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\n'Nuff said. An undercover cop from the state capital is sent to a small county where moonshine running is rampant. He ends up getting run off the road by some local hicks who have no idea he's an undercover cop (so they just drive away as blissfully dopey as ever). He is soon being taken care of by a woman and her three daughters who all wear low-cut tops and short shorts (gotta luv the '70s). He falls in love with one of the girls but in the meantime he still has to find out who's making all the moonshine and driving it to all the local bars and restaurants. He also has to contend with a fat sheriff and his incompetent deputy who think he's the moonshiner 'cause he's new in town.
Life in small town America, 70s style. YEE HAAAAAAAAAAA.
\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 film's title makes it sound like a porno but it's not even a sex comedy. Instead, Hot Summer in Barefoot County is about an official sent from a southern state to a small town to locate and arrest moonshiners. The moonshine though is coming from the farm of an old woman with three beautiful daughters. Almost anyone can guess what happens next but oddly, the film is very tame. It hardly even qualifies for a PG rating. What's more, the low budget is obvious in pretty much every shot and the acting is sooooo amateurish. This film was probably intended for the drive-in crowd but it's unlikely that it satisfied them, even in 1974.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMy brother was working at a movie theater when I saw this movie; I saw it for free and still walked out. I have seen a lot of movies in my time but this was the worst. When people ask me what the worst movie I have ever seen was I mention this movie in less than one second. This movie is bad because it goes from one lame plot set-up to the next, it encourages stereotypes about blacks that are sickening and the flow is awful. If you want to see how to make children cry and vomit at the same time then study this movie. Okay, this movie is not good \"bad\" but terrible bad. If you are like one of those people that watch horrible movies for fun, like me, you will not even be able to make it through this very short film. Please for the love of God destroy all copies of 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\nThis movie should have ended as soon as the joke about Bebe's Kids is told in the opening. I liked Robin Harris and most of his comedy but the really funny routines were not meant to be something the whole family could go see. Liken it to taking the point of one of Jerry Seinfeld's jokes and attempting to squeeze the joke for as long as you can in order to turn it into a movie. This movie had to be self-serving because I can not find anyone who found the settings or antics familiar. Whats most funny about this movie is the gumption of the writers and producers to pass it off as something of value. 1/10 stars because there is no half star.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nUSA's AZN TV purchased the rights to this film and the network is showing it using the English title THE PICKPOCKET.
1997's THE PICKPOCKET takes amateur home-movie style movie making to amazing levels of unpleasantness. The movie depicts a long-winded series of boring wanderings of an uninteresting, confused guy. This lead character, Xiao Wu, does not simply walk about aimlessly. Viewers will unfortunately soon realize that Xiao Wu has an unsurpassed talent to seek out, and remain dormant near the most obnoxious noises to be found in China. Clanging empty tin buckets being beaten with a stick -- he is there. Every old motor in China clunking in agony -- he is there. A crying baby? Yes, you guessed it, he is there! According to THE PICKPOCKET, China is the most irritating unpleasant sounding place on planet Earth.
The only element worse than the sound of THE PICKPOCKET is the photography. The camera shakes, shakes and shakes some more. Finally, the camera stills, but then it falls to the actor's knees and just stays there until someone in the crew realizes the mistake and begins to shake the camera again. Most of the shaky film is framed in distant, long, long, long shots. The few times when the camera gets somewhat close, nothing compelling ever takes place to connect the viewer with what is happening.
The photography is murky, faded and often blurry. The use of color is -- well, there is no sign of intelligence controlling the use of color. Most every shot is held 20 times too long. Few movies are so painful to sit through. This film is painful to watch, and painful to hear. And then it simply ends.
John Woo fans might enjoy being able to hear part of the soundtrack to DIE XUE SHUANG XIONG (THE KILLER) as the lead character is hanging outside of a video store for many minutes. Anyway, be warned -- THE PICKPOCKET will steal away your good 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\nThis is a case of taking a fairy tale too far. The Enchanted Cottage delivers Dorothy McGuire as a \"terrible ugly\" spinster and Robert Young as a disfigured pilot. Long story short: Scarface marries Spinster, after which their love transforms them, miraculously (lighting, cosmetics and the removal of fake scars), into beautiful peoplea magical change that they attribute to the enchantment of living in a seaside cottage that has been the abode of generations of honeymooners.
