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\nMASTER PLAN: have the winning team in a deadly tournament. One of several martial arts action pictures that attempted to capture the flavor of the famous \"Enter the Dragon\" from '73, this one is an effort from South Africa. The villain's stronghold is a bit different, appearing as a white castle-like fortress in the middle of the desert from a distance. The villain himself, a Baron or general, is a slightly more perverse version of the \"Dr.No\" or Han mold of master villainy, having strange flashbacks to the glory days of Nazi Germany. He does wear the full regalia Nazi uniform at some points. His main ambition in life is to hold an illegal martial arts competition/tournament against his Japanese rival, an extension of their complicity in the 2nd World War (my army is better than your army). It sounds silly and it is, though the suggestion of madness and crazed machismo almost works. The central hero, Steve Chase (Ryan), resembles a white 'Bruce Lee' character, having a similarly lean, lithe physique, though obviously not on the same level of martial arts expertise. I thought he would be some secret government agent here but apparently not. He and his girlfriend have joined the Baron's team of fighters, but decide to quit (what did they think they were getting into?). Of course, it's not that easy. There's an odd sequence of them escaping through the desert using a wrecked car with a rigged sail - those desert winds can do wonders for travel, it seems.
The plot kind of meanders in the 2nd half, as the hero joins the team of the villain's competitor and the girlfriend is held hostage by the villain in a cell, under threat of rape by the hero's rival. The most interesting character turns out to be Chico, a dwarf who is the villain's assistant; he's loyal to the Baron but is sympathetic to the plight of the hero. Much of the fighting utilizes the ballet-like capabilities of the hero, with a lot of leaping and slow motion. The sound FX are also amped up and exaggerated in an attempt to add more impact to the blows. There are a few good fights during the tournament towards the climax, but none really stand out. If one had to pick, I suppose the best involves the brutish muscle man-henchman of the Baron, introduced late in the story (he lifts the back of a car at one point). You wonder how the hero will take him out at the end, since the brute seems to shrug off most of the punches. The acting is very mediocre, descending into camp as far as the girlfriend, who tends to laugh for no reason, as if she's high on grass, though she is very cute. Some of the training scenes are also campy, especially all those guys running over or rolling down the desert sands. And, with such a title, there's surprisingly few actual killings. Ryan, as Steve Chase, returned as a traditional agent in the sequel \"Kill and Kill Again.\" Hero:4 Villain:4 Femme Fatales:4 Henchmen:6 Fights:6 Stunts/Chases:4 Gadgets:2 Auto:3 Locations:5 Pace:5 overall:4+
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA buddy and I went to see this movie when it came out in 1980. It was playing in a huge theater and we were the only two people in the place. It lasted two days in the theater before they stopped showing it. It was so bad that we laughed all the way through it. Since that time, we rate movies based on Kill or Be Killed as the worst movie of all time. Like other reviewers have mentioned, it is so bad that it is funny. It isn't worth a second look that's for sure. I just can't bring myself to give it more than a 1 because I don't think the makers of the movie intended for it to be so bad and I can't give credit for an accident. Sorry.
\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\"A research scientist is experimenting with human DNA in an attempt to create the perfect human being. His work has made it to the point where he can take a human fetus and accelerate its growth to that of an adult within a few days. His latest creation is a (spoiler omitted), but side effects from the process (spoiler omitted),\" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.
\"Embryo\" opens by promising: \"The film you are about to see is not all science fiction. It is based upon medical technology which currently exists for fetal growth outside the womb. It could be a possibility tomorrow or today,\" according to Dr. Charles M. Brinkman III. Right. And, Dr. Joyce Brothers appears, later, at a party with Roddy McDowall.
First, we see Rock Hudson (as Dr. Paul Holliston) light a cigarette and drive recklessly (watch that speedometer!) during a storm; unfortunately, he hits a dog. Mr. Hudson takes the wounded canine home. He learns it is pregnant, and manages to save the life of one of the puppies, due to his experimental knowledge of fetal growth. What this really boils down to is that Hudson uses an experimental drug to grow the embryo, so that it can survive outside the mother's womb. The dog, \"Number One\", grows to adult-size rapidly, and is passed off as its mother.
Hudson lives with his sister-in-law Diane Ladd (as Martha Douglas); since his wife Nicole, also a doctor, died in another car accident. Ms. Ladd seems more emotionally stable about Nicole's death than Hudson, who survived the crash that killed his wife. Things begin to get creepy when Hudson's dog shows an intelligence level far above any normal dog. Then, Hudson decides to use his accelerated embryo growth on a human, Barbara Carrera (as Victoria Spencer).
Hudson and the cast try their best; but, the \"Embryo\" storyline is wretchedly absurd nonsense. If you take away her silly opening and closing scenes, Ms. Carrera's valiant characterization almost works; she might have been a bigger star, if offered better films than this. The infantile ending suggests a sequel; but, happily, the idea was aborted.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAlthough Embryo could have been a potentially thought provoking examination of bioethics, it degenerates into a stereotypical Frankenstein parable, putting across the by now monotonous lesson that there were some realms man was not meant to enter or study.
Scientist Rock Hudson is experimenting with ways to prevent miscarried babies from dying. After success with a dog, he immediately jumps to humans-violating medical ethics and any sense of plausibility-with the equally unrealistic assistance of a hospital administrator. His experiment works too well, with some decidedly unpleasant side effects.
Although Barbara Carrera is reasonably good in her role, and some of the animal training is spectacular, the film suffers from being too fantastical. Even though a message at the prologue assures viewers that this represents contemporary technology, the scientific work depicted looks far fetched even for the twenty-first century, let alone the mid- 1970s. Furthermore, the scene where Carrera is able to find a cure for the side effects of bioengineering simply by typing a question into a computer is laughable.
