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\nAnyone who rates this movie above a 3 has a very distorted view of movies, anyone who rated this piece of sh!t 7 or higher, i have absolutely no respect for their taste in movies, and doubt they have ever seen a good one. I am always up for giving any movie a shot and i did with this one, i tried to pay attention, i tried not to let my money go 2 waste but 15 minutes in my friends were laughing at me cause i was listenin 2 my iPod, 25 minutes later i couldn't even watch the overacting that was occurring within the film, so i up and left, i have never ever ever walked out of a movie, until this garbage, Anyone who said they enjoyed it is a liar, or they should be banned from this site. I get so angry when i see a person rate this an 8 when the Godfathers overall rating is a 9.1 its like saying that that movie was close which it isn't.
\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\nMost of the critiques on this flick have been pretty damn accurate. It is an hour and half waste of time, following a bunch of very pretty high schoolers whine and cry about life. There is about twenty minutes of magic, and absolutely no scary or thrilling moments. Our actress are treated like pieces of ass, and seem to be perfectly happy with their position. The lead characters, these sons of ipsmith are walking poster boys for any pop culture clothing store. You can't relate with them, hell you barely can understand them. The story steps all over itself and when it finally gets to the final battle, its no more than a volleyball match that doesn't last long enough to make up with this trashed script raped from the O.C.
\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 TV ads for this movie showed the warlocks hitting a truck head-on, then getting smashed to bits and reforming on the other side of the truck. I thought the special effects were good, but the general style of the movie was wimpy. This is the \"Charmed\" TV series with three boys instead of three girls.
The big surprise for the three teens who are about to become adults is that there is an unknown fourth member of the clan who is out to get them and consolidate all their power. Besides driving into trucks, these kids can fly up the sides of houses, climb out of windows, push each other into stacks of garbage, and make the veins in their necks pop out. But if they use their powers too often, they become prematurely old and feeble. The father of one of the boys is evidence of this, as he sits in an attic made up to look like a mummy but he is only 45 years old.
The three good warlocks are each filthy rich in his own right, completely spoiled, obnoxious, and annoying. In any public school, these kids would be beaten up every day. Their glares and facial ticks would not cut any mustard with the boys from the hood. Unfortunately for all good people, these Charmed boys were sent to Hogwart's Reform School for the warlocks that couldn't get into Harry Potter's class.
So what was the movie all about? Three teenagers acting out with each other and their girlfriends. One other teenager who envies their power and money and happens to be a lost relative. After a few scenes where the Charmed boys show off their powers and have sex with their girlfriends; the movie gets around to the unknown warlock teen's revenge plot. The predictable stuff happens. The bad warlock ambushes various friends of the other warlocks, and eventually starts attacking them too. The final confrontation happens, and that is about it.
The special effects are not bad, but nothing special. If you like to see fireballs, spiders, and blue veins, then this is a good movie to watch.
\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 feel really bad for reviewing this movie because I wish that I had only watched it as a concept production. The Covenant looked like it could have been a really original piece, but sadly they lose the great idea in the translation to the screen.
The story follows four (five) teens that are the descendants of the families that started the town of Ipswitch a survivors of the Salem witch trials. They also happen to be a part of the secret sect called \"The Covenant\". Their power must be used sparingly as it drains their life-force in small amounts and is highly addictive. In theory this would make a pretty good action sci-fi movieor at least an interesting teeny flick.
But there were just too many glaring downfalls that don't allow this movie to reach its plot's full potential. That acting wasn't good, the sound track was mediocre and we found a lot of unnecessary sync issues. For sure the biggest issue is the poor editing job. The movie has little to no coherent flow and makes one fight to keep a mental timeline or any feel of pacing.
The movie has it's moments, but overall was a little disappointing.
A witchy 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\nThe story was disjointed, the acting was not of any callibre you can catagorise. More of a serial pilot than an actual movie. I wanted to like this movie but just could not find anything to like about it. Whatever it was that made The Lost boys so likable was obviously absent here. Altho it tried hard. Plot hooks were clumsily placed amidst what could have been an episode of dawsons creek with dark clothes, and the story arc was going nowhere soon. Very disappointing for me. The end scenes were special effects driven convenience and how the villain of the story planned his whole scheme.. who was he (or she) trying to kid, talk about naive. Stick with films of this kind of genre from the eighties, when they had more of an idea.
