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\nAdmittedly, you can put a model airplane against a black background and call it sci-fi, and thats enough to get me interested, so if you are like that, Black Horizon will at least get you interested before you watch it. The best part of the movie is when they rehash some actual footage of a shuttle launch.
The movie plays like the Naked Gun series, spoofing cop dramas with bad clichés and bad acting. Unfortunately, i don't think they meant to be funny, the actors really are made of cardboard, the dialog really does suck, so well just have to laugh at them, and not with them.
On a side note, it is rare to see a movie that takes place half in outer space, half on earth, and doesn't mix in the expected extraterrestrials and supernatural events. I really do ache for more realistic drama based on our space endeavors.
\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 Russian space station 'Avna' with a crew of four Russians and two Americans is threatening to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere in a matter of days. Russia asks for NASA's help in rescuing the stranded crew and NASA scrambles the space shuttle Atlantis. The NSA also have an interest in the 'Prometheus', a prototype microwave power source being tested aboard 'Avna' and organise for one of their men to be placed on the mission.
That's the plot. Onto less important things. The space station and the shuttle are the same, blatantly obvious models used in 'Fallout', 'Memorial Day' and 'Dark Breed' (and a handful of other films, I suspect). The model effects are so obvious throughout the entire movie and make the film look very 1960s. The sets are a little better but are far too '80s for what is supposedly a brand new station built by an American company (which later comes in as part of a conspiracy to destroy 'Avna' and the 'Prometheus' and claim the insurance. The script has a few good moments (including Yuri's farewell and the little spiel at the end) but is otherwise fairly bland and sub-standard. The acting is okay; the only real standout performance comes from Alex Veadov who offers up some of the film's better dialogue. Michael Dudikoff is, surprisingly, one of the best parts about this film. Ice-T is Ice-T. 'Nuff said. The film offers a few surprises, though, that I don't wish to spoil.
Certainly one of the better low-grade, contemporary-set sci-fi films of the last six years, but not the best. The film is watchable but the special effects and plot will probably put a lot of viewers off. Rent the other 'Stranded' sci-fi film instead.
\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 knew it was going to be awful but not this awful!!, as it's one of the most boring movies i have ever seen, not a damn thing happens!. All the characters are dull, and the story is stupid and incredibly boring!,plus The ending is especially lame!. The only reason i rented this piece of crap because i am a big fan of Michael Dudikoff, however he is wasted here, and looks extremely bored and shows no emotion what so ever!, plus i cheered out loud when the movie was over!. It's like the movie had no plot and it was all about nothing, and Ice-T is god awful(even though he is OK in some stuff), plus Dudikoff and Yvette Nipar had no chemistry together at all. There's one scene that the director tried to make emotional but he fails miserably as Yvette Nipar didn't really show all that much emotion, however there is a decent Car chase scene, but that's not enough for me to recommend this god awful film!, plus the dialog is atrocious. Avoid this movie like the plague not a damn thing happens, please avoid and trust me on this one you may thank me afterwords. The Direction is horrible!. Fred Olen Ray does a horrible job here, with shoddy camera work, laughably cheap looking set pieces, terrible angles, laughable use of stock footage, and keeping the film at an incredibly dull pace. The Acting is terrible!. Michael Dudikoff is nowhere near his usual amazing self, he looks extremely bored, and shows no emotion what so ever, his character is also extremely dull, as i can't believe he signed on for this piece of garbage, he also had no chemistry with Yvette Nipar(Dudikoff still rules!!!). Ice-T has barely anything to do and also looks bored, and he didn't convince me one bit. Hannes Jaenicke is not very good here, he had somewhat of a wimpy character, i didn't like him. Yvette Nipar is pretty but was really terrible here, she didn't show much emotion, and had no chemistry with Dudikoff, and as a result i didn't give a damn about her character!. Art Hindle,(Owen Marsh),Kathy Harren(Katharine Marsh), and the rest of the cast are bad as well. Overall Please avoid like the plague!, Fred Olen Ray and Steve Lathshaw should be ashamed of themselves!. BOMB out of 5
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI rented this movie because I am a huge Dudikoff fan. I figured it couldn't be that bad. Boy was I wrong! At the 15 minute mark , I was begiing the others to let me rip the DVD out and fling it back to the rental store, but they refused. They swore it had to get better.