If the story stopped there, fine; it would be a fable with a proverbial message: beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But it lurches ahead, reaching for reality. When Mr. and Mrs. Scarface greet their public, it comes as a painful shock to them that they're still homely. You see, they only appear beautiful to each other a situation which the audience is well prepared for because all the secondary characters have been sermonizing that ill-favored people really need to lower their expectations, and find other ways to be happy. You know. Take up hobbies. Spinster does woodcuts, for instance. Scarface considers collecting driftwood.
The original playwright (Arthur Wing Pinero) and the filmmakers have zero faith in human nature. Their message is: You're either ugly or pretty, and no pretty person would ever love an ugly one. What's even worse, ugly people evidently need to imagine their lover as pretty. Reality just won't do.
One wonders what Elaine Mason saw every day when she looked at her husband, Stephen Hawking.
\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 hadn't seen this in many years. The acting was so good as I began this time, I thought, \"Great! Another movie I misjudged as a foolish young man.\" But then the theme started to be clear and I felt the same way.
This was Hollywood, the seat of glamor; so the concept shouldn't be a surprise. But it is so condescending a concept I feel as if I need to take a shower after watching it. In brief, it tells us that even physically ugly people can seem beautiful to each other and even feel attractive.
Dorothy McGuire is likable as the homely heroine. She seems to have been filmed wearing minimal make-up. Robert Young is injured in the war and feels scarred. His parents can't bear to look at him either. He seems to have all his faculties and in part, the notions of disability are outmoded.
Herbert Marshall is on hand as a blind pianist. His character speaks is hushed tones and is omniscient.
The best performance is given by Mildred Natwick as the owner of the title residence. She is bitter and dour but not made of ice. Her story is much more interesting, and believable, than that of McGuire and Young.
\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\nBefore the days of home video, Stan Laurel's pre-Hardy comedy 'Kill or Cure' was known -- to the extent that it was known at all -- only because a few sequences were included in Robert Youngson's compilation film 'Laurel and Hardy's Laughing 20's'. Youngson knew what he was doing: the best gags in 'Kill or Cure' were brought intact into his compilation, while the rest of this only mildly funny comedy remained on Youngson's cutting-room floor.
Laurel portrays a commercial traveller, hawking a patent medicine cried Professor I.O. Dine's Knox-All: that name is the funniest joke in this movie, which ain't sayin' much. I should point out that this movie dates from 1923, the shank of Prohibition. During Prohibition, quite a lot of Americans purchased patent medicine if it had (ahem!) 'medicinal' properties, so -- if Knox-All contains alcohol -- Stan's job in this movie is less desperate than the one which he and Ollie famously had in 'Big Business', selling Christmas trees in the summer. Too bad for this movie that it's not nearly so funny as 'Big Business'.
We see Stan (but don't hear him, in this silent film) delivering a spirited sales talk to a man who seems to be paying attention ... until we learn that they're standing outside a deaf-mute institution, and this man is deaf. A haughty woman emerges from the gates: Stan quickly tries to engage her attention by wiggling his fingers at her. Of course she's not deaf, and she promptly whacks him with her umbrella. I found this sequence offensive, NOT because it involves deaf people (the deaf aren't the butt of the joke) but because it abets the very widely-held misconception among hearing people that they can communicate with the deaf by merely waggling their fingers randomly and performing Charades without actually learning the highly complex grammar of sign language.
More amusingly, a spinster in this movie has a pet canary named Rudolph (as in Valentino), and there's a gag involving trick photography to enable a man to hide behind an object that's narrower than his body. I've seen this device in several cartoons and live-action movies but 'Kill or Cure' is, I think, the earliest movie to use it that I've seen so far.
Stan Laurel, an under-rated actor, does one bit of physical business here that's worthy of Chaplin or Keaton, in which he conveys his emotions -- and a change in his demeanour -- while walking away from the camera with his back to us. Still, Laurel never really became a first-rate comedian until he united with Oliver Hardy to form the greatest comedy team ever. 'Kill or Cure' barely rates 3 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\nMy wife and I watched this movie because we plan to visit Sicily and Stromboli soon. Fortunately (or unfortunately) the landscape and seascape (complete with tuna) are the only believable members of this cast. We expected reasonable well-written and well-acted movie, but were disappointed. Its only redeeming grace is an extended and remarkable fishing sequence full of authenticity: thrashing tuna, nets, wooden boats with long oars, and passionate, if superstitious, fishermen.
The movie's sequencing is stagy, its dialogue stilted, and the acting ranges from stiff to completely \"over-the-top.\" One scene, in which Bergman stresses out as her macho, native and naïve husband sics his ferret on an \"innocent\" (but apparently already deceased) rabbit would be perfect grist for a Monty Python skit.