\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...before I even start the more or less constructive criticism of the movie I'd like to say a few words which come from the heart... THIS MOVIE SUCKS!!!! DON'T GO TO SEE IT UNLESS YOU REALLY LIKE SWEATY BOY-BANDS AND WOODEN-ACTING, NO-PLOT STORIES.. So, let's go to why I think the movie is so bad: 1. There is not story line. There is no plot. The director tried to create a mystery it the feeling just wasn't there. 2. The whole thing looks like a big, hour and a half promotion for some kind of goth-wanna-be-but-still-looking-like-\"BSB\"-band... All guys in school have perfect abs, no fat or ugly young people... there is no good looking girl in the movie as well, not one. The main character is either wet in the swimming pool, or all sweaty in his bed... poor guy. Must be awful to go on a date sweating like that. 3. Can those guys do something good with their powers? Anything good? Like put off the fire in that old barn or help his friend who got into the accident instead of just running around breaking things and showing of in front of each other. 4. Wooden acting. The main character only has two expressions on his face. Expression number one: sad. Expression number two: trying to look seductive but still seems sad... In that boy band there are 4 guys: The main characted, his best friend who got into the accident, the blondy, and the fourth one... what was the name of the fourth one? I think he only spoke twice throughout the whole film: once in the beginning ( he said the jumping from the cliff using \"the power\" won't kill them) and second time at the end when he and the blondy lost the girl... the movie could have been done without him and no one would notice... Anyways, my verdict: 1 is the perfect score for this film. Guys - do not go to see it. There is very little action, no suspense, no hot girls. Girls - a least the actors are good looking... What I would advise you people is to get a soundtreck of this movie - that's the only thing I liked about 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\nThink 'Charmed' with testosterone instead of estrogen and you get the general idea for this picture. A very lame story with mediocre effects and an anti-climax ending to let the door open for a part 2. Let's hope someone has the sense to spend their money wiser. I'd suggest a 'Charmed - the movie' because compared to this 'Charmed' kicked ass and I only watched that show to please my girlfriend!!!! Wait and watch it on DVD on a rainy Sunday when you've got nothing better to do. Or better yet download it so you don't waste your money. The first 15 minutes were alright. But the funniest line from the movie and also the only highlight of this movie is when Reid says : \"Kiss my ass Harry Potter\", while driving of a cliff. Although they are not worthy to kiss Potter's ass, because Potter is way cooler and at least his movies have a story. The Goblet of fire was even scarier than this!!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA group of four young men, attending a prestigious private school, belong to an old covenant that was formed by their ancestors during the time of the witch hunts of the late 1600s. They each possess a power that ages them whenever they use it and they suspect that a new kid at the academy might be from a family that was thought to have perished long ago. This new guy wants everyone's power for himself.
This not a horror movie as it tries to present itself as. Yes, there is magic and all that supernatural stuff, but this is really just an action movie. A very mediocre action movie. Focusing almost solely on being cool and slick and paying only minimal attention to the plot, which has plenty of sadly unused room for interesting twists. But none were put in and even before the movie is half over you'll know what is being played and by whom.
There are a few good scenes here and there, most notably an exploding car that is magically reconstructed after colliding with a big rig, but that's about it. What's worse is that director Renny Harlin, who has some very entertaining if not smart movies to his credit, relies heavily on blasting metal music and overly sexy leads to carry that film and that makes it quite possibly the silliest \"horror\" movie since the disastrous \"Alone in the Dark.\" It is not as bad as \"Alone in the Dark\" since the few slick scenes are actually slick and not ridiculously incompetent, but in the end, the highest this film can hope for is a nice and cozy home on late night cable. 3/10
Rated PG-13: violent action
\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 Flippin Awful....I wanted those hours of my life back. For god's sake, -stay far away from this awful crumb ball movie at all costs. Its not worth mentioning the title, but the ratings on this movie are pretty generous for a vomit scum movie like this. And where do I begin? The dumb A** kids in the movie.....The zero plot or story?...the garden-variety college/frat boy-esquire scenes of towel slapping? Or the VERY bad acted, teen angst innuendo? $$$#@%@! My god, It NEVER ended!.....I remember thinking I would have rather kissed the movie theater floor, then sit through this one again.
