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\nSome aspects of this production are good, such as the performances of Angela Lansbury, George Hearn, Cris Groenendaal, and Sal Mistretta. But am I the only one who is distracted by the horrible performance by Betsy Joslyn as Johanna? She is terrible! She slauters the songs with her screechy voice and overacts in a role she clearly doesn't understand. I also think the chorus isn't up to snuff. They drag the tempo and make the worst facial expressions. Overall, I think this production is okay, but Sweeney Todd can be so much more if done correctly. This production doesn't come near the level this material demands. The concert version with George Hearn and Patti LuPone is much better.
\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\nAmong the many accolades here for this production, there was one individual whose comments asked if he/she were the only one (who wasn't that enthralled by it) - i.e. giving this film 3 stars. However, the comment went on to indicate an overall liking of the story, and other production of same. Well, this person isn't the \"only one,\" who didn't like this production (include me!) but there I part company even with him/her. If you put a gun to my head and asked me to make a choice between your shooting me or watching this flick again, I'd watch it, certainly - but I'd probably spend 10 seconds thinking about it. I'd much prefer being locked into solitary confinement, or having to watch paint dry on a wall, though. Further, I wouldn't want to see this story again, anytime, anywhere, or in any alternative presentation. Sometimes you feel like comedian George Gobel's \"pair of brown shoes when the rest of the world is a tuxedo,\" and this is one of those for me. I liked Angela Lansbury in a favorite movie of mine, \"Long Hot Summer,\" and while not a huge fan of the show, enjoyed \"Murder, She Wrote.\" But HERE -- I not only didn't care for the story or other aspects, but I found Angela's squealing, squawking, singing, and everything else about her over-the-top performance, perhaps the MOST ANNOYING presence in any movie (or presentation in any other media) I've ever experienced. It was like an unending continuation of Audrey Hepburn's equally \"over-the top\" Cockney chortling at Rex Harrison - in the earlier portions of \"My Fair Lady.\" But that was incident to the plot, presented for light, comedic effect, and (mercifully) brief. Unmercifully, this was anything but brief, and to me seemed as if it had gone-on for about 10 hours (Einstein's layman's explanation of \"relativity\" at work.) If I hadn't been with friends, with the necessity to remain, MY viewing would have been brief. I laughed, though, at the \"Seinfeld\" episode where Elaine pisses everyone off because she tells them how much she disliked \"The English Patient.\" My friends somewhat regarded me the same way when I interrupted their waxing ecstatically over this movie. Give me some dragging fingernails loudly over a chalk board anytime 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\nThis movie was one of the worst I have ever seen (not including anything by or with Pauly Shore). I couldn't believe that a film could actually be THIS bad!
Coolio has to be the single worst actor (again, not including Pauly Shore) to ever \"star\" in a movie. The temptation to hit the STOP button during this movie was huge (in fact, if there was a THROW IN THE TRASH button on my VCR, I would have been inclined to press that).
Do yourself a favor, and do something more interesting than watch this movie, like watching the grass grow, or watching golf on 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\nOkay, I just had to sound off on this one... Like a tremendous mental-gimp, I've just sat through this film in its entirety.
You'll note that the trivia section of IMDB points out that portions of the raising of the 747 were \"borrowed\" from Airport 1977. This really doesn't scratch the surface... Virtually all exterior shots of the plane skimming the ocean, landing in, sinking, and even the at-rest shots are borrowed from Airport '77. All of the \"raising\" shots are pulled from '77, including most of the interior flooding clips, with the exception of Dennis Weaver's drowning. I couldn't help but wonder if Olivia Dehavilland might come floating by at any moment, or maybe a \"dead\" Tom Sullivan. Another eye-roller: Dennis Weaver's name in this film is Stevens, which is to compensate for the fact that Airport '77's plane is owned by the Stevens Corporation (headed by Jimmie Stewart of course).
This is a veritable calvalcade of actors who don't work much, or at least haven't worked in a while, which might have been the first clue that it was going to be a real stinker.
I've rated this film a 2 - It's quite worthy of a \"1\", but if this film can't offer any other redeeming quality, at least somebody helped Coolio, Max Caulfield, Nicolle Eggert, and Dennis Weaver make their car payments that month!