When the volcano blew we hoped for a merciful end to the suffering (ours and the casts'). Unfortunately, the movie continues to flail on, staggering finally to a melodramatic and absurd ending. Unless you're really into old-time tuna fishing, pass this hokey effort by.
\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\nWhy bother to see this movie? It probably rates an award for being the worst career move of a major movie star since Clark Gable's laughable playing of an Irish patriot in Parnell.
It's inconceivable that Bergman would choose both this movie and its director over a lucrative Hollywood career where she could choose among the finest scripts and directors being offered at that time. To begin with, there was no script to work with except a few notes. Then we are supposed to believe the polished Bergman as a poor refugee willing to do anything to be released from a refugee camp, including marriage to a poor Italian fisherman she doesn't even love. I read where Anna Magnani was the original choice for this part. If so, that made a lot more sense than to cast the luminous Bergman in such a proletarian part. But since she was in love with her director, common sense flew out the window.
So she goes to live in this poor village where the men must toil to extract a meager living from the sea. A place she obviously hates to be and where she doesn't fit in.
Her only friend is the village priest who knows she's not suited to the life of a poor fisherman's bride, but tells her that for the sake of love she must repress her true feelings of revulsion, and accept the poverty and despair she encounters each day. On top of all of this, there's this volcano always on the brink of erupting and drowning them all in hot lava. But like a true heroine, Bergman revolts against her misery by declaring war on just about everyone else in this dreary film. She even goes as far as trying to seduce the village priest, in a scene that would generate laughter if it were not so pathetic. Since her poor slob of a husband must lock her in a room to keep her from running away, she's forced to use her body to bribe a married man to take her off the island. To her, no sacrifice is too great; no man unapproachable if he is willing to help her to escape the island and her misery. I won't bother to tell you how this all ends. The no-script movie ending is as plausible as the rest of STROMBOLI. I even remember (from seeing it on late night TV) that it had two different endings! So be warned if you should feel brave enough to sit through this king-size turkey and catch the miscast Bergman. It led to her downfall in Hollywood for the next seven years and she was condemned for sleeping with her director while still married to Peter Lindstrom. None of the movies she made with this director(whom she later married) are noteworthy except as proof of a career gone berserk. I kid you not. It's pretty embarrassing.
- - SoundTrack
\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\nIt's really a shame there was so much controversy surrounding this picture (in other words, the infamous affair between Ingrid Bergman and Roberto Rossellini), as this drew a lot of attention to a very forgettable film. The story is incredibly slow, cheap looking and uninteresting. And, to top this off, the film is stuffed to the brim with amateurish actors who can barely speak any English. I really would have preferred subtitles--it would have made the experience less exhausting. Back to the rotten acting. The Neo-realist movement was big in Italy at the time this film was made. Many of these films are absolute masterpieces (such as De Sica's Umberto D., The Children Are Watching Us and Miracle in Milan) because they got so much out of the non-professional actors. They behaved like normal people, but in Stromboli they act like normal people TRYING to be actors and come off very badly--like kids in a school play.
By the way,...if you are hoping the movie has a good ending (thereby making your time commitment to the film worth while), DON'T bother. The plot was just totally uninvolving and silly--so much so, that I really found that I could have cared less about the characters. Like the island they all inhabit, the film is desolate and without color or life.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nCan u believe a college professor made this film?????
The same man who made DHOOP
The film is horrible and has some of the weird scenes ever
The main message is nice but presented badly
The film looks like a collage of amateurish scenes, miscasts.etc and bad performances
Direction and everything is poor
Music is okay
Emraan's naughty streak works and he does well Tusshar is bad Tanushree and Isha are bad Paresh annoys when he looks at the mirror
\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. As soon as I saw this movie's cover, I immediately wanted to watch it because it looked so bad. Sometimes I watch Bollywood movies just because they're so bad that it will be entertaining (eg. Koi Mil Gaya). This movie had all the elements of an atrocious film: a \"gang of local thugs\" that is completely harmless, a poorly done motorcycle scene, horrible dialouge (\"Congrats son, I am very proud that you are a Bad Boy\"), actors playing basketball as if they are good, atrocious songs (\"Me bad, me bad, me bad bad boy\"), unexplained plot lines like why are the Good Boy and Bad Boy friends??? And why is the hot girl in love with the nerd?? I've never seen such a poorly constructed story with such horrible directly. Some of the scenes actually took 30 seconds long like the one where the Good and Bad Boys inexplicably ran over the \"gang member's\" poker game. Congrats Ashwini Chaudry, you are a Bad Director. If you want to watch a good movie, watch Guru, if you want to watch a movie so bad that it's actually entertaining, then watch Good Boy, Boy.