But what do you expect? Most people with the brain power to look up reviews, are not going to be the target audience here at all- so GO SEE Pirites 2 again, or the Jet Lee one, -If your debating to yourself. Look, This movie will just cost you your soul, your money, your energy, and your brain cells. HEED THE WARNING.
\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\nToo bad Mike Meyers picked this for his dramatic debut. This film looks like it was put together by a committee that couldn't decide if it was a comedy, drama, suspense, or sci-fi. It starts out sort of playful, then quickly gets darker, and then at the end, apparently shortly after one of the main characters has been killed, the whole family is standing in the backyard laughing about something. It's totally weird and impossible to string together. The acting is extremely uneven, with the older professionals engaging your attention, and then the younger and less experienced actors looking like they are in a high school play. This movie showed me that it's probably harder to make a good movie than is evident from the truly professional fare we see in the first-run and art houses. This would be a good film for a film class to analyze. Plot, character, theme, consistency - they are all either faulty or missing from this film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe only reason for me for watching this little known Irish film was the question could Mike Myers have played a normal, dramatic character. Well, he could and his acting was pretty good but unfortunately that was probably the only good thing that I can say about this film. In the beginning film follows life of twelve years old orphan Mickey who lives with his brother and sister with their somewhat eccentric grandma. Despite some strong language it looks like a family film but after a while it becomes clearly that Pete's Meteor is a hardly suitable for young audience drama. And the worst is that it is a drama with so much ridiculous and even totally implausible plot. One preposterous story line turns into another and all the time there is no much sense in the events on screen. I suppose when a life drama needs a meteor or what is more something that looks like even more ridiculous spiritual content that's a really bad sign. The characters are not much better than a story. Despite all his troubles young Mickey by no means is not a likable character but it's clearly was somehow we were supposed to care about him and even feel strong sympathy to him. It doesn't work. The same thing with other characters. They are mostly as ridiculous as the story itself with the title character (although he wasn't the main character) as the only bright spot. Towards the end of the movie I still had a strong hope that there is something behind of all that improbability and absurdity. Unfortunately even if the writer of the story had such intentions (and I'm sure he had) in the film they are hidden and practically imperceptible under such a weird script.
Grade: 3 out of 10. Those of you who are interested in seeing Mike Myers as a drama actor can watch Pete's Meteor for that reason but the rest of viewers most likely will be bitterly 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\nAs was mentioned by others, could there be any other reason to see this film other than to see former \"Wayne's World\" star Mike Myers play a serious role? The story line is interesting but lacks development and is sabotaged by loose ends and bad characters. If there was any good scenic shots of Ireland then it would give it another reason to see it. But instead it focuses on a little normal village that is obviously surrounded by the 'green pastures' of the Emerald-Isle that are often shown in Irish films. If there was any cultural 'spice' to admire the \"Irish personality\" it would be worth seeing, however this could have almost been shot in England. Too bad for Myers, but this one fails to please or satisfy the heart of anybody who ever wanted to visit the land of Guiness.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is probably the worst film I have ever seen. Mike Myers tries to be a dramatic actor and fails miserably. The children, who have the major roles, are almost impossible to understand and are really unpleasant characters. It was not even worth the price of the 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\nThis movie is simply bad. First of all the story is just weird and it's not good written. It leaves you with questions when you're finished. Sometimes that's OK, but not in this case.
The acting is nothing to write home about. The adults does a OK job, but the kids, taken in consideration they are kids, does not a good job. I thought the lead role, Ian Costello as Mickey, was worst. Well, to be honest I'm not sure that was the lead role. Never quite figured who this movie was about. Mickey or Pete.
There were some shots that stood out, but over all there were nothing exiting about the cinematography. The sound, however, was better. There was a nice score. A little adventure kind of score, though this didn't look like an adventure film to me. It had some elements of an adventure film, but it was more of a drama. However, it was hard to tell who this film was meant for. Children? Hardly. There is too much language and violence for that. Adults? I don't know. It had to many elements of a children's movie in it. It was like a adult movie in a children movie wrapping.
The story was just weird. I don't have much of an idea of what it really was about. You was thrown right in to it without knowing anything, but there were all the time references to something you felt you should know. The fact that the children's parents were dead for instance and that Mickey blamed Pete for it. You expected to get to know what happened , but you never got.