They were wrong! This movie was lacking everything. The actors delivered their lines with as much emotion as a comatose rock! The plot was ridiculous and I was offended that Hollywood assumed people were dumb enough to enjoy it. None of the characters interacted very well with each other. Ice-T gives one of his worst performances here.
After watching footage of the wrong plane, bad guys standing up to get shot, and clips being emptied and missing everything, I wanted to scream and bang my head on concrete. The movie hit its plateau of ignorance when the people on the space station used an elevator to travel. Space suits are not needed and there is gravity in space regardless of what real astronauts may say.
I didn't finish this movie and hated it. I don't want to finish this movie. This is slow suicide. I could feel my cerebral cortex planning to avenge the torture I put it 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\nI really should have learned more about this movie before renting it. It was one of those movies where you keep watching it figuring it's got to get better. Then, when it ends, you feel stupid for having wasted precious time in your life that you can never get back. Ice-T did his bad guy thing and, well, that was the highlight of the evening. The pictures of the shuttle looks like it was done with a little toy inside of a box and the spacewalking scenes were funny because you could see the strings attached to the space suits. The script was lacking and the car chase scene with the guy bleeding and going unconscious was incredible because he drove better than I could have on one of my best days. All in all, I have seen worse but this sure isn't one I'd recommend or want to remember.
\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\nRented this tonite from my local video store. It was titled \"Black Horizon.\" I guess someone felt this was good enough for a 2004 re-release...
Micheal Dudikoff is unfortunetly not a ninja in this movie, one of the major flaws of this film right off the bat. Another major flaw would be that Ice-t's action scenes are stolen from other movies, particularly the first scene of his rescue, which is directly from the Wesley Snipes movie \"The Art of War,\" with Ice-T edited in. I hope they paid for that footage.
The plot is awful, the special effects had little effort put into them (love those wires holding them in space), the acting is wooden (also love those New York/Russian accents). Ice-T being in the movie is pointless. These guys also forgot the fact that there is no gravity in space, but I guess they weren't worried about it.
Micheal Dudikoff should go back to doing what he's \"good\" at and make American Ninja 6.
\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\nPoorly acted, poorly written and poorly directed. Special effects are cheap. Best performance is by Yvette Napir, but that's not saying much. Story is a confusing mess about corporate greed leading to sabotage of a space station and an attempt to rescue those stranded aboard.
There is little suspense and even less action. There's one car chase that's not bad, but the rest of the movie is simply a waste of everyone's time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nEd Wood rides again. The fact that this movie was made should give any young
aspiring film maker hope. Any screenplay you might have thought of using to
line a litterbox or a birdcage should now not seem that bad. Do not watch this movie unless you have a healthy stash of Tylenol or Rolaids. Watching this
movie made me realize that Boa vs. Python was not that bad after all. It probably would have been better to do this movie in Claymation as at least that way no actor would have had to take credit for being in this film. It is understandable why this director has so many aliases. There is a bright side to watching this movie in that if you can get someone to bring you a bag of chips, then you can eat your way out of the cocoon of cheese that surrounds you enabling you to
make your toward your TV set's cocoon of cheese that surrounds 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\nAs much as we might welcome a film that deals with people who have different challenges in the area of romance, I cannot shake off the feeling that this movie was intended as a direct-to-video grade-C porn movie in which either A) the actors backed out of doing the explicit scenes or B) the producers ran out of money to hire for the inserts (an amazing thing if it were true).
I had to go back to Blockbuster to figure out why on earth I had rented it, which was due to an admittedly amateurish gullibility regarding the cover blurbs, which seemed to imply a seditious John Waters-style humor-fest with a sexual theme. Okay, I laughed a couple of times and it definitely has a sexual theme (although most of it can't be described as stimulating in any way). But, on some movies you might rewind to make sure you heard the dialog correctly--on this one, you fast-forward because you already know what they're about to say. But there's nothing to fast-forward to, so just fast-forward past it on the shelf.
\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 cannot see why anyone would make such a movie. From start to finish this film is really, really bad.
The characters are all very shallow, terribly acted and downright annoying. There is absolutely nothing going on below the surface at all with either characters or plot.
The 'humour' if you can call it that is aimed at an adult audience ( I presume from the language and nudity) although it comes across as mainly toilet humour and would have problems even drawing a smile from a half-witted 16 year old.