\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\nBoring, ridicules and stupid \"Submerged\" is a waste of time. The shootouts were a joke, real people do not just stand out in the open with out any cover, hoping to get shot first! So many things wrong or bad, not worth the effort to list, except one major flaw. At 500 mph for 20 minutes = about 166 miles west of L.A. and the water is 100ft deep??? Even at that, none of the people would have survived the decompression from being subjected to 100ft of water pressure for more then 20 hours when they were brought up. Just a awful.
\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 terrible movie that only gets worse and seems to never end. The acting was bad, the plot was worse, and the special effects seemed to have been created by a 5th grade science class. Dennis Weaver is such a great actor and should have never taken such a part. My advise, DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film has to rank down there with Ed Wood films. A terrible script and bad, bad acting.
A machine gun fight in front of plate glass windows; minutes go by before anyone is hit and nobody has cover - not one window ever breaks. You'd think after a fire fight like that the big U-Haul truck might be riddled - not a scratch.
Do CIA agents and government contractors =shout= Top Secret information at a stand-up cocktail party with hundreds of people around.
There isn't one actor you care about; everyone is shallow and basically unlikable.
A Hawaii bound 747 flies out of Los Angeles and crashes twenty minutes later in the Pacific \"...in 100 feet of water...\". A short time passes when the stewardess announces to the five other passengers they only have two hours of air left; on a 747?
The next day the rescue teams show-up and amazingly the six passengers are still alive.
A movie that starts out mediocre and goes from bad to worse.

\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\"Submerged\" is definitely NOT \"the worst movie ever\". It does have its flaws, such as borrowed footage, crazy script and non-existent special effects (these are the worst), but it also has some good points too. The acting is surprisingly good, there are LOTS of familiar faces whom you probably know if u're a b-movie fan like me.
I was very glad to see Brent Huff playing one of the heroes, knowing him mostly for his 80's action films, and i must admit, he is not a bad actor at all. Fred Williamson, Maxwell Caulfield & Tim Thomerson get some limited screen time, but are believable in their parts. The \"eye-candies\" in this Fred Olen Ray movie are Yvette Nipar and Nicole Eggert, both looking very sexy and very mean. Michael Bailey Smith adds some muscle to the background as a Navy SEAL. Unfortunately the only cast member who (in my opinion) is completely out of place is Coolio. He doesn't act at all, talks like he didn't even read the script, and being a badass in the beginning of the movie, gets shot like a wimp a hour later. Not a good choice.
To sum this movie up - this is not such a bad choice for late night entertainment. If you can get over the special effects thing (so many guns, so much fire, and not a single wound on anyone), Coolio's annoying performance, and the recycled footage from Airport 77, you might like this no-brainer after all.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere is part of one sequence where some water rushes into the sunken plane, everything else that happens in this movie is stock footage for Airport 77. You can even make out Jack Lemmon and Christopher Lee in some of the shots. A total rip off? Well almost by definition. There may be more stock footage in this film than in Plan 9 From Outer Space.
All the new material, actors sitting around in an airplane set talking, is bland and terrible on every level. Dennis Weaver is totally wasted in a career low movie, though that's true for everyone other than this films director Fred Olen Ray, who uses one of this many necessary fake names in order to keep working.
There is a level of scant professionalism that makes this film such a waste of time, it would actually be better if shot by someone with no technical knowledge at all, because Ray has just enough knowledge about how to put together a scene in the worst old school TV fashion that this film, like most of his films, is totally devoid of life. The worst kind of hack work. The worst kind of film. Boring.
This type of film is a waste of money, an affair where the crew on all levels are ghosts hoping to get whatever scant pay check they can and that no one will see or know they appeared/ participated in this rip off. There are so many people who want to make movies it's disgusting to see Ray burn up the money given to do nothing more but fill time.
His commentary track is interesting in that he has to start it by explaining that he is really Fred Ray as he isn't credited on the film itself. That tricked me into seeing it don't let it trick you.
\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\nYou have to see this movie, it's a big footnote in the history of film. When this film was made, American film industry reached the bottom of sucking. See this movie, laugh, and feel sorry for yourself for wasting the last 2 hours of your life. It's the worst acting I've seen and even worse directing. The villains laugh like they're taken from a clown circus and if the guys who did \"Scary Movie\" want to do a parody on superhero movies they only have to take the script from this movie and do a remake, called Black Scorpion III: The threat of really really bad movies who in some way manages to lure the production companies into a sequel suicide.