All together this movie was bad and a waste of time. There was no drive in it. Nothing to really move the story forward. This is not what you spend your Saturday night 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\nIf you have never heard of Jane Austen, seen the original movie or the 1995 BBC adaptation, or even seen a pop up version of the book, then this farcical attempt to show this classic love story may be considered vaguely endurable.
From the opening scene, this film must be remembered for its awful acting, abominable miscasting and complete lack of the classic wit of Jane Austen.
Whoever decided to cast actors (with the exception of the excellent Judi Dench) who have obviously never heard of Jane Austen, let alone read her, should be punished! Keira Knightley grimaces and grins through every scene, and came across as being so obnoxious that no-one would want to marry her! Darcy looked as if he was trying to remember his lines throughout the whole film and the rest of the Bennet girls were interchangeable in their lack of portraying their characters as they were originally written.
This version failed to show the proper Pride and Prejudice that both Darcy and Elizabeth suffered from and, at the end of the longest two hours of my life, who cared whether they got together or not! Absolutely abysmal - even the too few minutes of Judi Dench cannot save this rubbish. I cannot think of anything good to say about this film apart from that it eventually ended!
\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 went to see suspecting I would hate it, I did. Everything about it was wrong; it was like they were filming a different book. Granted the locations and houses very lovely (if not a little miscast-yes even the house were wrong for their parts) Keira was too modern, dull and frankly I found it unpleasant to watch her. Were everyone else sees Darcy as a sex god the writer of this saw him as sexually frustrated and inadequate. Bingley was stupid and dippy (he isn't meant to be) and the Bennett's were shown to be destitute and for some unknown reason farmers, this is incorrect and ludicrous. The very idea that Mr Bennett would answer the door in his night gear with the rest of the family dressed in their underwear to in the middle of the night is stupid. They had servants. Mr Collins was not repulsive and greasy merely stupid and obnoxious, Georgina Darcy was ugly and old and Miss Bingley wore a sleeveless dress, what! As if! It is Historically inaccurate and even the ending is unsatisfying. I could go on for days. I hated it so much as not only was it nothing like the book but I fear that for many people it will be their fist experience of this great novel and it will give them the worst possible idea of it. The BBC version is so superior it's not even funny and everything about this version is an insult to its memory. In short if you must see it be sure you have read the book first or seen the BBC version other wise you will be lead done the deluded road that this is what it's like, which its not!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSorry to say but was disappointed in the film. It was very very rushed, as I suppose you can understand a movie length version of Pride & Prejudice would be and I felt that a lot of the major scenes were glossed over just to get through the story. As the movie is so rushed, unfortunately you don't get to really know about and feel for each of the characters much at all.
Not only that, this movie is Boring. I say that with a capital B. 1/3 of the way through I started yawning and couldn't wait for the movie to be over. As I have read the book and watch the BBC version, I knew how many scenes had to go, before I could finally leave the cinema. Mr Darcy whoever he is in this movie, definitely can't act. He looks also too young to play Mr Darcy. Every word that comes out of his mouth is rushed like he needs to get through the script or something. Where is the build up? At first, he seems confused with everything. He is just bizarre! It all looks put on.
Was trying not to compare to the Colin Firth version but if you love that version, you will most likely be disappointed anyway.
The costumes are absolutely shocking. Where are the corsets? I know Elizabeth is poor, but I think she still knows how to dress as some sort of ladylike fashion, and hasn't been brought up in a squaller. Her dresses indicates she might be the poorest peasant in all of England.
I didn't agree with a couple of scenes in the movie in the fact, that I don't think it would be considered proper in that society for men to do such things, honestly Mr Bingley who has wealth should know better. There is some things that are said that sound too modern for the period this movie is set in, and not at all like Jane Austen. Bingley's character is shockingly donee, to me he behaves like a simpleton, not a character to like and respect. What about that laugh of his!!! I Wickham hardly has a presence and Mr & Mrs Hurst and a couple of other characters have no presence at all. Keira did okay, but it just ain't the same.
\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\nMaybe if you've never read any English literature or only ever watched the Hollywood version of any book you might find merit in this awful film. It has the directorial and scripting skill of Shoreditch. The BBC 1995 adaptation is both very enjoyable and close to the book and captures the atmosphere between Elisabeth and Darcy very well.