I would recommend avoiding this excuse for a comedy. It has nothing whatsoever that would appeal to a film fan. Non-existent laughs and a plot that barely exists lead me to ask \"Why has this film been made, why, why, why?\"
I expect in the fullness of time to see this film topping the top 100 worst films.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWow. They told me it was bad, but I had no idea.
We've started a tradition. We found one copy of this movie, and we just pass it from person to person. Whoever has the movie watches it, and then passes it to someone else deemed worthy of seeing this unique, creative, horrible movie. Hopefully it'll travel 'round the world a few times.
It's painful. Really painful. It's even beyond so bad it's funny. Well, okay, sometimes it's so bad it's funny. But most of the time it just gives you that feeling that there's something sucking at your brain from the inside.
Wow. Watch it, then pass 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 found this movie at the flea market for cheap. I was so psyched because I thought it was a skateboarding movie. I got home put it on, the previews rules and the opening scene with the old guy rolling down the street on the skateboard was awesome. At that moment I realized it was a post-apocalyptic movie but I still had high hopes for it. This movie was awful. A friend of mine was stoned out of his mind when we watched it and even he thought it was horrible and a waste of being high. I kept falling asleep during the movie because it was so boring and the music was utterly awful. I don't know if during the apocalypse all the good music, and all the music that is only kind of crappy is destroyed and everyones memory of how to play it is wiped clean but I think I would rather die than have to endure that crap. Also what the hell was up with the TV studio? I can only assume that this movie was adapted from an old Greek play, with the names and title, but some plays are not meant to be adapted into a futuristic sci-fi setting. Or at least not by the people who were involved with this movie. If you are forced to watch this movie, I can only suggest bringing a hand gun and finishing yourself off before the end. It would be a good movie to kill yourself too, everyone will understand why.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI don't see the sense in going through so much trouble to make a movie like this, and then throw the history book out the window. There wasn't a single accurate detail in that movie other than the fact than Richtofen died, which I was grateful for at the end so I didn't have to watch any more. Movies like this are an insult to anyone who knows anything about WWI aerial history.
I'll skip the obvious, that they were flying Fokker DVII's in 1916, because the Blue Max did that too, or that 209 squadron was flying SE-5's, and will attack other parts. For one thing, they call the Pfalz D-III an 'old Albatross' at the beginning. For another, they have Voss, Goring, and Wolff all in Jasta Boelcke. The only one who was in that Jasta was Voss, and he joined after Boelcke died. Richtofen wasn't held to blame for Boelcke's death...Erwin Boehme, who collided with Boelcke, had swerved to avoid a British plane that Richtofen was chasing. When Richtofen received his head wound, it was while attacking a FE-2d two-seater, and he did not crash into the trenches and have soldiers fight over him, and NO..Werner Voss did not die that day. He died September 28th in one of the most epic battles in WWI.
Manfred was short, not like the actor who towered over everyone else. His brother Lothar was never in Jasta Boelcke either, he joined the squadron when Manfred was in charge of Jasta 11.
There's so many other glaring errors in historical fact that I'll let them go except perhaps the worst one, the death scene. In the movie Manfred is out-maneuvered by Brown and then shot down, making a perfect landing. Brown got off one burst at Richtofen while Richtofen was chasing May, and the facts amassed over the years overwhelmingly show that Richtofen was killed by ground fire, not by Brown.
The only value in this movie was the chance to see the flying scenes themselves, which were as good as 'The Blue Max', other than that I won't watch it again and I paid $30 for the tape!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs a flying and war movie buff, this ranks at he bottom of my list. It is historically completely inaccurate and the cast sounds and acts like they just stepped out of a high-school play. The acting, script, direction, production standards and casting are all garbage. The only saving grace is some of the flying sequences. If the people they portray were fictitious, I might rate it a 2, but if there is one thing that annoys me more than anything else in movies, it is pretending that this is history and that the great people they are trying to be, actually did this! Its almost as if they tried to write in as many notable WW1 personalities as possible.There are many good WW1 flying films and this is NOT one of them.
\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\nTook a chance to see if perhaps a really good WWI film had slipped my notice--this isn't it. John Phillip Law and Don Stroud are both stiff in their acting and miscast for their roles. The dialogue is dumb or non-existent; the flying sequences are okay but pretty repetitive. Compared to the terrific \"Blue Max\" this movie should never have been made. Watch George Peppard,James Mason, and Usula Andress in the BM and you get why that movie is one of the best war films ever made and this isn't. Recently released on DVD Richtofen and Brown is presented as some great 'lost classic' from the 70's, I resold mine the day after I bought it. Don't waste your time or $.