\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 really a terrible film by any of the regular yardsticks. Plot, storyline, acting, effects, direction - I could go on. Suffice to say it's poor. However, it has a certain appeal. Many totally out of context sex scenes appear, it's fun looking for the Batman references. Umm - that's it. Poor really, 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\nPun intended. This low budget action/horror vehicle for Don Wilson's ability to kick things is the stuff direct-to-video fare is made of.
The plot: Wilson is a humorless vampire hunter who comes under fire from local law enforcement after he is forced to slaughter creatures of the night in view of the public. Police chase him, vampires chase him, he responds by kicking...a lot.
There is a little more to the story, but it is so inconsequential that I honestly can't remember it; I think people actually spoke in the movie, but that's up to debate. The plot is nothing more than a set-up for Wilson to kill as many vampires as possible in the running time, usually by kicking them.
The technical specs are, in a word, anemic. Little color treating, amateurish use of lighting, simplistic use of camera and angle. Blood and gore is noticeably limited, odd for this type of film. The most hurtful of the filming foul-ups is the jarring shift to super-shaky cam during each and every fight scene. If the camera begins to bounce around like a reese monkey on speed, then you know Don is about to start kicking everything in sight.
All in all, this is the kind of bad movie that can be made good with a few friends and a lot of cynical humor. Otherwise, do not watch, unless you really like to watch things get kicked.
3/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDon Wilson stars as Jack Cutter (Ooh real tough name!)a vampire slayer who goes up against a vampire army, you see the story is a little different because vampires can't be killed with silver, crosses or sunlight but rather through snapping their necks (How convenient as it cuts down on the budget) and it's here Cutter runs into a reporter (Melanie Smith of Trancers III fame) Night Hunter's action sequences shake for no reason during the fight sequences and although it's meant to emphasize the mood, it just makes the movie more jarring. What is worse is that these fight sequences are botched beyond belief as Wilson's martial artistry is disguised by disjointed editing. Of course the most interest comes from the fact that indeed this predates Blade, however the problem is that this was done on a small budget and that it had Don Wilson in it. It's from Roger Corman and basically this turkey is a movie most people would pay NOT to see. I unfortunately am a bottom feeder and I cater to the section of the store looking for gems, in this line of work you always run into turds. With Night Hunter, I just may have the world's stinkiest turd.
1/2* out of 4-(Awful)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI think vampire movies (usually) are wicked. Even if the film itself isn't all that good, I still like it 'cos its got vampires in it. But this stinks. It really does give vampire movies a bad name.
For a start, the cheapness really shows. I'm not usually that bothered about low budget films - one of my favourite all-time movies is El Mariachi which only cost $7000 - but I hate this. The actions a load of crap as well, resorting to a 'stylish' wobbling camera which gives you headache.
Theres not much more to say other than don't watch this. I bought it for £1.50 as it was an ex-rental and I feel cheated out of my money, even for that low price.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhile credited as a Tom and Jerry cartoon, this is not the cat-and-mouse team but an earlier Mutt-and-Jeff rip-off featuring them going to Africa and disguising themselves in the stereotypical burnt cork makeup to try to blend in. While the dialect humor is mostly lame, there is a brief musical sequence involving \"black skeletons\" that was entertaining. I have to ask however, how could Tom and Jerry still have their makeup stay on even after being dumped in the water a couple of times? One of many entries produced by the Van Beuren Corporation for distribution by RKO Radio Pictures before RKO made a deal with Disney. Only worth seeing if you're an animation buff or is interested in how certain ethnicities were stereotyped as entertainment way back when.
\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\nTom and Jerry are transporting goods via airplane to Africa. But being white men, they're worried they won't be safe, so they put on blackface to fit in. Once they're wearing it, they adopt black dialect and fully inhabit their new characters. They crash into the ocean and use the wing of the plane as a raft. Before reaching land, they suffer the advances of an over-affectionate octopus and more serious danger from sharks, a swordfish and a whale. Once on land, they're frightened by fantastic creatures, and duck into a cave. Inside it's even worse when they encounter living skeletons in blackface. And upon exiting the cave, things are even worse than that when they are discovered by cannibals.
\"Plane Dumb\" is an especially sloppy effort from Van Beuren Studios. One example: a lion, unknown to Tom and Jerry, enters the cave before they do. But the animators must have forgotten about it, because the lion never appears again. Another example is the ending that's not an ending: it's just an arbitrary stop.