The characters in this production are badly miscast, Sutherland as Bennet seems a total buffoon. Bingley likewise acts the fool and it is imcomrepnsible that he my be a friend of Darcy. I can't imagine how Judi Dench could have accepted the role, maybe she thought it was a surreal comedy version.
Quotes from the book are thrown in out of context. Huge chunks are missing, the important episode with Wickham is glossed over.
Mr Collins is however very good, and towers above the other members of the cast.
The only good thing is we didn't pay to see it. Wait for the DVD and use to keep a table from wobbling.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhile the new Pride & Prejudice film is gorgeous to view, and the soundtrack is lovely, we are not seeing Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. The film is for some reason set back in the early 1790's, rather than the Regency period where the novel is set, as scholars have long shown. The Bennets' Longbourn estate is ram-shackled and looks like Cold Comfort Farm. Yet the Bennets in the novel are gentry class; they own a farm, but the pig does not walk through the house, nor is the farmyard of manure and chicken droppings contiguous to the home. Scenes are re-set from the novel,and lest we forget, Jane Austen placed scenes in certain locations for a reason. For example, the film puts the big Darcy proposal scene outside in a storm in front of a Neoclassical temple, as opposed to inside the Collins' parsonage: Why did Jane Austen put it in the parsonage? Because while Lizzy and Darcy speak with total, if brutal honesty to each other in this scene, the Collinses have never shared an honest word. Why the rain and the outdoor proposal? It looks like Jane Eyre meeting Rochester! And when Elizabeth walks across a windy field to stand on a cliff and view the panorama, one expects her to cry, \"Heathcliffe\" at any minute! Austen has been Bronteized! Judy Dench is a GREAT actress, but Lady Catherine is supposed to be tall and striking. The petite Tom Hollander is a brilliant actor: but Mr. Collins is described in the novel as tall and heavy-looking, which suggests that his terrible dancing with poor Lizzy is elephantine. Matthew MacFayden is another favorite of mine from MI-5 on A&E; in P&P, however, he is more the young Heathcliffe, never smiling--though Austen observes in the novel that Darcy smiles at Lizzy quite a bit, and she realizes this when she sees his wonderful smiling portrait at Pemberley--a portrait that in this movie is for some reason replaced by a sculptured marble bust.And much of Austen's dialogue is changed to modern speech. Mr. Bingley has been turned into such a clown that one wonders why Darcy would have him as a friend and why Jane Bennet would love him. The bottom line is that while this is a great movie to watch and hear, it deviates from Jane Austen's novel so much that any student who watched it, thinking she could substitute viewing for reading, would fail!
\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've spent quite a while going through all the reviews for this film. I'm in total agreement with almost every reviewer in saying that Noah's Ark is crap, crap, crap, crap, crap! Don't the executives at NBC have any class? I feel sick to my stomach for actually watching both parts of this mini-series. The script is so dumb, so pointless, and yes, TOTALLY INACCURATE! I can understand making a few changes for dramatic purposes, but this film changed just about everything in the story. God himself is going to go through the trouble to kill off the entire Earth's population, but he somehow misses one guy that's sailing around trying to sell stuff to Noah. Give me a break! And what was up with Noah's sons acting like Indiana Jones, saving girls in distress? If all that isn't bad enough, there's the part where God apologizes to Noah and says \"I'm sorry Noah, I was wrong\". Newsflash NBC, GOD CAN NOT BE WRONG! This film is the most tasteless and disgraceful Biblical film ever made.
\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\nNBC had a chance to make a powerful religious epic along the lines of \"The Ten Commandments\" and \"The Greatest Story Ever Told,\" and instead they chose to make some halfhearted cartoon that was more like \"Waterworld\" than anything else. I don't recall a Bible passage where Lot turns into a pirate and attacks the ark, nor do I remember one where Noah's son develops a serious friendship with an orange, nor do I remember Noah being some crazy old loon who suddenly acts like he's commanding a naval fleet and runs around shouting nautical terms like \"hoist the mainstay!\" This was possibly the worst marketing decision in history. Obviously the majority of people watching this were going to be Jewish and Christian parents with their kids, so why on earth make the movie so offensive to those people? If they were intentionally trying to offend, why not advertise it that way and at least reel in the right audience?? I hope they make a REAL Noah movie someday, one done seriously and thoughtfully, one that actually appeals to people and makes money. Until then, don't waste your time with this trash.