\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 plenty of time to kill and the DVD was given to you by your friend for free but still it may require lot of courage to watch this film which does not have good script or humor for that matter.
On the acting front imran is frozen in time/acting, Tushar Kapoor was slightly better than Imran in this movie Paresh Rawal was good at comedy was usual.
The story revolves around a college campus where Imran is a bad boy n Tushar is the good one, they pretend to be the opposite of respective nature and so the story goes on.....
Watch it only if you don't have any thing to do and the film is running on your local cable TV.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOh mY God That has got to be one of the Most USELESS BRAINLESS STUPIDEST Comedy Ever Made!! What has Happened to Subhash Ghai, Even Apna Sapna Money Money Was Worth Watching
Eww! GOD This Movie Stinks
Do Not Watch it Save your Money Bad Movie Bad Cast Bad Jokes Bad Acting, even this movie is an Example of Shoe Polish being Rubbed on a Face
Trust me This movie does even make you smile, Vulgar Jokes, Cheap jokes,A Really Stupid Movie with No concepts
Rating 0 on 10
AWFUL Movie those are the two hours im never getting back....
Syed Shabbir Aly Naqvi of Pakistan
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am an Indian residing in the United States. Why India continues, like a dumb animal, to emulate everything American is beyond me!! The main problems with the movie aren't so much the inane plot and dumb comedy. It is that this movie has a lot of sex, touching, women dressing like strumpets in the streets, and a lot of cursing that doesn't belong anywhere on T.V.
To the producers and directors of this movie, I have this message: You continue to weaken our nation's strong family values by making this sort of junk. You continue to let young women think it's okay to have a feminist attitude and have no morals. You continue to make dance songs that belong in the lowest of adult clubs and bars. I am ashamed to be an Indian after seeing movies like this.
In 2003, the United States government suggested that the best way to destroy Iran is to 'send miniskirts' there. There is no need to do that for India. We will destroy ourselves with rubbish like 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've seen Atlantis 1, then you'd know that what made that film truly great was brilliant animation and a good script. This movie was SO sloppily drawn and animated. The story is also dopey. I was so disappointed in this half-baked drivel that I couldn't make it past the first hour, and MAN did I try! The one thing this film had was that it expanded the \"mole\" character, making him both more sympathetic and three dimensional. Take it from me, judge this junk from the cover on the video box. The cover is poorly drawn Disney schlock, clearly grabbing for an easy buck from an unsuspecting parent. If this was a stand alone flick, it wouldn't be so bad, but riding on the coattails of a brilliant piece like Atlantis makes it utterly inexcuseable.
\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 will not say much about this film, because there is not much to say, because there is not much there to talk about. The only good thing about this movie is that our favorite characters from \"Atlantis: The Lost Empire\" are back. Several of the bad things about this movie are that it has horrible characters, it has horrible comedy, horrible animation, and James Arnold Taylor trying to copy the wonderful, one and only Michael J. Fox as Milo James Thatch. The reasons for my criticisms are that all the characters are changed into something that they never were, and never should be, animation that has been downgraded to the lowest extent possible, and finally, why would somebody who did wonderful voice-over work for Obi-Wan Kenobi in \"Clone Wars\" want to copy Michael J. Fox? I happen to have an answer to this. Because they are the same person who thought he had to copy Eddie Murphy from Mulan in Mulan II. Yes, sadly, it is true.
.
\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\nBecause Disney more often than not, ignores the animation quality and a need for a good plot in their sequels, this was actually a nice surprise. I don't know why Disney does not pay more attention to their sequels. The graphics quality is always inferior; no backgrounds worthy of the name Disney, inane plots, and worse dialog, with little or no attention given to the actual story, and the caricature drawings are almost always worse than Saturday morning cartoons in detail and quality.
The animation quality is still poor when compared to Disney originals, and the dialog is quite trite, the story line and overall execution was really quite enjoyable.
While it is not as captivating, it does not completely fail to capture the charm and/or mystery from the first. There is some hint of it, tucked away here and there.
The children will like it, at any rate.