According to a YouTube poster, the cartoon \"was originally intended to feature the voices AND caricatures of a popular 'Negro' comedy team known as Miller & Lyles. But Aubrey Lyles died of tuberculosis before the recording session was completed, and co-directors John Foster & George Rufle were forced to rework the animation into a 'Tom & Jerry' story.\"
They shouldn't have bothered. The crude animation and poorly-executed gags make the film a loser from beginning to end.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was under assumption that this was the cat and mouse duo but it wasn't instead it was something that shouldn't have been made not even for its time. They disguise themselves in the \"blackface\" fashion because they fly to Africa and they even act like Stepin Fetchit and all the others rolled into one. There are some cartoons that are racist but they are classics, being a mixed woman I have the right to say this, but if you are into the historical aspect of these cartoons try Merrie Melodies \"Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs\" or \"Angel Puss\" you won't find them on DVD because the distributors promised not to put them in the mainstream, but you can find them on a site as YouTube. I don't recommend little kids seeing this but if you want to see how early America was racist and ignorant these are better suggestions, not to mention this particular cartoon has poor animation, i know it was 1932, but I have seen better for its time.
\"Plane\" unnecessary. -1 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 God, the things that passed for entertainment in this country...
This is *not* the \"Tom and Jerry\" you may have enjoyed on Saturday Mornings, featuring a hapless cat and a clever mouse. This is a much earlier animation series, featuring a pair of Mutt-and-Jeff clones who get themselves into various scrapes that result in any of the then-typical dancing-skeleton-type gags that made up so much of early animation.
This particularly vile outing, apparently originally intended as a vehicle for a pair of actual black stage comedians of the time, has the pair crashing in the ocean while flying to Africa, necessitating black-face make-up, exaggerated \"negro\" dialect and \"Feets, don't fail me now\" situations.
It only shows that in the 70 years between emancipation and this film, the American view of Africans hadn't progressed much. Then again, at least one of them apparently had a pilot's license.
\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 a scientifically-engineered super-dog that was supposed to be the answer to petit crime, CHOMPS was a chump.
All I ever saw Chomps do was sit, or walk, or run. Or run, then walk, then sit... and then get back up again and stretch, and then walk, and then jog to K-Tel dance hits. And sometimes it had all the answers to the daily Jumbo. But mostly it just sat a lot.
All I am saying is: In a Celebrity Death Match, Chomps couldn't take out Mr. Bigglesworth.
\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\nC.H.O.M.P.S. is very much like any number of cheesy late 70s Disney family comedys-The Cat from Outer Space or Unidentified Flying Oddball, for instance. Utterly devoid of anything creative, beating the same cliches to death, yet vaguely entertaining in a mindless sort of way. The actors won't win any awards, nor will the director, writer, or FX crew, but in its inoffensive ness and bland predicatability there is some vague entertainment to be had. The idea of the robot dog as security system is so full of holes you could use it as a colander. The incredibly repetative disco soundtrack will stick in your head, so beware.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\ni think south park is hilarious, and i have no problem w/them taking shots at people on the left, but you'd think that, after taking a whole movie to attack celebrities for risking their careers taking on an illegal war, and then being GASP right along, they would have the sense to start giving w. and the bastards ruining the country a shot or two. bush seems to get a pretty free run from these guys for as stupid and messed up as he is.
gore is fair game, but please, what do the republicans have to do, how bad do they have to f^&k up the country before these guys finally act like maybe they aren't just trying to do the best they can, and that they have done some true screwing up...or maybe just go after rush limbaugh...hes a good target...or even just make fun of condoleeza rice's gap teeth.
\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\nAn awful film; badly written, badly acted, cliched, hackneyed, dross. The premise is such a good one and a chance to educate about black cowboys but the film is truly dire. It is a curious mix of a bad 1950's Randolph Scott B movie and a bad 1970's spaghetti western. The villains are cardboard, the flashbacks laughable, the dialogue excruciating.
The deliberate anachronisms (such as 'Victorian' rap singers and modern swear words like \"motherf****er\"), are irritating to the extreme.