\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 have just written a comment to \"ACES HIGH\" (1976) and that remind me of this film which I watched as kid when it was released; since then I have watched it only once and that was more than enough. As Kevin well says \"it is a complete waste of time\". Apart from the dog-fights which are nicely done the rest is a sequence of badly patched scenes with actors struggling with a lousy script and equally lousy direction. I do not remember the silly German accents mentioned by Kevin in his comment, but that is another pathetic mistake; if Corman tried to make more convincing the characterization of the German pilots why didn't he use German actors or have those parts dubbed? On the other hand is good example of the appalling Hollywood-style of film-making with their \"villains\" so clearly identifiable, not only by their cruel actions but also by their grotesque accents.
Talking about \"cruel actions\" the ridiculous scene were Lieutenant Hermann Goering murders English nurses during an attack on an airbase is an absolutely disgusting piece of propaganda done with \"historical hindsight\". If you want to a see a factual, moving, very well acted and directed film about the air war during WWI watch \"ACES HIGH\" (1976) or that wonderful classic \"THE DAWN PATROL\" (1938) you shall not be 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\n\"The Yoke's on Me\" is undoubtedly the most controversial film in the Stooges' 23 years of shorts. The reason is understandable; by today's standards, this film can be considered racist. For this reason, it is rarely shown, if ever, on television.
Let me just state that, for the record, the Japanese seen in the film were not soldiers; they were Japanese-Americans sent to a relocation center during World War II. They were treated and shown as the evil enemy in this film. By all accounts - including the US government, who made an apology and reparations in the 1980s - Japanese-Americans during World War II were as loyal and hardworking as any American. Their imprisonment during this time is a dark blot in American history.
There are some Stooge laughs in this film, but the memories of how Japanese-Americans were treated during this time sullies the entertainment value. Let's not confuse the loyal Japanese-Americans with their representation in this film as evildoers. Loyal Japanese-Americans and the World War II-era evil empire of Japan are not synonymous. 2 out of 10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this as a kid, before it had been yanked from the rotation, and even then it left a bad taste in my mouth. There were some competently worked out gags, but making slapstick villains out of American citizens who'd been interned in camps strictly due to their race was amazingly tasteless.
Moe himself might have wanted this one buried. He was a liberal guy. In his autobiography he told of visiting a town in the segregated South, where he saw a black man get off the sidewalk to avoid passing too close. Moe stepped into the street to show it wasn't a problem, and the man then got back on the curb. Then off again. Finally, the man told Moe nervously that if Moe didn't stop trying to share the sidewalk with him, he might get them both lynched.
Another thing: There are exploding ostrich eggs but no oxen in the film, so the title should actually be (if anyone cares) \"The Yolk's on Me.\"
\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\nGreat actors, good filming, a potentially interesting plot, and what should have been good dialog. Nothing else is good about this movie. Perhaps the writer or director thought they could make a thought provoking film out of annoying characters who are as deep as a cup of coffee.
Within 10 minutes I disliked the portrayal of Kim by Caroleen Feeney so much that it became a distraction. While Kim is supposed to be an unsympathetic character, I am not sure I was supposed to want to commit acts of physical violence upon her. The first (of many) bizarre things that happen is that Wes (David Strathairn) goes from \"I am missing $50.00\" to \"She stole 50$\" in about 3 seconds. It was quite implausible, since she (Kim) never had access to his wallet nor was she a master pickpocket-- there simply was no rational reason to suspect her. Most people have lost/misplaced money and assume just that... we LOST it. Same goes for Kim later. All very unrealistic behavior in what is supposed to be (I think) a look at real people. The character of Kim was, at minimum, suffering from a BiPolar disorder. Wes had huge inadequacy issues, Nancy was just boring, and Matt was delusional (particularly about music). I actually turned this off about 2/3 of the way through. However, to write a valid comment, I forced myself to turn it back on hoping that something would come together in this movie. No, sorry, it was still bad. Make it a point to miss this one.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst, I must point out that the role Wendell Corey played was exceptional. Usually, Corey was relegated to supporting roles but here he is what helps carry this very limp film. Without him and the character he played, the film would have been a lot worse--hardly meriting a 2 or 3.