\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 could have been an impressing epic, but the makers seem to have done their utmost to make it appear foolish. Even God Himself is not spared in this movie, in that His words are drenched with childish jokes. The result is blasphemous and annoying. Only people who don't care to see a cheap parody on the biblical story may perhaps watch this film without embarrassment. The makers of this tasteless production should see 'Il Vangelo secondo Matteo' (The Gospel according to Mathew), a film of Pier Paolo Pasolini, who shows that it is unnecessary to pervert the words of the Bible to make a good story; the most impressing result is obtained by a sincere rendering of the plain text itself.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'll dispense with the obvious review of factual inaccuracies. They are too numerous to name. A much shorter list would be what they got right. 1. Dude named Noah. 2. Ark with animals on it.
If you want a much more accurate portrayal of Noah's Ark and the destruction of Sodom, go rent \"The Bible\" (1966). It depicts the story of creation through Abraham attempting to sacrifice his son Isaac. It's a much better movie, and it may be that the abomination called \"Noah's Ark\" (1999) drove you to seek just such a film. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060164/
I really couldn't stomach watching the whole movie. From reading other comments, I can see that even the atheists found it grossly inaccurate. As a Christian, it was intolerable to me. Possibly the worst movie ever made. No real point to this movie either, except maybe to showcase their sub-par computer animation.
Was it a complete waste? Maybe not. God can use evil to work good.
Romans 8:28 says, [28] And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
Genesis 50 says, [20] But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.
In the second example, Joseph's brothers meant to kill him, but God turned their evil into a very great good. He may have done the same thing with this movie.
People were so astonished by its lack of Biblical foundation, that they probably broke out the dusty old Bible and read the story for themselves. To find out about Lot and Sodom, they would have to go the whole way up to Genesis 19 before God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah. By then, they have read almost half of Genesis, so they might want to finish. The next book is Exodus, which the movie \"The Ten Commandments\" was based on (and much more accurately). If they have seen that movie, then Exodus becomes an easy read. So now they have read at least two whole books of the Bible, just because they watched a pathetic movie about Noah's Ark. I'm sure this actually happened to someone out there.
God works in mysterious ways.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one of the worst mini-series I have ever seen on TV. I sat through the first half hoping it would improve but it only went from bad to worse. Needless to say I could not bring myself to sit through the torture of a second nights viewing. What was Jon Voight thinking when he made this?????
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSorry about that. But if you have seen this \"epic\", you will obviously know of the utter disregard for the actual text of the Bible. Now, I'm not exactly the next in line for sainthood, but I do know the basics. And the basics were this. God wanted to wipe everyone of the face of the Earth because he believed they have been corrupted to the point of no return. He chose Noah, the diamond in the rough, and his family to be spared due to their uncorrupted ways. Noah builds an ark as instructed by God to house he, his family, and two of every creature while he floods the rest of the planet. Those are the basics. In this movie, you have other people roaming around the seas such as peddlers and pirates. But I thought that EVERYONE was wiped out. I guess the executives at NBC have never been to church. There are other inaccuracies, I'm told, but being the average Joe, I have no idea what they are. Sorry. Back to the movie, it was inaccurate, as stated before, the acting stunk, but some of the effects were good, I'll give it that. But as a whole, I've seen a better and more tasteful rendition of the story done as a little scene on The Simpsons. God help the NBC executives come judgement day. 3/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDramatic ? Yes......Historically accurate ? Not Quite !.... This movie twists the Bibles details of the deluge by placing Lot meeting Noah during the building of the Ark. Fascinating time travel for Lot made in part by NBC !....being Lot had not been born until 2136 BCE, 234 years AFTER the floodwater's (2370BCE)....Thats like having George Bush meet with William Shakepeare ! And whats with this guy floating around selling items & nicknack's to Noah ?
You can make a movie based on historical facts dramatic, but don't twist it around placing people where they weren't....especially when it comes to Gods Word.