A Frankenstein monster that died on the lab table.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis move is bad on so many levels I don't even know where to start. OK - the good points - Peebles is beautiful as a dirty outlaw in black leather. Some of the landscape photography was stunning. That's about it. Oh, and it was a nice touch having the buffalo head above the bar door in Freemanville, I figure it was a nod to the Buffalo Soldiers. The movie starts sort of OK but the characters are so flat, so comic book, so 'much', the bad guys are just over the top bad, I choke trying to describe them further. The Spanish-Cuban-American war was 1895-1898 with America being involved only in April to August of '98. I think the movie said it took place in 1893 (I could be wrong but I don't want to look at it again to check). A big part of this movie hinged on the KKK killing Jessie's daddy. Well boys, the original KKK started in 1865 and was destroyed by President Andrew Johnson in 1871. The Klan wasn't even around during the time period of this movie. Of course the nasty bas**rds got busy again in 1915 and we know the rest of that. BUT for the purpose of the movie it is historically incorrect and that was a major part of the plot. I think I could make myself crazy going into it a lot more so here a few jabs and I'm done. I didn't know that Boyz2Men and other bands like that got their inspiration from New Orleans street singers from the 1890's. I also didn't know that fetish necklaces were all the rage for Sioux women in the 1890's...but then I was surprised to see a bar singer doing jazz while wearing acrylic 1\" nails... We just about died laughing and I like a cheesy western more than most people do. Such a waste of talent and money - this really had the chance to show a part of American history that isn't well known. http://www.coax.net/people/lwf/bkcwboy2.htm for some more information. This could have been so good but it was just....bad from 1-10 this gets a 1 instead of a zero because Mario looks good in his hat and there was an Appaloosa horse in the film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt's not just that the movie is lame. It's more than that. This movie is just unnecessary. Do we need another Western? How about a western with afro-Americans in the titles roles? Sound stupid, implausible and a lame attempt at modernizing the genre? It is. Incredibly lame and simple minded. It's like that lame Baz Luhrman film \"Romeo and Juliet\" where he set it in modern times to attract young folks and create some hype with his revamping of a classic tale. Well, Baz Luhrman failed miserably and so does this mess. The story is actually not bad however the whole idea of removing the racism out of a racist genre by casting an all afro-American cast is racist in itself. It's also puerile and simple minded (like Baz Luhrman-man he's a bad director). Hey (I hear you say) this was directed by Mario Van Peebles! He's also IN the film! How can it be racist? It's not. I said the idea of casting all afro-Americans instead of Caucasians was. The film isn't racist, it's just pointless, stupid and very very boring.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is the worst movie of ALL TIME! It's one of those that is so ridiculous and the acting so bad that you turn off the video 1/3 into it so that you can use your time for better purposes like cleaning the toilet. If you actually watch the whole thing, GOD help you.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWow, what a racist, profane piece of celluloid garbage, and what an insult to the great genre of Westerns.
Exploitive? Sex scenes abound, profanity abounds, violence and gore abounds.....everything that gives modern movies such a good name, especially among those who prefer classic-era movies. This is the kind of sleaze that gives the old folks ammunition against today's films.
Somehow I just can't picture nude male bathing scenes in Randolph Scott or Gene Autrey films. Nor can I picture hearing \"motherf---er!\" exclaimed here and there. I sincerely doubt that word was even around over 100 years ago. Yet, the f-word is so prevalent here you'd think you were watching a story centered in today's urban areas, not the old west of the 1800s.
Prejudice? Well, what if all the white characters were good guys and every black person was the nasty, brutal villain? Do you think someone might complain about a racist movie? Home come we don't hear an outcry when the reverse - as demonstrated in this film - is shown in hundreds of theaters across the country?
Mario Van Peeples wrote, directed and starred in this bomb. Remember that name. Apparently, he is the \"Ed Wood\" of today's filmmakers. Even Spike Lee wouldn't be this racist. You can't get much worse than 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\nIn my opinion, the movie was laughable--bad dialogue. Whoever wrote the script--please keep your day job. It's definitely NO Godfather or Goodfellas. It's good to be on the otherside of the table--poor choice of words. Some of the characters were clowns. But what do you expect from a low budget movie with no name actors.
\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\nSometimes, changes to novels when they're made into films are not only necessary, but a good thing. However, in the case of Northanger Abbey, it's a very, very bad thing. Not only is the story itself ripped to shreds, but the satire is almost completely absent from the film, and it's mixture of romance and intrigue doesn't even touch upon the biting commentary that Austen put into her work. It fails to be amusing or satirical at all, and instead turns the character's fascination with her fantasy world into mostly a drama.
This affects the romance as well. It's meandering and aimless. Chemistry and interest are never established. The reasons Tilney is attracted to Catherine are completely absent from the film, leaving the audience to wonder what it is he sees in her at all.
Hopefully some day soon, we'll get a more faithful version if Austen's satire.