So why did I hate the rest of the film so much? Well, one of my pet peeves is when characters act \"too stupid to live\". You can't base major plot points on the assumption that your major characters are completely stupid (unless having a brain injury is part of the plot, of course). But this is exactly what happens in this film. Wendell Corey is a crazed man who has murdered three innocent people and they know his next target is Joseph Cotten's wife. So what do they do? Yep, they provide really inadequate police protection and a plan that makes no sense at all (no marksman and guys with shotguns that are so far away they probably WON'T stop this madman). And if this isn't bad enough, the marked woman inexplicably runs away from her hiding place and walks right into the WORST possible place she could be! Is anyone THAT stupid?!?! Arrrggghhhh---I hate when movies have such dumb characters. In fact, I found myself rooting for Corey since I felt the idiots deserved to die for their behaviors! In addition to these clichéd characters, there was also a bit player who fainted. Sure, seeing your husband shot MIGHT cause someone to faint, however in real life this is a rare occurrence--people rarely faint unless there is a medical reason. So, combining this with the above character problems is a real nightmare for people who are looking for realism--something Film Noir movies MUST have.
All these serious problems are even more infuriating since Wendell Corey's character is amazingly well-written and conceived. It was his chance to shine as an actor--too bad the rest of the movie was so limp that Corey and the basic plot idea are sunk. This is one film that could really use a remake--but this time without brainless characters.
\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\nRespected western auteur Budd Boetticher is woefully out of place with this choppy modern day cops and robbers story that suffers from a strong lack of emotional believability. Boetticher seems to have waived rehearsal time and settled for the first take as leads Joe Cotton and Rhonda Fleming put little effort into their roles, delivering lines flatly and without energy.
Mild mannered employee Leon \"Foggy\" Poole works as an inside man on a bank job that goes bad and gets his wife killed in the process. He escapes from prison and immediately sets out to kill the wife of the detective who killed his. Hundreds of cops are mobilized to keep him from getting to the home of the intended who has been moved to another location but wouldn't you know in the films final moments we have Foggy trailing feet behind the victim (who thought somehow that taking a bus back to the house was a sound move) while a company of cops observe and bicker over what action to take. Sound preposterous? You should see it. It's all of that and more.
Lucien Ballard's camera work does a decent job of bringing noir to the suburbs but the editing is lackadaisical and shapeless and it drains the film of its suspense and pace. As Poole, Wendell Corey is the best thing in the film managing to evoke great sympathy as he transitions from gentle soul to murderer. These attributes aside Killer uniformly fails in construction and execution making its message clear. Go Western old Budd.
\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 thing that makes this one watchable is Corey's performance as the lunatic killer on the loose. What remains is a most impossible tale of revenge and matrimonial discord. During the walkie-talkie scenes I had the feeling that Cotten was squeezing a sweet potato and not a communication device. Another interesting thing about this one is that Alan Hale (the Skipper from \"Gilligan's Island\") is not yet so fat, and he can still lower his arms below his waist. Other than that there isn't much to recommend here.
\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\nTerrible psychological thriller that is almost painful to sit through, every aspect being awful.
The combined talents of top actors Kevin Bacon and Gary Oldman are totally wasted, and though they give good performances, one wonders why they bothered. The script from Mark Kasdan is a complete mess, and Martin Campbell has the narrative jumping all over the place, but if you're unable to follow it, take it as a blessing. There are far too many pointless, crazy scenes that just don't make sense. Jerry Goldsmith's music is not much help either.
Even if there was potential in the plot, director Campbell's approach has utterly ruined it. Avoid at all costs!
Monday, February 26, 1996 - Video
\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\nIn this film Gary Oldman plays a defense attorney, who was formerly a prosecutor. He is a bit tormented, but is more or less playing a regular guy rather than some sort of figurative or literal monster. Funny thing is, he doesn't quite pull it off. I guess you can't quite get to normal from there. Kevin Bacon was sufficiently creepy. The scene in the park was way too long with way too many false scares. And the odd sex scene with Oldman and Karen Young seemed to have come from a different movie, although the rest of the time Miss Young did just fine. This film suffers from oddness trying to cover up the predictability. And failing. Don't bother.
