknown Canadians and location filming was done in Canada, Winnepeg doubling for Chicago, so no doubt tax breaks had something to do with it. Although some ambitious special effects were attempted, the execution is so poor no decent spectacle is achieved. The actors may be a competent lot; the script is so bad no-one had a chance to show it, except perhaps for Randy Quaid as Tommy the Tornado chaser, who went right over the top and was quite amusing.
Believe it or not, the producers have since made another one of these Canadian disaster turkeys called \"Category 7  the End of the World\" which was very tastefully shown on CBS in the US a few weeks after Hurricane Katrina. How could the network of Ed Murrow and Walter Cronkite do such a thing? In prime time? PT Barnum \"nobody ever went broke underestimating public taste\" is proved right once 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\nThe first two hours of the televised version are full of character and plot exposition -- after an early brief sequence of Las Vegas being hit by tornadoes, the action doesn't really start until the second two hours. Still, some character relationships don't become clear until the second part. The actors turn in competent performances, but nothing special (however, better than those in \"Aftershock: Earthquake in New York\"). An exception is Randy Quaid, whose character is superfluous and incredibly annoying. The plot is a pretty standard mix of parts of \"Independence Day\", \"Speed\", \"The Day After Tomorrow\", \"Earthquake\", \"The Towering Inferno\" and several other films. You can predict what will happen next, and come close to predicting the dialog, word for word. The special effects are unbelievably bad. Despite the effects in \"Twister\", the tornadoes in this film seem less realistic than the one in \"The Wizard of Oz\" and other effects were obviously done for less money than such series as \"CSI\" and \"Cold Case\" spend on the totality of a single episode. If you have to see a made-for-TV disaster film, see \"The Day After\", \"Asteroid\", or \"Special Bulletin\" instead -- you'll get better plots, acting, and effects.
\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 is this!! its so bad. The animation looks so terrible , it looks like a ps1 type game. The actors are awful, they just cannot act to save their lives. I sat through all of this film an then at the end I was annoyed when I realised I had wasted 3 hours of my life. I've not heard of this film, did it ever actually come out in the cinema or did it go straight to DVD? A girl got shot?! What is up with that, it was just a stupid film. They totally copied 'The Day After Tomorrow'. Its got to be one of the worst films i have ever seen. I would definitely recommend to people to not waste their time with this. You could spend your time watching 'The Day After Tomorrow', its a lot better. Well thats what I think of the film. Actually why have I wasted my time writing about it, ah dam!! Its really annoying me, its wasted 3 hours and 10 minutes now.
\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 \"category 6: day of destruction\" was very unrealistic. The digital effects where like a children's cartoon.
The actors didn't act realistically, for example, when the girl was shot she acted like she got tomato sauce splatted on her.
The movie was boring but I watched it because it was on.
The only interesting character was Tornado Tommy, he was funny!
Please keep the special effects real.
I liked the comment: \"What did we do to p.i.s.s-off Mother Nature?\"
I don't know what else to write to fill up the 10 lines. What else can I say the movie is so boring, I think my comment will be equally 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\nI can't believe I actually spent almost three hours of my life watching this. This must be one of the most unbelievable, predictable and cheesy television movies I have seen in a long time. I was hoping for some good special effects and action, instead I spent the entire time rolling my eyes and yelling \"OH COME ON!!!\", at the screen. The dialog is shallow and obvious, the acting strained at times and as the story moves along, isn't it just funny how EVERYTHING happens at the same time... Not to mention the obvious and nauseating ending... Now I've seen more than my share of disaster movies, I am a big fan actually, and think that often they can pull off completely unrealistic stuff as long as it's done in a fun way, but this is definitely not it. This is just an insult to intelligent viewers everywhere. What were they thinking when they made 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\nWhat a mess--and I'm not referring to the \"destruction\" in the title. I could go on about the hackneyed plot, the lousy effects, the (actually notable) cast grimacing as they deliver the worst lines of their careers, etc. I'll just say there weren't any palm trees in Chicago the last time I checked, and leave it at that.