\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\nPoor Jane Austen ought to be glad she's not around to see this dreadful wreck of an adaptation. So many great Jane Austen movies have come out recently that this one deserves to be permanently buried along with two other movies I despise-The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit and the 1969 version of David Copperfield. My main beef with the movie is that it completely misses the point of the book. Jane Austen was poking fun at the Gothic mania in her society, and much of the novel is tongue in cheek. The movie, however, is serious and comes across terribly melodramatically. The lighthearted, fun-poking flavor of Austen's writing is completely and conspicuously absent from this ponderous foray iinto horror meets period drama. The scenes of Catherine's imagination are both gratuitous and uninteresting. Also, Henry Tilney is dreadfully unappealing. Why, I ask, would anyone fall for him? If you are looking for a fun-filled Jane Austen evening, watch Emma 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\nNormally BBC productions of Jane Austen are pretty good but Northanger Abbey is just odd. What were they thinking? This film has little of Austen's charm and ironically mimics the Gothic novels that Austen so wonderfully mocked. Not only that, the \"gothic\" sequences are tacky, over-the-top, and frankly silly. The actress playing Miss Morland is poorly cast with no obvious appeal to attract the attentions of an eligible bachelor, and though I rather liked the creepy Peter Firth as Mr. Tilney, he is not a bit like the novel, even when delivering dialog straight out of the book. Robert Hardy as General Tilney turned in one of his few terribly \"ham\" performances. This film was so bizarre and strange that I actually watched it again just to savor how freakishly wrong it was.
\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\nIs it possible to give a 0 out of 10 rating? Because this one deserves it. While I'm not a big fan of Jane Austen's books, I sat through this one with two women who are. Well, at least we had a big laugh about how bad this film is. Robert Hardy was the only actor with any charisma in the whole thing, though he overdid it as he usually does (nearly as bad as William Shatner). But that wasn't enough to save this stinker from total suckitude. It's often hard to separate the girl's dream sequences from what is \"really\" happening, and so many holes are left in the story that you can barely figure out what is going on. Too many loose ends and the ending feels like a \"tune in again next week\" climax. The lead actress is too ditsy and weird-looking to be a heroine, the leading man is too goofy-looking and effeminate to be a convincing hero and the music sounds like some kind of cheap new-agey pet project of the director's hippy daughter (I mean saxophone??? mixed in with some kind of spacey operatic female wailing?). So, in conclusion, I suggest you blow the budget and order a DVD of this one as soon as possible. Especially if you like 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\nMy first hugely disappointing BBC/Jane Austen flick. The tone is off, the costumes are off, the hair is off, the music is from outer space, and Robert Hardy, bless him, looks like he's really annoyed to be in such a stinker. Even some of the casting is off. No, I take that back, a good director can make a silk purse out of a sows ear, so to speak. The performances in this thing are so over the top and melodramatic that it's almost a farce of a Jane Austen story, which is ironic since Northanger Abbey is a sort of homage/send up of the early Gothic novel. I wanted to slap the female lead after awhile; who made the decision that she should be such a ninny? I had to watch Pride & Prejudice ('95) immediately to get the bad taste out of my mouth. Phew!
\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 started off well enough, sticking to the mood of the book fairly well even if the acting was not top notch. The soundtrack was torturously bad. Saxaphone and electric guitars? It was gratingly incongruous. The female singer was positively dreary! In the second half of the film the story takes a decidedly darker turn. Too dark for Austen. Northanger Abbey is made a dark and scary place whereas in the book it was disappointingly tame and modernized to Catherine's eyes.
Who in the heck is this Marchioness with the ghastly makeup and wig? A totally extraneous and unnecessary character.
One of the key elements in the book is the General is not a Gothic monster like the characters in Catherine's books. His monstrosity is far more complicated in his oppression of his children's spirits and his treatment of Catherine based on money concerns alone. He does not lock up his wife or kill her but he does send Miss Morland on a 70 mile trip alone in a hired carriage with not enough money to pay her way home. Only her friend Miss Tilney's thoughtfulness in handing her some money on the way out the door saves her from being stranded. This whole point gets seriously muddled in the film. They make the General too dark from the outset.
Peter Firth should have not sung! This part was painful to watch. His depiction of Tilney wasn't too bad but it was a shade dark in places. Henry Tilney of the book made sport of Miss Morland's imagination on trip to Northanger but he was never dark. Firth would have benefited from better direction. The young lady who played Isabella needed a better acting coach. John Thorpe was appropriately odious. The striped waistcoat and coattails combo he wore was ghastly! It certainly fit his character.