It rates a 4.5/10 from...
the Fiend :.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen I put this movie in my DVD player, and sat down with a coke and some chips, I had some expectations. I was hoping that this movie would contain some of the strong-points of the first movie: Awsome animation, good flowing story, excellent voice cast, funny comedy and a kick-ass soundtrack. But, to my disappointment, not any of this is to be found in Atlantis: Milo's Return. Had I read some reviews first, I might not have been so let down. The following paragraph will be directed to those who have seen the first movie, and who enjoyed it primarily for the points mentioned.
When the first scene appears, your in for a shock if you just picked Atlantis: Milo's Return from the display-case at your local videoshop (or whatever), and had the expectations I had. The music feels as a bad imitation of the first movie, and the voice cast has been replaced by a not so fitting one. (With the exception of a few characters, like the voice of Sweet). The actual drawings isnt that bad, but the animation in particular is a sad sight. The storyline is also pretty weak, as its more like three episodes of Schooby-Doo than the single adventurous story we got the last time. But dont misunderstand, it's not very good Schooby-Doo episodes. I didnt laugh a single time, although I might have sniggered once or twice.
To the audience who haven't seen the first movie, or don't especially care for a similar sequel, here is a fast review of this movie as a stand-alone product: If you liked schooby-doo, you might like this movie. If you didn't, you could still enjoy this movie if you have nothing else to do. And I suspect it might be a good kids movie, but I wouldn't know. It might have been better if Milo's Return had been a three-episode series on a cartoon channel, or on breakfast TV.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat the (beep) is going wrong with Disney the last years? Are there totally run out of good ideas? Where is the magic? Where are the good animators, the good songwriters, the good directors, the good... Okay, i know, Walt himself and the famous \"nine old man\" can't come back. But is this a reason to crank out countless of those cheap sequels and slowly but surely destroying the ideals of Walt Disney? I never rent or bought a Disney-sequel of what movie however. Because i had read much enough about its (absence of) quality. But \"Atlantis: Milo's Return\" was aired today on TV in Germany and so i watch it. It confirmed my doubts about sequels. It was absolutely boring. Flaw animation, primitive color-rotation, simple characters, some unsuccessful tries to simulate the famous Multiplane-Camera with CGI, mediocre music and a patchwork of different, simple stories. It looks absolutely not like Disney! Not like Disney i know! It looks like one of the countless, cheap and simple animation-series like \"DragonballZ\", \"Beyblade\" etc. that aired every day on TV for children.
My first reaction after showing this crap, was to load \"Bambi\" in my DVD-Player, to see Disney's immortal magic, depth, spirit and charm again, to see Disney on its climax again, to see the awesome art of handmade animation again. \"Bambi\" was the first (and until today the only) movie that i give 10 out of 10 stars. But \"Atlantis: Milo's Return\"? No magic, no depth, no charm, no spirit... It deserved only 3 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 wish i could find some good things to say about this animated sequel(but not really a sequel)to \"Atlantis:The Lost Empire\"but this would be a very short comment.the magic that the first one had is nowhere to be found here.the animation is pretty poor all over,the characters themselves are not very well drawn.the backgrounds and the foregrounds are also not good.there's very little attention to detail here.and instead of a compelling and engaging story,we have 3 short stories which are boring and don't make a lot of sense.i swear,even the characters sounded like they were bored,and would rather be somewhere else.which says that the voice actors were bored and wanted to be someplace else,at least that's the impression.some of the same actors return for this dismal effort,but an integral par of the success of the first one was Michael J.Fox as the main hero, Milo Thatch.i get the distinct impression this movie was just thrown together to capitalize on the success of the first one,without much thought or care.but at least Cree Summer returns as the voice of \"Kida\".that's probably the only good thing about this movie,and even she doesn't seem to have her heart completely in it.mind you,i guess you couldn't blame any of the cast for not giving their all,considering what they had to work with.or rather not work with.this is a straight to video movie(and i use the term loosely)which should have went straight to the nearest landfill.anyway,shame on Disney.consumers deserve much better than this.this one gets a 0/10 and a well deserved one at that.p.u