Hmmm...need ten lines to get this posted on IMDb.. OK, well, I think a DVD release with outtakes could be interesting. Maybe Dennehy will reveal what favor got called in for him to appear in this thing. Maybe Dianne Weist will show us the bag of money it must have taken to get her involved. Maybe CBS execs will apologize...
\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 made for TV film is about every cliché you can come up with for a disaster movie. The only problem is it isn't very well done.
My brain is still insulted from the scenes in which Brian Dennehy is supposedly looking at a computer monitor looking for weather pattern data and showing on that monitor are stock footage scenes of weather turmoil ala The Weather Channels commercials. Why would watching local news footage of a washed out side-street give insight to global weather patterns? You got me.
Also interspersed through out the first two hours are some of the worst CGI effects known to man. Watch for the semi truck and the airplane that look like they were rendered on a Commodore 64.
All the foreshadowing in this \"movie\" is done with the subtlety of a sledgehammer, the dialog is forced and I can't think of a likable character that I want to survive the second half.
The character I hate the most is the stupid wife who's husband is cheating. Maybe if she lifted a finger at anytime during the show instead of being a helpless woman who stands in the the same 10 square feet of the kitchen all day her husband wouldn't be sleeping with the PR rep for a rival energy company. She is so helpless, in fact, I want to put her out of her and my misery. I hope everyone in this \"movie\" dies in the second half.
\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 have been some great television movies in that past. Epics such as \"Roots\" and \"Lonesome Dove\" come to mind. Category 6: Day of Destruction will not be remembered for advancing the cause of made-for-TV movies. A laughably bad story, surpassed only by the horrible screenplay, Cat6DD, as I like to call it, inspires more sympathy for the actors involved than terror in nature that the movie was supposed to bring out. That sound you hear during the movie is supposed to be the sound of wind, but instead it's actually the careers of Randy Quaid, Brian Dennehy, and Thomas Gibson (Greg, of the Dharma & Greg duo) plummeting faster than houses and trucks and cows can fly away from one of the 15 tornadoes we see in the first 5 minutes of the movie. The movie was advertised as \"nature gone amok,\" instead we get a lame story about how 15 different weather systems conspire to produce 150 degree days in Chicago, then a blizzard the next day from a hurricane that was in the Gulf of Mexico that combined with a storm system from Canada but actually had it's origins in a jet stream changed by global warming.... ENOUGH!! It didn't matter what the story was, the acting was terrible, the words the actors said were dumb, and 13 scientists throughout the country had coronaries after hearing the dribble that came out of the movie. I didn't care what happened to any of the characters, the special effects were sub-par, even for made-for-TV standards, and the story lines were pointless. All in all, I really really dislikes this \"TV event.\"
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI wish I had read the comments on IMDb before I saw this movie. The first 1 hour was OK, though it did make me wonder why everything was centered at Chicago and why no one reported any weather anomaly from outside US. Isolated acts of nature (of this magnitude) are unthinkable. But beyond the first 60 minutes, the movie just drags on like a never-ending story. The screenplay is horrible. As for the actors, very poor choice. Only the people hired to run in panic stick to their roles. But I do have to agree that this movie has got some good 'special effects'. If you rented it on a DVD and would want to watch the movie, despite the reviews, then play it on maximum speed your player would allow!
\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 to start off I was like, wow this is new, so when is the film starting, and out of this in between stuff. But it never ended. The film is just one big in between! And after 10 minutes of waiting for something to actually happen, apart from water splashing around, I just started getting angry! There is nothing in this documentry and nothing will be learned. Completely BORING and RUBBISH!