I think the film would have fared much better with a completely different soundtrack. It cast an oppressive pall over the entire movie. If I watch it again it will be with the sound OFF and subtitles on. Perhaps I would give the film a 4 then.
The sound quality of the DVD was quite poor. The picture quality was not much better. This is glaringly noticeable on a digital television.
When I think of what this film could have been, I think of Persuasion with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds.
\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 BBC and the Arts & Entertainment Network should be ashamed of themselves for foisting this unfortunate production onto the world. The acting is, with the exception of Robert Hardy as General Tilney, amateurish at best and excruciatingly painful at worst. The costumes are over-the-top and feature some truly ghoulish excesses -- was the costume designer obsessed with feathers for women's hats? Surely EVERY woman in Bath didn't have feathers in her headpiece in the early 19th century. The production values are poor and the pacing of the film makes one feel it was hastily and clumsily edited at the last minute. Altogether an agonizing film that I had to force myself to watch to the end. It's a shame, as the producers obviously spent a lot of money on costumes and location shooting. Compared to Emma Thompson's sublime \"Sense and Sensibility\" or the extraordinary 1995 production of \"Pride and Prejudice\" or the subtle intensity of 1995's \"Persuasion\", this production of `Northanger Abbey' surely has Jane Austen turning in her grave.
\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\nShaky hand held cameras (this piece was shot for television mind you, not film) not only keep you utterly conscious of how horrible the cinematography is in this film, but make you absolutely unable to become immersed in the story. Poor Miss Austen must be rolling in her grave. All I can say is, if you enjoyed the novel, stop there, until the BBC creates one of their smart & sensible period masterpieces (like Pride & Prejudice with Colin Firth, which, speaking for what I imagine in my opinion, Austen would have revered). The BBC would never dare overdub cheesy saxophone solos and Indigo Girl hollers over a shot of an historic castle and a loving embrace. Giles Foster seemed to be often confused that they were editing the music to The Specialist. If you want Austen as you love her, look for the BBC logo...
\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 filmmakers were clearly on drugs. That's the only explanation I have. How else do you explain this travesty of a Jane Austen adaptation? Northanger Abbey is a parody of a Gothic novel. But this film was made as if it WERE a Gothic novel. The bizarre music and dream sequences to me suggest drug-induced hallucinations rather than a naive, innocent girl with an overactive imagination, as Catherine of the novel is...
The actress who played Catherine just stands around bug-eyed all the time. Peter Firth looks at least 10 years too old to play Henry and he actually seemed a bit on the gay side to me. I don't see the attraction between him and Catherine. John Thorpe's portrayal was rather odd but Isabella actually wasn't that bad. But nothing could save this PIECE OF CRAP movie! One more thing- This film invents a character not in the book, a French friend of General Tilney's, \"The Marchioness.\" Why exactly they added her is beyond me. Must have been the drugs. She is scary-looking beyond belief, with white foundation, red lips and black lines randomly painted on her face (dimples?).
You'd think this would at least be entertaining in a \"so bad it's good\" quality but unfortunately, it's not. It's just 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\nNorthanger Abbey is not my favorite Jane Austen novel, but it has its charms. This movie doesn't. It has some of the same character names as the book, but the story is drastically altered, and the sweetest man in the whole Austen canon (unless Emma's Mr. Knightley gets pride of place) is made out to be a heartless and mercenary creep. One or two totally extraneous characters are introduced, and a palpable air of corseted perversion hangs over it all. I was so disappointed when I first saw it on its release in 1986; even today it ranks high on the list of films that disgrace the books on which they're based. Even Robert Hardy fans should give this one a wide berth. It has nothing, and I mean N-O-T-H-I-N-G, to recommend 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\nWhat an awful adaptation. The worst part was the music. Saxophone muzak and synthesizers playing in a story set in the early 1800's?????? The only character that didn't bore me to sleep was Robert Hardy. I had to fight to keep my eyes open on this one, and I love Jane Austen movies usually. I didn't even rent it, I borrowed it from the library. They should have paid me to take it. I don't quite understand how Catherine and Henry managed a passionate kiss at the end when throughout the movie they had no chemistry or indication whatsoever that they cared for one another. Isabella and her brother were way overdone; it was no secret to me immediately that she and her brother were the \"bad guys\" and part of the excitement of Jane Austen movies is the discovery that who you think is good, isn't. This is probably on my list of the ten worst movies I've seen.