\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 horrible, and it doesn't even deserve to be called a movie. The way I look at it, it's more like three mediocre day-time Disney cartoon episodes strung loosely together to make a single video that pretends to be the sequel to the first Atlantis movie, which was way more well-made and enjoyable. And where do i even begin with the problems of this DVD? The story? The characters? The pictures/animation? To me they're all bad and unwatchable. Firstly, the story in this direct-to-video DVD is ridiculous and pointless. The only good thing about it is that it is consistent--that is, consistently bad, from the beginning to the end. After the film's over i still don't know why Milo has returned and how the incidents occur in the three small stories are related to each other or to Atlantis itself. And all I could remember about this movie was how bad it makes me feel after seeing it. The characters feel wooden and lack personality, and the drawings look a lot different than that in the first. You can tell they're obviously not from the hands of the same animators from the first one. As the DVD played on, i found myself caring less and less about what might happen to the characters and just hoping the film would end soon. Besides the story and the characters mentioned above, the picture quality is poor in this one too, probably one of the worst in those direct-to-video products that Disney has ever released. As a fan of the the original Atlantis: the lost empire, I couldn't be more disappointed in Milo's return, which is a total waste of time and money. Thank goodness I rented it first instead of buying it. Even so, I still wish I'd never seen this crap or even known its existence.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMy main criticism with the movie is the animation. I totally agree with everyone else it was very poor. Some of the characters seemed to have darker skin tones than they did in the first film, which is much better. Also the background colours looked rushed and somewhat static. It is also a shame that Michael J.Fox didn't voice Milo, he did such a good job, and James Arnold Taylor wasn't sure whether he was supposed to sound like Milo or Aladdin. I have also taken into consideration the lack of a good storyline. the third story was confusing and clumsily told, and the second story suffered from poor scripting. To make things worse, the first one I can't even remember, other than a fishing village being haunted or something like that. However, there was some nice music, and good voice talents from John Mahoney, Cree Summer, Clancy Brown and Tom Wilson, that saved the film from total disaster. All in all, a disappointing sequel to a surprisingly good film. 4/10 Bethany Cox.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am finding that I get less and less excited about Disney's sequels to movies. Yes, I do understand that the budget for the direct to video movies are not the same, but these movies don't even try. Some examples are Hunchback II and Tarzan and Jane. If anyone has seen the previews for Stitch-The Movie, you will see my point. But I digress, this movie reaffirms my point. The animation is sloppy, the story lines resemble Saturday morning cartoons, and not all of the original voices are there. I was very disappointed not to hear Michael J. Fox's voice. It was so glaringly obvious that the person doing Milo's voice was trying to sound like Fox, but didn't come close to succeeding.
If it says anything, my children ages 10 and 6 didn't even sit through the whole 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\nHi there. I watched the first part when it came out, and I don't remember having left such a bad impression on me as this one.
First, the animation is choppy, wooden, not worked on, lacks naturality - I understand the drawing style was to be of some 'atlantean' kind, but, it could be done with the usual Disney finesse... see \"Tarzan\" to see what I mean. If I didn't see the DISNEY logo in the beginning, I would never say it was a Disney movie.
Second, the plot was more like a PC game style, like a good old quest. Not that it was bad, but it lacked a story that binds the viewer to the characters and their goals. It was inconvincing, at least. The film was meant for children, but this was waaay to childish at times.
Third, the music... I would say it was improper, but it just fits the whole scene with the plot and animation...
Overall, I think this was some kind of an amusement, just by-the-way kind of project by several apprentice animators, just to fill in the count for Disney movies. Sorry to hear that from myself, a big Disney lover...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm sorry to say this but I didn't enjoy this movie at all. It was just too boring. So boring that I couldn't watch the rest of it. It's not as interesting as the Lion King or Aladdin. That's why I hate this stupid days because these days are just not what they used to be. The movies that Disney have released lately really sucks! I miss the old days when they used to produce good movies like the Lion King, Aladdin, Pocahontas, Cinderella, The Aristocats, and Robin Hood. This movie is really awful. I really tried my best to be interested in this movie but I just couldn't. I don't think I could recommend this film to anyone. I would recommend the ones that I just mention above.
\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 this show did not get a 0 is because one is not available. This show has gone from informative news to sensationalized claptrap. I tried to support this show in its decline, because I like human interest stories and Primetime used to have some very good ones. Unfortunately, April 21st has forever changed my mind about this show and the unethical newscasters that participate in it. ABC actually recorded a brutal case of child abuse and then refused to show it until the statute of limitations had run out and the parents could not be arrested on the charges they should have faced. What made it worse was how ABC swept the whole incident under the rug; instead of taking charge and seeking true professional help for these disturbed individuals, they had some pop psychologists send stern warnings TO THE AUDIENCE about how they shouldn't judge these poor angels too harshly. I was truly sickened. I hope this review stops one person from watching this investigative trash in the future. If it does, I will be happy. These days, all you can expect from Diane Sawyer and the good folks from Primetime Live are butt-kissing sessions with A-list celebrities and criminal acts covered up and praised to the stars. Don't waste the hour of your life; you'd be better off watching an old sitcom on Nick at Nite.