\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\nCRYSTAL VOYAGER is a strange documentary about an eccentric surfer living in Australia. An American by birth George Greenough has surfed and photographed himself, friends and recently, dolphins, in Australia for 35 years, all using various re invented cameras which he either straps on his back, board or boat. In the mid 70s he teamed up with Surf Mag editor and budding film maker David Elfick to create this visually interesting tale about this life and photography. The 75 minute feature CRYSTAL VOYAGER is the result. Even in the 70s audiences were a bit puzzled by this film, neither surf-ing movie nor surf movie, because George swims about on a children's zippy board, not a real surfboard.... it offset the tedious droning of George (occasionally so dry or droll that it was actually funny.. like almost setting himself on fire or falling over something) with a spectacular 'you are there' power glide through a wave that ran for 23 minutes all set to Pink Floyd music. In 1974 when the Sydney Opera house opened, it also contained a cinema. Crystal Voyager was booked in there as an arty-sporty OZ pic and by default became a hit: as the 'opera house tickets' cost far more than a movie ticket, audiences flocked to see this film as an excuse to 'have been to the Sydney Opera House'...so the film did record business as a low budget attraction to locals and tourists who wanted to tell neighbors that they had seen a show 'there'. This created this myth that the film was a huge crowd puller and the reputation spread. As a result it was teamed with the fantasy cartoon FANTASTIC PLANET and had a trippy run through the UK and Europe as a double feature. I ran it at a coastal cinema in the 70s and the crowd was rather nonplussed about it all. Recently George has re emerged Lord Of The Flies style with another well photographed sea adventure called DOLPHIN GLIDE that offers viewers a dive and swim with the wild dolphins of Byron Bay. It is an eccentric 20 min short with an even more eccentric 20 min 'how George did it' short. Each were met with a collective yawn by both the media and the pubic in January 2005.... all of which makes CRYSTAL VOYAGER a 'you had to have been there' fluke all those years ago. However at a special Oz Surf night at an outdoor cinema last year 2000 people turned up....but then 2000 turn up every night to see anything there during this summer season of films.....so the damned thing fluked another box office binge. How many actually enjoyed it is very much open to debate. Again they were more than likely just plain puzzled by this mad film with an astonishing reputation. Elfick however, since 1975, has gone onto a stellar career as a major producer and director of many lauded Australian and international films. Look up NO WORRIES or STARSTRUCK or UNDERCOVER or RABBIT PROOF FENCE or LOVE IN LIMBO for clear and present applause at his achievements. George, however, is still floating around out there somewhere droning away and looking for something else to film, or drop a camera on.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAlthough it's been hailed as a comedy-drama I found \"Crooklyn\" to be mostly depressing. It's hard to imagine how Spike Lee could look back affectionately on so much chaos, petty cruelty, irresponsibility and mean-spiritedness.
\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 Texas Revolution of 1835 to 1836, including the periods preceding and immediately following, is depicted in this mediocre 3-hour made-for-television film, whose only redeeming value is bringing light and paying homage to Stephen F. Austin, the so-called \"Father of Texas\" whose life story had long been overshadowed by that of the legendary Sam Houston. The rest of the film is simply the usual \"Santa Anna is a tyrant\" storyline and with a weak attempt to show the Mexican perspective with a fictional Hispanic character displaying stereotypical Latin machismo. Combined with short low-budget battle scenes, such as the Alamao and San Jacinto, this film is recommended only for real history buffs who who do not come from Mexico. To its credit, the Mexican uniforms look accurate and the romantic subplot (another love triangle) doesn't take up too much screen time. Overall, this movie depicts the violent secession movement by Texas' Anglo-Saxon racial minority to be a positive and just revolution against Mexican tyranny as personified by the general Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, the so-called \"Napoleon of the West\".
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI rented this movie to get an easy, entertained view of the history of Texas. I got a headache instead. The depiction of history in this movie is so comical that even mad TV would not have done a better job.
\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 should have realized that any two-video set being sold for only $6 would be bad. I even read the reviews before watching this film, and that still didn't sway me. I loved the book, and I knew it couldn't be as bad as people said.
Yeah, it is.
A patchwork of film, video, and what appears to be stock footage combine to make a three-hour tour of one chapter of James A. Michener's epic novel. Well, the time period covered was one chapter, but I don't remember many of the situations actually occurring in the book. The packaging on my copy of the movie gives Maria Conchita Alonso top billing - though it turns out that she is only in one speaking scene. On the second tape.