\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 afraid I did not like this adaptation. When I started watching it I had a strange feeling of watching some 70s TV series, due to the filter and the musical score. I did not like the end scene. Mr Tilney appears dressed only in his waistcoat. Jane Austen would never have a gentleman ride out without a frock coat. Looks like the producers made a modern misinterpretation of a romantic girl's dream. I appreciate the more modern JA adaptations much more, that show an eye for these details, that makes the BBC series so worthwhile. Sorry, looking forward to the 2007 adaptation. I hope that will be better and will show the benefits of 20 years of Jane Austen adaptations.
\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\nPoor Jane Austen. This dog of a production does NOT do her wonderful tongue in cheek novel any justice. Starting at the top ... poorly adapted. The screenwriter deserves extra low marks for trying to -- come to think of it, I don't know WHAT she was trying for, but suffice it to say she missed the mark by light years!! Couple that with all the over-acting and awful production values, this is one adaptation that should never have happened. It would have been far better if they just gave all the money they poured into this flop and donated it to a worthy charity. Do yourself a favor, read the book. It is almost certain that you will enjoy it a thousand times more than trying to sit through this excruciating production!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n(This might have a spoiler)
When I first started watching this movie, I thought it was OK. The music was good and that bizarro dream sequence I was willing to forgive, but the lack of looks in the main character and all of the other characters for that matter made me uninterested in watching the rest of this film. (I know, totally vain.)The music at the beginning was spirited and fitting I thought for a mock Gothic novel. But, come on! Saxophone music for an early 19th century film? It totally didn't fit. This movie was totally boring and if you're looking to watch a good period film or an Austen don't rent Northanger Abbey! I give it a 30%. 30% = a failing grade!
\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 terrible movie, that is barely recognizable from the book, although they have sort of similar plots. The time it takes to watch this movie (which is only 1.5 hours) would be much better spent doing anything else, including watching grass grow. The addition of poorly done fantasy scenes make Catherine seem insufferably silly. The actress who plays Catherine also comes across ditzy as all goodness and looks constantly surprised, even when she's supposed to be looking lovingly into her Tilney's eyes. Honestly!! The movie ends with a Catherine fantasy-like scene where one can't help but wonder if it's happened or if she's merely delusional, and not in the good way that makes you think but in a perfectly horrible way that basically sums up the terrible movie. The only good thing about the movie is the title, which was written by Ms. Austen herself. I generally love the BBC's productions but this one is horrid.
\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 is hard for a lover of the novel Northanger Abbey to sit through this BBC adaptation and to keep from throwing objects at the TV screen-in fact, if Jane Austen herself were to see this, she would be somewhat amused and possibly put out. Maggie Wadey's adaptation has made Northanger Abbey into what it satirized, the Gothic novel (and the readers of Gothic novels).
The role of Catherine Morland in the adaptation is portrayed fairly closely to Austen's Catherine, a open-hearted, generous girl whose imagination simply runs away with her. But the Henry Tilney of the novel is not a snuff-taking, cane-wielding, sappy-line-making hero of a Gothic novel-he is a tease, a nearly-handsome man with a messy room and a living (that's right, Henry Tilney is a clergyman, a charm that is completely dropped from the script). Some of the best scenes from novel, when Henry, completely deadpan, outrageously teases the literally-minded Catherine on diction, journals, Mrs. Radcliffe, etc., are not portrayed in the adaptation. A large section of Henry's personality is lost when those scenes are not adapted. Besides, Peter Firth's appearance is not accurate-Henry Tilney is supposed to be 24 or 25, dark hair and a brown skin, not 35 or 40 and blond.
There are so many other absurdities within the adaptation that invoke surprise and disgust-who is the Marchioness, and what is she doing in the story?! Why is John Thorpe less of a dunce and more of a schemer? Why is Northanger Abbey a castle? Catherine of the novel, with her romantic visions, expects hidden passages and dark tapestries, but is very disappointed to discover that Northanger Abbey is actually a comfortable, modern house-another element of satire! Why portray General Tilney as a drunk? Why does Catherine have those strange visions of Mrs. Allen threading her finger, etc.? Catherine's imagination only runs away with her at Northanger, with Henry there to correct her gently. And lastly, why are so many facts concerning the Tilney family and Mrs. Tilney's death altered unnecessarily? To make the story more `horrible?' All of these oddities and more simply are too strange to be overlooked.
>
\n
assistant\n0
\n"