\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 blame of this terrible flick lies with the director, Martin Campbell. After viewing a few of his credits in later years, this must have been one of his first directorial gigs. He had a more than decent cast to work with but unfortunately he had no idea what he was doing. There were scenes that made absolutely no sense at all. Where was his head...............was he on drugs? I was looking forward to this movie just because of Oldman & Bacon. Maybe it was a short shooting schedule and Campbell just had to \"bang it out\". I can't imagine that the story that Campbell directed even came close to the story that the writer wrote. Oldman & Bacon, along with the rest of the cast, must have slid under their chairs if they went to the screening. As one poster pointed out, Karen Young did do a pretty good fight scene with Bacon. She really did 'let loose'. It's unfortunate that I have to fill in more space just to stay within the guide lines of what the IMDb requires because I really don't have anything more to say about this uninspiring film. One does not have to be forced to be a 'windbag' when criticizing a terrible flick and wish that the IMDb would change the amount of words to fill up a critique.
\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\n4 out of 10
A somewhat unbelievable storyline with some haunted-house type \"shocks\" that really don't fit in.
Gary Oldham's performance is very erratic...not so much the quality of the performance but the consistency. His character does not behave in a consistent manner. Sometimes calm/relaxed/methodical/thoughtful, sometimes violent/loud/almost crazed. It's just not believable.
Have many 80s movies dated badly? Will they be more enjoyable 20 years from 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\nMan kills bear. Man becomes bear. Man/bear meets bear. Man/bear stays man/bear after meeting bear. The End. Seriously, that is the entire plot to this movie. Yes, I simplified it to an extreme, but you get the picture. I just wish I maybe had not have seen it.
The 'man/bear' alluded to is a Native American Indian that kills a mother of a cub. And while that can be touching, it certainly lacks to really draw in on the potential conflict between the two parties. Plus, there was a certain misuse of the two moose in the film. But that is beyond the point.
Overall, very much under par. Certainly needed a lot more to be entertaining. Maybe more laughs from the secondary characters and more drama between the two main bears. Thats what separates bad films from the good ones. \"D\"
\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\nRecycled and predictable plot. The characters are as memorable as the story line. We came in few minutes late and only saw the end of the opening scene which turned out to be a good thing since it was too intense for a 3 and a 4 year old. Overall a disappointment.
\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 animation is great, I'll concede to that. But Disney perpetuated every stereotype we Alaskans have been trying to overcome for the last two generations. And the names, I mean, come on...Sitka, Kenai, Tanana & Denahi (cheesy takeoff of Denali)?! Those are real places where real people live! And the real people these real places were named for are probably struggling out of the Earth seeking vengeance over this trite little flick. Disney, you're based out of California & Florida, right amidst the rest of the states that still treat us like a foreign country. If you can't stick to what you know, at least hire and/or work with people who know what area you're trying to caricuture. Maybe then it wouldn't be so insulting! :(
\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\nBeing a great fan of Disney, i was really disappointed when i watched this garbage.The animation was pretty,and the backgrounds were amazing,but i believe that good animation does not make up for a weak script,and weak story. I'm gonna have to disagree with the people who say it is not suitable for children.Yes there are some deaths in the movie but isn't death something that children should at least be exposed to? But i digress. The script is riddled with bad puns and lame jokes...the kind i could expect from most dreamworks movies. The music was soppy,the morals forced(and forced without any charm whatsoever.)and the characters would burst into song at totally inappropriate times.The characters were also cold,and i really couldn't muster up any form of emotion towards them(bar irritation). I am a great fan of jungle book,Aladdin,and emperors new groove, but this Disney movie was a total and utter waste of time.....do not watch 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\nAs an avid Disney fan, I was not totally impressed by this movie, certainly not motivated enough to catch it in the theaters. I am, however, so glad that I caught it on DVD and watched the special features.
You MUST check out the \"Moose commentary\": the entire movie can be viewed with commentary from Rutt and Tuke, the comic relief moose of the story, who are voiced by Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas. Two veterans of the famous Second City comedy troupe ad-lib - in character - for an hour and a half about a movie that they are clearly fond of. I laughed the whole time. The enjoyment I got from this commentary completely made up for the tepid reaction I had to the film itself. Do yourself a favor and listen to 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\nHere is another low quality movie from the \"Disney\" company. There is no more Disney spirit. The story is boring. All emotions are fake. It is not cute or moving. Disney company was at a time a sort of magic company which provided dreams for children. It is now all about making money. Shame on the people who exploit Disney name for their personal benefit. It is the fall of an empire. And, by the way, Pixar is NOT Disney !