The actors are to be commended for playing their roles well, despite a smarmy, overwrought script. They are to be insulted, though, for accepting the roles in the first place.
\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 junk bore as much resemblance to the novel as a pickle slice does to a cucumber. The film makers took the Alamo section out of the book, made it into a movie, and said it was based on the book. Hah! Wonder what they did to induce Mr. Michener to endorse this piece of fluff? It was just another Davy Crockett, flintlock rifle, Santa Ana, 13 days of glory collection of poppycock. I almost started rooting for the mexicans, just to get the damn thing to end. And what was that scene where Stacey Keach was trying to get James Bowie to let him look at the knife? The sexual innuendos he used were juvenile and unnecessary. They could have used the film they wasted on that silliness to put in some real dialogue. This show was an embarrassment to Hollywood. Or can those clowns be embarrassed?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is supposed to take place in Milford NJ. I know the house that it is based on as well as the person. As you see at the end of themovie, she was killed in the world trade center incident. I know that, because I was one of the police officers that helped with the identification of her remains. (She was the only one in our area lost). The nudity in the movie went a bit far. I am not a prude but the actors could have filmed the scene with the two woman without actually showing the whole thing. This movie is in poor taste and I cannot see how her family would give there blessing to it. This is an insult to the person whom it is based on.
\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 straight to video cheap flick is based on a true story. I don't doubt it. Doesn't mean it's particularly interesting (unless you are one of the main characters who actually lived though this experience). A young woman named Angela buys a great, big old country home really really cheap. Well, as we all know from watching Horror movies, when you buy a big house cheap it usually means it's haunted in some way, shape or form. In fact, the second the house is being handed over to Angela the wise guy kid who lived in the house up to now takes a moment to \"introduce\" Angela to one of the ghosts! Nice guy, huh? Angela gets in touch with a psychic and a paranormal expert and tells them that her house is haunted and invites them to come over and see the ghosts for themselves. They come to a party and sure enough there are ghosts walking around, sitting on the couch, hanging in the garage and trying to seduce people in the bathroom. A few friends sleep over the night of the party, see the ghosts and vow never to come back in the house again. (Check out the girl who deadpans \"I'm so scared. I'm so scared.\" totally emotionless. If she was so scared why didn't she get up, turn the knob and leave?!) The ghosts don't really do anything menacing aside from show up (And there is no blurriness or aura about them. They look just like regular people). They steal celery from the kitchen, move chairs around a la POLTERGEIST and one bisexual female ghost seduces Angela, who, get this, doesn't seem to mind! This scene plays like the kind of soft-core porn you see on the SPICE channel. (Ummm...not that I'd KNOW! Hahaha). The actresses aren't your typical porn stars though. They should hit the beach and the gym more. When Angela'ss NOT making love to the dead she gets mad at them and stands alone in a room screaming \"Why won't you leave?! This is MY house! Get out!\" They don't leave. I couldn't help but think of all the times I've heard psychic Sylvia Brown on TV saying that if you have a ghost in your house you should calmly rationalize with the ghost and say \"Look, you're dead. It's time to cross over to the other side. In other words, get out!\" According to Sylvia Brown, as long as your not hostile and nasty about it, they'll leave! This movie looks like it cost about $50 to make. It has a really cheap feel, and bad acting. I could have made this movie with 5 friends and a camcorder.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI think the best way for me to review this title is to split it into its pros and cons.
PROS: ~ they turn into wolves rather than plastic/cartoony monsters. ~ the chase of the wolves through the forest ~ \"Cash Machine\" by Hard-Fi being played
CONS: ~ some parts of the script makes you cringe (for example the terrible part where the woman escapes the 'games' of the \"Fortunate Five\" boys, and there's about half an hour of \"Dear cousin\" and a round robin of \"Yes, see, we know Gabriel's law\") ~ the diving transformation is ridiculous ~ the obvious and ridiculous ending ~ Aiden being told thousands of times to leave, and then goes \"if you cared about me you would have left me\" ~ the obvious characters ~ the unnecessary parcour ~ the completely unnecessary slashing of the arm by Aiden ~ cringey speeches by Gabriel
You see what I mean.