\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\nHANA-BI has many quiet moments and fairly slow pacing. Unfortunately, during the many thoughtful interludes the viewer is left to ponder about the recent scenes just watched and many questions surface and annoy.
For example, why didn't the wheelchair guy drown in the ocean when he was stuck in the sand and the tide came up around him? There was no rescue seen or hinted at.
Can it be true that Japanese police are so inept and unskilled at arrest procedures as to not first remove the suspect's ability to reach for a weapon? These detective-level Japanese police seemed to have no experience dealing with a suspect.
Why doesn't the right eye of the lead character blink? Having one eye blinking was distracting and it went unexplained.
What exactly was the lead character spending all his money on to have to borrow so much from loan sharks? He was not seen gambling. Being a non entry-level government employee his wife must have had full health insurance.
What was the single man doing all by himself in the middle of nowhere in the nature park? What was his reason for being there?
How in the world could the gangsters find the lead character and his wife up in the far off nature reserve? It made no sense.
And again, how could the gangsters later find the lead character and his wife up in the remote Mt. Fuji resort? There were absolutely no clues available for these gangsters to even know which country the lead character and his wife were in, let alone the correct specific location at the correct specific time!
And a third same question, how could the junior detectives know which few feet of the Japanese coast line to find the lead character and his wife? The Japanese coast line must be vast. Were all of these characters supposed to have psychic powers?
Two final questions: The cute girl trying to fly a kite on the beach -- WHERE did she come from? She seemed to have no transportation or companions with her. And why in the world did she still keep attempting to fly what was left of her kite after it was ripped in pieces?! This was weird. Unintentionally Python-esque.
On the positive side, I loved the background music. It was dramatic and flowing and added much to this movie. The photography, imagery and art were pleasing to the eye.
One final point, the wife was overly pleasing to the eye. Not once did she ever come close to looking like a dying sick person. She looked very healthy. If anything, these people seemed depressed and mentally ill and not physically sick. The husband treated his wife as perhaps a newly outed gay man would treat a respected wife... a love of friendship, but not close tenderness.
A mixed movie for sure.
\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\nSo, it has come to this. In the top-rated comment on this flick, somebody says \"Nishi is an honorable man\". Really? This is a guy who mainly kills and maims people in the movie. He takes a short break to rob a bank. Honorable? How would you like your kids to go to school with the kids of someone who calls that honorable? Wait, there's more! The person also says \"we can tell he's constantly thinking.\" How can we do that? Well, do you know that joke \"How can you tell when a CEO/politician/lawyer is lying?\" ... \"His/her lips move.\" Well, Nishi's lips never move, so I guess that means he is thinking.
Of course, this is existentialism to warm the hearts of the cult of victimization. Existentalism supposedly stresses that an individual take responsibility for the consequences of one's acts. Not Nishi. Borrow money from the yakuza. What, they want it back? Kill them. The cops find out. Kill yourself and your wife.
Really honorable.
\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 don't see how anyone could enjoy this movie. I don't think I've ever seen a movie half as boring as this self-indulgent piece of junk. It probably would have been better if the director hadn't spent most of the movie showcasing his own art work, which really isn't that noteworthy. Another thing I didn't really like is when a character got punched in the face, a gallon of blood would spew forth soon after. I don't know how folks bleed over there in Japan, but I hope they have plenty of blood donors.
\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\nInfamous horror films seldom measure up the hype that surrounds them and I have yet to come across a worse offender than Wes Craven's The Hills Have Eyes. Having held back from watching this for years, I was really pleased when I got it for Christmas and waited for an evening when my girlfriend was out to settle down and watch it - knowing her extreme dislike for anything genuinely horrifying. I needn't have bothered.
After a promising - if familiar - start, that firmly sets the film in the 'Desolution USA' world of survival horror, things rapidly go to pieces when the protagonists and antagonists meet in the deserted wasteland.
Looking like it was shot on a budget of $5, with the cannibal clan's costumes hired from a dodgy fancy dress shop that specialises in faux caveman and Red Indian attire, the story follows an annoying bunch of unsympathetic WASPs who take a detour on a road trip to California, to look for a silver mine in a nuclear testing zone (!). When they break down they are set upon by the local family of flesh-eaters and have to fight to survive.
While hoping for another Deliverance, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Wrong Turn or Devil's Rejects, I actually realised I'd stumbled across something that should have remained dusty and unwatched in a backstreet video store's bargain bin.