\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 could not believe what i saw...(once) brilliant actors appearing in this dire effort that should never of been made. The plots are dreadful and the dialogue appauling (at first i thought it was a spoof), and the acting abysmal. Everything about it is bad, from the cheap sets to the phony backdrops, a bunch of paintings enlarged. Respectable filmakers struggle to get their vision realised, yet this blasphemous, pathetic attempt at a mini-series makes it to our television's, with 3 oscar winners making appearances. I can only guess everyone involved somehow hurt the writer and director and were forced (maybe at gunpoint)to star in this worthless T.V. trash.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is the most inaccurate and disgraceful biblical film i have ever has the misfortune to watch. I would like to know why anybody on earth could enjoy viewing this. I am so surprised that a big name like Jon Voight would agree to act in this disgraceful piece of garbage. Many people who may not have read the bible will now be mislead by believing this film was accurate and the thought of that really bothers me. I think the makers have a lot to answer for. The worst thing is that, i believe nobody could make such obvious mistakes with a biblical film, since they can research the bible for the truth, so i believe the makers deliberately twisted what the bible says, and that is something nobody has the right to do and i find that very offensive. There are no words strong enough to describe exactly how i feel about this.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you are going to make a movie from any book, be sure that the characters are consistant with that book. This movie not only defied the Biblical story that has been told for thousands upon thousands of years to children one way or another, but it clearly took liberties that no adaptation would probably ever try. At least the Lord of the Rings is close enough to the books that people understand the story more if they read the books than this \"Noah's Ark\" tried to.
\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 move is terrible. They took Gods word and made a mockery of it. The acting was terrible too. Why bother doing a story on something from the bible when your not even going to tell it correctly. There were not just a few changes but the whole thing was wrong. Do not see 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\nI just wanted to say that I was very disappointed after seeing this movie! I was expecting a Biblical story visualized with great special fx, etc. but during the film I found out that this was an absolute disaster... it wasn't biblical at all... only the boat and the animals were similar to the story... if you want a visual 'translation' of the Bible version of Noah then DON'T go 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\nHow can so many blundering decisions can be made. All that waste of resources!Its an idiotic story to begin with but theres no need to make it worse.A loose interpretation? Are you kidding! it diminishes my regard for Voight and Coburn.I hope they were paid well.
\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\nWho wrote the script for this movie, the staff at Disney Studios?! This is the most inacurrate adaptation of any story ever! I wanted to laugh at a few scenes and cry at others, and that was only because of how pitiful it was. I'll have to hand it credit, it did have a few funny scenes, but I could've spent better time with my evening. Very seldom do I turn off a movie after only a quarter of the way through.
\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\nEven though I have great interest in Biblical movies, I was bored to death every minute of the movie. Everything is bad. The movie is too long, the acting is most of the time a Joke and the script is horrible. I did not get the point in mixing the story about Abraham and Noah together. So if you value your time and sanity stay away from this horror.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHow offensive! Those who liked this movie have probably never opened a bible. I can imagine those at NBC saying, \"OK. Let's make a movie to appease those pesky Christians, but they'll never know the difference if we don't have anything factual or in the correct chronological order.\" Well, they were wrong. Anybody associated with this atrocity needs to find a church and repent for their involvement in this blasphemous atrocity. I only gave this movie a 1 because I couldn't give it a 0.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOh boy. Where do I begin on this piece of slime? This is one of the few real high-budget films on my list that I've actually seen fit to give a 1 rating, and that's not for the production values, which are pretty high. This movie has absolutely no respect for the account in the bible, and treats the whole story as laughable fantasy. I could not recommend it to anyone, except to see how low as a society we have become...
For the first thing, Noah was absolutely not friends with Lot. Anyone who actually read Genesis could tell you that Abram was who they were thinking of. The writers were just trying to pad out the story with the whole Sodom/Gommorah subplot, and it seems out of place because it is. Noah is treated as a prudish goofball (\"You were kissing! You were kissing!\") but at least it's a step up from Voight's hilarious overacting in Anaconda.
However, these offenses pale in comparison to the heretical treatment of God in this movie. God is portrayed as a petty, incomprehesible being who changes his mind at the slightest whim. (\"I'm one eternal perfect, but I can be wrong\") What? Where are they getting this from? This kind of God...no one should ever pay any attention to, much less worship, praise, or love. What the director's saying in this, I do not claim to know. I just know that a responsible treatment of Noah's Ark should not take such an easy way out. Shame on these people.