I adore werewolf films, and I tried watching this a few times to see if I'd like it better but it just made it worse. I think I'll just read the book and see how I get on.
Don't bother with this unless you have a 12 year old brother or sister into spooky things. Anyone over that age may suffer and want their hour and a half back.
\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 movie blood and chocolate is NOTHING like the book. The plot has totally changed and whoever chose the cast needed to read the book. First the girl is not an introvert Aden is. Vivian was the one that chased Aden. Her mother was to have survived and be the one after Gabriel. Astrid was the one that did all the murders along with Ralf an ex of Vivian's. Gabriel is not old. He is old looking. And Aden DID NOT get Vivian in the end, Gabriel did. The title came from Vivian comparing kisses from Aden (sweet like chocolate) and Gabriel(delicious like blood). She picked blood because it promised more and he understood her more. That reminds me, Gabriel is not against humans like in the movie. He just avoids intimacy with them because they hurt him in the past. Really the book is sooooooo much better than the movie. But if you want o see running, a dating montage, and a lot of jumping. Then this is the movie to see.
\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 boring. Very much like Underworld, only even less interesting. It's not much of a werewolf movie and no where near a horror film. The lead couple were boring. I totally didn't care about Vivian and Aiden. And there was so little character development that I didn't care about any character in the film. The plot was paper thin. The transformations were basically nil. I did like the wolves themselves, might as well have have done a wolf documentary, I would have liked that better. I wouldn't recommend this movie. I didn't find it fun or interesting. It just drags and everyone in it is a boring drag. This movie could win an award for how not to make a werewolf 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\nThere were only two redeeming features about this movie; the beauty of Bucharest and its architecture, and the way they depicted the transformation from human form to wolf form. Forget about the plot or storyline from the book - they're completely absent from this movie. In fact, about the only things carried over from the book are the names of the main players. Even then you'll barely recognize the characterizations. If the film makers had made a good movie, even though unrelated to the book, I wouldn't have been so disappointed. Unfortunately, they did not. The plot and storyline are typical of low budget horror flicks, the acting is wooden, and the directorial efforts mundane. Oh yes, the way the loup garou bow to their leader is pure hoke. I suppose a nod of recognition is due for the animal handlers. The wolves were beautiful animals and well managed in their roles.
\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 reason i didn't delete this movie after 20 min is because we already wasted 20 minutes on it...
the only and i repeat the ONLY effect that they used is a weird kapoera (from India?) jump on a half meter wall/trash cans, i mean, effects doesn't make a movie but... sheesh.... me and my friend hoped the entire movie for some real effect (a huge wolf?! something!?>!?!) but noooooooooooooooo... all we got is a jump! on a 0.5 meter wall + they used pharmacy's ..... and they found guns?! in the pharmacy?! i mean what the hell? oh i forgot, there was another effect- contact lances as green eyes! every 10 min we shouted \"the only thing that can save the movie from the disgrace is a giant wolf who kills them all!!! besides that the script was so awful that you don't know who you would like to die first. you actually pray (and i mean PRAY!) that the \"good?!\" guy will die, hopefully in the beginning.
make yourself a favour and send letters to delete the movie from every archives in the world.
\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\nOK, to start with, this movie was not at all like the book. I read the book when I was 13 and since then it has always been my favorite. When I'm waiting for a different book to come out, this is the book I turn to to fill in the time. I have 3 copies for god's sake. anyways, I knew this was not going to be anything like the book but come on! They could have done a little better than this. I mean seriously if I wanted to watch American werewolf in Paris or London than I would watch those movies. They took a perfectly good story and twisted it around into a copy of a story that has been told over and over again and quite frankly I'm tired of watching it. I mean hello the best part of the whole f*****g (sorry) story is she ends up with Gabriel. He doesn't die. What was that about? And he's old in this movie. Gabriel is supposed to be only 24 not 44 da** it. Awww. And Astrid who the he** came up with the idea of Astrid being Vivian's Aunt no no no no. Astrid and Vivian hate each other. Awwww. Anyways yeah that was my little rant seriously pi**ed off. hope this helped.