With gallons of tomato ketchup for blood and a couple of gruesome wound close-ups, I can kind of see how an 18 Certificate (in the UK) is justified, but with those close-ups trimmed this wouldn't have looked out of place as a Saturday afternoon thriller on ITV.
The whole silver mine/nuclear test site subplot is just a McGuffin to justify pitching the 'civilised' family against the primitives, but given how easily the savages get their asses whupped it stretches credibility to think that they had survived for a generation preying on passers-by.
And then there's the ending ... or lack thereof. The Hills Have Eyes seems to be missing either a third act or, at the very least, a satisfying denouement. Instead, I was just left wondering: \"Yeah, and ... ?\"
\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 recommended to me by several people, and after reading all the positive comments from this site I went ahead and bought a copy of the film off ebay. The acting in the film is average and a bit hammy, especially by the family of cannibals, one sequence comes to mind when Jupiter is ranting and raving to the burnt corpse, speaking right into the camera. Its one of those performances where you just cringe and feel bad for that poor actor. Its also evidence of some of the worst editing I've seen, theres a terrible jump cut right in the middle of his \"speech\". There are a few creepy moments though, and at times the music works well...but overall the film isnt that great and I dont know why people think Wes Craven is that great of a director. Thus far he hasn't showed me anything that I believe to be brilliant, the only thing that improved with Cravens films, production to prodution was his budget.
\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\nTagline: the lucky ones died...before watching this.
I've never watched a Bulgarian movie from 1920's, so I can't say this is the worst movie ever made, but it surely is the worst movie I've ever watched. I can't almost remember it.
All I can recall is a family of stupid people who don't do anything right. Their car has one wheel out of four stuck in the sand, so they decide that there's nothing to do and prepare to live the rest of their lives there. Then there's an old man who is aware of the existence of a band of cannibals in the whereabouts but has never considered the idea to report the fact to the police.
And, speaking of the police...if those freaks have lived around there eating humans for years, lots of people must have disappeared...how come the sheriff didn't suspect anything?
But I gave up asking questions after the first five minutes or so. The rest is bore. An hallucinated unbelievable bore.
I will be merciful and won't speak about the dialogues. And the acting. And the effects.
I will only mention the final scene, where the freak girl eliminates a snake (the snakes! they come out in the end, what the hell do they have to do with the story?) with a sniper-precise throw of a stone, demonstrating the full disregard of Mr. Craven for reality and for things that happen on planet Earth in general.
I believe there have been riots when the film was first released in 1977.
Even being eaten by a cannibal wouldn't be a fair punishment to the director for this attack on intelligence.
\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 hills have eyes is not a great film by any stretch of the imagination.for one the villains look almost normal,not what you would expect deranged lunatics to look like.for another the pacing is very slow at times and there are many scenes of the characters repeating themselves.by that,i mean there is a lot of filler in the movie, with a lot of running around aimlessly.the film didn't have a clear direction.the plot of the movie is hardly original,even for its time.the Texas chainsaw massacre came out a few year earlier and is a much more effective film, as far as horror goes.the film has little in the way of scares, and the pounding soundtrack just served to be both grating and distracting all at once.i suppose the music was used to cover up the fact that not much happens through much of the movie, though it failed in its intended purpose.i basically kept looking at the time every few seconds hoping something would happen or it would end .when something finally did happen any promise the film had was ruined by mere chaos and loud noise.i sat through it because i like to give a film the benefit of the doubt.yes, there is some loud screaming,and yes people die,but who cares.much too slow getting to any sort of pay off,if you can call it that.my buddy enjoyed it, so at least one of us got something out of it.the hills have eyes isn't the worst film we could have watched, but i doubt i will watch it again.this film was remade in 2006 and i will also have review of that version.anyway, this movie was painfully slow at times, while other times was chaotic and repetitive.unless you like watching paint dry, occasionally interspersed with someone running around your block, screaming their head off, stay away from this movie.a better bet would be the original Texas chainsaw massacre(1973)1.5* out of 10* which is being generous
\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 never really been interested in cannibal movies before and up until a couple of months ago i had avoided this genre of movie.
I recently had to undergo knee surgery and found i had a lot of time on my hands as i was unable to work, so i decided after seeing almost every horror movie our local video shop had to offer i would take a chance on this.
Christ was it a mistake! I have never seen a movie this bad in all my years of being a movie addict. This is just a pile of s**t pasted to a D.V.D disc and sold as a horror movie.
I have a lot of respect to other horror fans who can switch their brains off long enough to enjoy this crap, They are more brain dead than i ever will be and that is some achievement! 0/10 and thats generous.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"