\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 rendition of \"Noah's Ark\" has set Hallmark's (and Turner's) reputation back about 100 years. However, the production has it's bright side...a learning experience for neophyte movie entrepreneurs in \"how not to make a movie\"
Where in the annals of Biblical literature and common sense can one find these quotes and situations:
\"Ok, boys, let's saddle up.\" \"It's too bad that God created the sun to shine only during the day when we really needed it at night.\" \"We're not kissing...we're only whispering in each others' mouths.\"
Lumber for building the Ark with \"Georgia Pacific\" stamped on it. Metal nails. Kids flying kites. A peddler (how can James Coburn sleep after this) selling Chinese hats. Pirates attacking a wooden Ark, which they wished to capture, with flaming tar balls of fire shot from catapults. Glass bottles of wine (Noah was in a continual state of inibriation. It was a miracle that he could see the Ark let alone build it.) Lady Godiva (Mary Steenberg in a blond wig tromping around the Ark on a white horse...still rated G) Warding off Biblical pirates with an iron (teflon-lined?) frying pan. Landing on Mount Ararat after having passed through the Straights of Hercules.
etc., etc., etc.
Special effects...you've got to see them in order not to believe them.
The list goes on. This movie must not be missed; but if you want the full TV version, you must call NBC for the screen version...but only if you agree to absolve NBC of all responsibility of ever having aired the thing in the first place. Only the expurgated version exists in video stores (no pirates, etc.)...that is, those video stores that dare to stock it.
Marvin Cohn

\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 is a completely inaccurate depiction of the real story of Noah's Ark. The producers probably did not even read the Bible. This is the worst movie I have EVER seen! Noah's wife was never mentioned by name in the Bible, but the writers of the film \"gave\" her the name Naamah. This movie depicts the destruction of Sodom a good 1000 years before it happened, and what about Gamorrah? It too was destroyed at the same time Sodom was. (Maybe the producers thought that not including Gamorrah in the story and showing the city of \"Sodom\" as in you-know-what would raise more eyebrows.) This film is utter filth and mocks God and the Bible. It is a wonder that any true Christian would want to participate in the production of this abysmal, hideous, reprobated mockery of the Bible.
\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 Hollywood should seriously consider NEVER doing another \"Biblical\" film again, if Noah's Ark is going to be the norm. Aside from the horrible, completely uninspired acting from the whole cast (Voight and Steenburgen undoubtedly rue the day the agreed to do this film), the time line has been completely rearranged. I also missed the part in Genesis about the pirate fight on the deck of the ark or the traveling salesman coming by on his paddle boat. Hello? EVERYONE else was dead except for Noah and his family according to scripture. God stacked lumber and added plans to build the ark when Noah questioned how?? I also don't remember reading anything about Noah's wife constantly nagging him during the 40 days, or Noah wandering around glassy-eyed and dazed all the time. The script writer obviously had very little knowledge of the book of Genesis, or just didn't care that his abomination of a story completely mocked 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've seen some Bible-based trash. This one tops it all. To make matters worse, it lasts about three hours. A horrible waste of time, unless you want to match your kid's biblical knowledge against the innumerable aberrations. Do yourself a favor - take a walk in the Sahara instead. Since I am required to give you a ten line statement of why not to watch this movie, let me just say there is absolutely no redeemable quality to it. God's conversations with Noah are ridiculous. The whole thing has a stench of \"let's make the Biblical account look retarded.\" The basic logic goes, if they spent the money on a biblical film, why not make it worthwhile? Since the basic logic is not met, something is amiss. The movie starts with a disclaimer about Poetic Licenses taken...that is the understatement of the century. Poetic rape. But then, poetic would be an unmerited favor.
\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\nRecently I borrowed a copy of this mess of a movie, which took me three sessions over three days to get through. That's another comment in the making.
But what I wanted to comment on first was the carelessness on the special features of the DVD. It included a game of memory, which asks the player/viewer to match up pairs of animals in order for them to board the ark. However, every time it reveals the chosen animal, the screen prompts the player to find (or congratulates the player on finding)\"it's mate.\" This is a spelling error since it should be \"its mate\" as possessive pronoun, not a contraction for \"it is.\" It is an annoying error to keep repeating 16 or more times to finish a game. Of course, it's a kid's activity really, but teaches kids incorrect spelling.
And, oh yeah, the game never changes. It is the same game with the same locations of the same animals each time. Plus it doesn't keep score, like the number of moves it took to solve the game. So there is no lasting value or challenge to it. It's just a feature to list on the packaging.
Simply put, there could have been more thought and care put into this \"special\" feature, just like there could have been more thought and care put into this muddled film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"