\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\nfor everyone who has read this book, Fanny Price ends up maturing into her own woman, a beautiful woman...with a brain. Le Touzel looks like she is on medication. Terrible acting, she just ruins it! Henry is a little tall for his character. He is also too effeminate. Mary Crawford is brilliant. Edmond is a little too old. Mrs. Norris is hysterical- OK, this casting decision works. Rushworth is also perfect. Yates looks too effeminate also. But, Le Touzel is simply horrid. This is not a good character for her. Poor Fanny! I would recommend this movie only because it includes an almost complete textual account of the language Austen uses in the novel. The 1999 version is much more fun but terribly incomplete. If they could redo this version with a better suited actress for Fanny it would be fabulous!
\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 version of Mansfield Park, while being extremely accurate to the novel lacked the compassion I felt for Fanny which is crucial and central to this Jane Austen story. This was due to the total lack of acting ability by the actress, Sylvestra Le Touzel. She had no appeal and at times appeared to be either lost in space or out of her depth. The scene she has with her uncle where she breaks down in hysterics was hysterical. She badly overplayed that crucial scene and I actually felt sorry that Henry Crawford ever cared for her.
The polar opposite is the portrayal of Mary Crawford by Jackie Smith- Wood. What a wonderful actress, in a very difficult part to make that character witty and self-centered, selfish yet vulnerable to love.
I have always loved Fanny. She is mild mannered but with an implacable sense of what is right, and who she thinks is worthy of respect and admiration. The Fanny in this adaptation is too meek and subservient with hardly a thought of her own until near the end of the series. As much as I wanted to like this Fanny....I just could not.
I suggest skipping this version of Mansfield Park for the real thing...the Novel. Fanny will not disappoint...you will Love Her!
\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 whole exercise is pointless. Why make the film at all? The lighting is ghastly, but the sound is just a joke. Like a high-school production. Whoever put the budget together for this film should be drawn and quartered for allowing it to be made without the proper budget for soundmen with equipment fit for recording.
So much dialog is unintelligible due to losses in echo or the lack of proximity to the mic. Economy should have been made on any other area. The whole production is lifeless and just LAME with such amateurish half-arsed production. It lacks warmth, clarity, and has no design to 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\nOkay, I haven't read the book yet but I have to say that the lead character was miscast. How can I say such a thing haven't read the book you ask? It's simple. As a viewer of this miniseries, I grew irritated by the mannerisms, gestures and look of the lead character, Fannie Price. It's one thing to be a good person but it's quite another to be a stick in the mud creature who disdains from looking anyone in the face or otherwise meeting their gaze. Apart from the overdone \"Susan B. Anthony\" profile, she seemed resolute in refusing to look at another person. The scene where Edmond is pouring his heart out to her, she is looking straight ahead the whole time, forcing him to do the same. As a result, it was just awkward and I just couldn't fathom anyone being in love with her let alone both Henry and Edmond. Many have said it was true to the book, if that is the case I find it hard to believe that Jane Austen would create such a character as her lead heroine. It's possible to create a character who has been put upon by others and succeeds in earning their trust and endearment but the portrayal of this character in this miniseries just didn't do it for me.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is about a young girl who goes to live with her rich cousins falls in love with one of her cousin, and reject the advance of a amoral suitor who brings trouble on the family. After seeing the 1999 version and reading the book, I decided to watch the older version. I found it did stay true to Fanny character in the book, but it was also boring character. Fanny character played by Sylvestra Le Touzel was lackluster; she often appeared to be about to faint. I also did not like Robert Bourbage who played Henry Crawford. I could not imagine him being interested in Fanny or her cousin Maria. Jackie Smith Wood who played Mary Crawford was okay but the wig she wore was so ugly. I lost interested in her acting and I kept staring at her wig. I kept expecting it would drop off her head. I could also see a slip of her real hair under the wig.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a big disappointment. The main problem is the acting. Sylvestre le Touzel is pretty poor as Fanny, and the rest are not much better, everybody is very stilted and unnatural. Also the camerawork is very 1980's ie cramped and jumpy, compared with the likes of 1995's P&P, for example.