\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\nFrom the makers of Underworld, we have, by far, the worst werewolf movie I have ever seen. It is basically a reconstructed version of Underworld, yet lacking vampires (not a big deal), cool effects (a BIG deal), and generally just about everything that can possibly be done right to produce a decent film dealing with lycanthropy (the biggest deal of them all!). A twenty-something lycanthrope chocolate maker named Vivian is currently residing in Romania ever since her family was hunted down and executed in front of her years ago in America for being werewolves. There, she belongs to a small society (or pack) of werewolves and is apparently chosen to unwillingly wed the pack leader, Gabriel, whose son - some toad with a British accent - takes it upon himself to hunt outside of the pack. They have apparently been discovered in other countries prior and want to remain settled in Romania by avoiding negative attention, so of course, such activity is considered forbidden. Vivian ends up falling in love with an American artist who is oblivious to her involvement with the group of blood-thirsty predators. When they end up discovering the secret relationship, things get messy when someone is killed and the human is forced to participate in a deadly tradition in which he is set loose in the woods and is hunted - giving the pack a chance to transform into their \"wolfy\" selves. All this really consists of is a big leap before they light up and land as a wolf. Very cheezy effects. The entire movie is like a tamed down Underworld with some drippy, romantic montages and very little action. Watching this in the theater, I could not wait for it to end. A devastatingly boring disappointment. Avoid!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n***MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS****
I was super excited to go see Blood and Chocolate with my friends. I couldn't wait because the book is one of my favorites. But as soon as the movie started, I couldn't believe how different it was. At first I was like, okay, so both of her parents are dead...maybe it'll be okay. But then came the rest of the movie. By the time it was over I was furious. Nothing was correct but their names and the fact that Vivian fell in love with Aiden. By the end of the book, Gabriel was my all time favorite...and then the movie goes and turns him into a complete heartless idiot?! The movie also showed the shifters, or werewolves, as these vile, evil creatures were as the book shows them as just wanting to fit in and keep their pack safe. They would never kill humans for the fun of it.
If they wanted to make a movie like they did, they should have given it a different title and named the characters different. Because then I would go out and watch it again and buy it, but when I think about it all I can see is the bad. You couldn't pay me to go see it again or buy it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm going to talk about this movie from two different perspectives here. First is from the view of if someone sees the movie and never read (and may not ever read) the book. The second is from someone who has.
(Movie without book) From a movie standpoint, it was an okay movie. Nowhere near as good as either of the Underworlds but much better than UltraViolet. And I'm not just talking plot line either. The visual effects were iffy in many of the parts, though the wolf transformation was very nice. The characters has very little development and Vivian didn't even seem to truly care that her \"love\" was killing off what was left of her species. Some of the other characters could have had more air-time, like The Five. The plot was way to similar to Underworld for my tastes.
(Movie WITH book) As many have stated, other than the title, character names and a few minor parts, the movie and the book are nothing alike. In the movie, Gabriel was a lot older and was the father of Rafe (thus Astrid was once his mate). In the book, Gab was about 24, never mated with anyone since wolves mate for life (Astrid is trying to win his affection) and Astrid was the mother of Ulf, not Rafe. Another important thing is the location. The book took place in Riverview, Maryland. Also, why they moved from West Virginia is very different. The movie has it being Vivian's fault and her entire family was killed due to it. In the book, the original leader of The Five, named Axel, killed a girl from their school. Hunters tracked down the wolves and killed many of them (Viv's father included), forcing them to move. Also, Viv's mom, Esme was a major character.
One thing from the book that would have made the movie better would have been the \"bitch's dance\". For those who don't know, it's the ordeal where all the bitches (females of the pack) fight to see who is the one to be the mate of the new leader (since earlier there was a fight for the males). Vivian won it, trying to save her mother from Astrid (who is a horrid evil woman in the book) and thus was supposed to mate with Gab. There was no prophecy! Anyway, if you've read the book and you liked the book, I highly suggest NOT seeing this film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"