The script is, if anything too faithful to the book, and there are some cringe worthy expressions that should have been cut.
In every way this is far inferior to the recent film version, which though it took huge liberties with the book, seemed far more faithful to the spirit of the book and was far more enjoyable.
\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 always try not to be harsh while criticizing something that I didn't like, but after watching this mini-series I was so disappointed that could not help my irritation. On the one hand, it is true that series stayed faithful to the novel and of course I found that very nice, but on the other hand terrible casting, poor acting, especially of key characters  like Funny Price, impression of stage play, I mean theatrical way of acting makes you irritate from the beginning to the end. I am sure with this budget, even if it was low, could have been done something much better and worthwhile. it is up to you to watch this series, but personally i don't advice you to spend your time on this disappointing ecranization.
\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\ntotal crap.
I was kind of excited to see this as it is the only film version I have seen of Mansfield Park. I suffered through the first four episodes but when it came to the proposal scene between Henry and Fanny I snapped and had to turn it off. Whoever employs this Sylvestra Le Touzel lady has got to be both blind and deaf cause the woman is the worst actress I've ever seen in my life. The whole thing is just bad, bad, bad. I don't know. I just don't know why people who write Jane Austen screenplays seem to be incapable of giving her work the respect it deserves.
\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 enough already. this is a terrible piece of television. the camera work is appalling (do i have to remind you of the crunchy gravel so loud you can hardly hear the actors speak) lady bertram has the most annoying voice in the entire world. anna massey is 'acting' in such an unbelievable fashion. and the lack of chemistry between fanny and edmund is beyond beyond. also the bertram girls aren't pretty enough, and the guy playing henry crawford is awful. to say the camera work is dodgy is an understatement. i watched this adaptation over Christmas, and i think under any other circumstances i would not have been able to endure this, and certainly would have not been able to justify the wasted time.
i am a fan of faithful to jane adaptations. so i could not bear the film adaptation or the recent pride and prejudice movie. but see any other adaptation instead, even emma is better 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\nThis horrible action  sci-fi movie is a crap. I have just spent 90 minutes of my life watching one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The story does not make any sense, there are lots of flaws in the screenplay, the characters are badly developed, the unknown cast is horrible, the lead ham actor seems to be too old for his role. I was induced to buy this VHS, which has a magnificent cover, and see this crap due to the illogical IMDb User Rating and some \"ten stars\" reviews. I have just checked the authors, and each one of them has just one short review (of \"L.I.N.X.\") issued in IMDb, and nothing else. Why are they promoting such a garbage? My vote is one.
Title (Brazil): \"L.I.N.X. Conexão Letal\" (\"L.I.N.X. Lethal Connection\")
\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\nKeep away from this one. The worst thing is the appalling story. There seems to be an intent to convey some subtle spiritual/love/friendship message but it is so pathetically devoid of any substance you can't help but cringe. In addition, the majority of screen time is a far below standard story of thieves, criminals and our hero(es) dealing with some alien time travel artifacts. I know you are asking for trouble when dealing with time but the story is more full of holes than usual. Also you have: cheap sets, bad acting and some of the worst music arrangements in the history of the moving picture, overpowering, cheap, abrupt and disjointed. All I can say is \"Man alive ! This film is bad !\"
\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 find the critique of many IMDb users a little harsh and in many cases find that they crit the movie from a very professional viewpoint and not that of the guy on the street that wants to sit and watch something just to GET AWAY from it all.
In this case however I have to say it was BAD. I am a SciFi junkie and there was NOTHING in this movie that grabbed me for even one second.
There was no proper storyline. I may be an idiot but I still do not know where the GOVERNMENT was that was so worried about these pieces.
The pathetic attempt by the main character to put together these 3 pieces is scary. Half the time the two pieces were already in place and he simply had to add the third. A 3 year old kid would have been able to put them together.
This movie was BAD.
Dominic
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe worst thing I have ever watch.
The movie is pure trash. All the things is bad on this movie. The direction, screenplay, arts, cinematography, cast or anything else.
May I say more?
The main character is an boy. It has to have 20 years of age approximately, but the actor who plays the role looks like 30 years old, in addition he is an very bad actor.
The editing tries to save it, but with that very bad material in hands they can't do miracles.
As I said, the cast is poor, the text is poor, that it doesn't help the actors.
I learned how to \"do not\" make a movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"