\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\nAfter his career as a romantic leading man ended in the late 1960s, Rock Hudson starred in lots of different projects, including TV shows and lesser films. However, I believe that \"Embryo\" is his only turn as a mad scientist, and that's probably a good thing. I guess he needed the work.
Driving along one dark and stormy night, brilliant Dr. Paul Holliston (Hudson) hits and injures a Doberman, which he brings back to his lab (that looks somewhat like a dank Midwestern basement). He then manages to raise the dog's unborn puppy outside the womb, so naturally he decides to do the same thing with a human being. He raises Victoria (the beautiful Barbara Carrera) from a fetus the same way. Victoria grows at an astonishing pace, and soon blossoms into a gorgeous young woman.
Predictably, things go very wrong. After a halcyon beginning, Holliston's sister-in-law Martha (Diane Ladd) begins to wonder where the young woman came from, and Victoria herself begins to show signs of instability and violence. The final sequence is one long car chase straight out of \"Smokey and the Bandit\", after which Victoriawho has shockingly aged in just a few minutesis assaulted by a frantic Holliston, who tries in vain to destroy his malformed creation along with its unborn child. All of this is accompanied by screeching tires, roaring engines, a car fire, and lots of sirens. The limp endinga bunch of paramedics frantically working on Victoria while Holliston writhes in regretis more labored than creepy.
Although just made in 1976, this movie is very dated. The only difference between this and the many 1940s mad scientist movies is that Hudson plays the lead role rather than Boris Karloff. The sets are pretty cheap and very antiquated to today's audiences, to the extent that Hudson's reel-to-reel tape recorder is about the size of a refrigerator. Much of the action takes place in a poorly lighted laboratory. Hudson sleepwalks through his sordid role, giving the impression that he's truly a washed-up movie star, while Ladd and Carrera are much more believable. Surprisingly, Roddy McDowall pops up briefly as a chess player.
The Passport Video transfer is very substandard, looking as though it had been made from a poor VHS copy using home equipment. If you're nostalgic for 1976, watch this once just to say you did. Otherwise, watch a football game or soap opera 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\nRock Hudson's second venture in the science fiction genre after Seconds is Embryo a film that combines elements of the Bride of Frankenstein and Pygmalion in one rather weird film about for lack of a better word a test tube baby that grows up to be Barbara Carrera.
Hudson is scientist experimenting in organic development and gets a chance to first experiment on his own Doberman pincher when it is accidentally hit by his car.
Some pituitary secretions from the female dog are given to a prematurely born puppy and it grows remarkably into an adult. Exalted with his success, Hudson takes a fetus from a dead accident victim and gives it some of the same stuff.
What he gets is Barbara Carrera. And she develops physically and intellectually at a prodigious rate. What she doesn't do is develop emotionally. Still Hudson passes her off as his new research assistant to friends and family like sister-in-law Diane Ladd, son John Elerick, and daughter-in-law Anne Schedeen.
Embryo doesn't explore some of the real issues in this kind of science, it exploits them instead. The special effects as they are, are pretty second rate. Hudson looks like he lost interest in the project about halfway through the film.
Now what would have really been interesting is if he had gotten boy child and it grew up to be a harlequin novel hero. Now that would have been something Rock Hudson could have sunk his teeth into.
\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 suppose I'm supposed to take something like this with a grain of salt. These laboratory movies (and, yes, they spend a lot of time in the laboratory), always fail in one dimension: there is an understanding that single people fooling around have uncovered secrets beyond the comprehension of anyone to this time. Of course, they pay a price because their experimenting has the same shortcomings that Dr. Frankenstein's did. There is always something they didn't anticipate. There are so many things from pure science to fashion for young ladies to outrageous cover ups that don't work here. The young woman is certainly fetching and the doctor can't help himself, but he could have been a little bit discreet or even made an effort to shelter what he was doing. Things go wrong and because of this intellect, she gains tremendous power, including an understanding of how she came to be. Rock Hudson looks pretty fit here. He never quite makes it in this role, however. It wanders all over with lots of clichés and silliness which diminishes the basic issue. Once she has her revenge a more suitable thing would be for her to wander off and allow him to seek her out and destroy her in some grand way.
\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 sat through this on TV hoping because of the names in it that it would be worth the time...but dear Gussie, whoever thought this script was worth producing? The basic idea is excellent but the execution is appallingly bad, with a constantly illogical sequence of scenes, an ending that is almost laughably melodramatic and poor Rock Hudson wanders through this with an understandably confused look on his slightly sagging face. Looks like a bad B movie from the 40's...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"The Apartment Complex\" is a campy comedy full of kookie characters created in lieu of a real story which tells a young psych student (Lowe) who takes a job managing an apartment complex and becomes embroiled in a murder mystery...um, if you can call it that. This low cal watch contains no suspense, no thrills, no drama, no action, precious few funny moments, a dash of nudity, and almost no romance. \"The Apartment Complex\" is passable, forgettable junk food for only the most needy couch potatoes.
\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 agree in many parts with the fairly thorough review already posted on the subject of the miniseries, and agree that it does have its pros, not only its cons. For example, the original film manage to truncate much of the middle and final sections of the novel into a single montage, including the discovery of Gurney Halleck and the love affair of Paul Atreides and Chani, which, on reading the novel, is a travesty, probably born of the studio cutting shenanigens of which the other reviewer writes. This was one of the great failings of the original film, and the miniseries, to its credit, does include many of the original plot lines that were cut out of the Lynch film due to the expansive nature of the Herbert novel.
However, this in itself is a double edged sword. Rather than complete a text-to-celluloid transfer of the novel, the creators of the miniseries were tempted to create their own plot lines, absent from the original novel. Similarly, although this is surely a \"fuller\" account of the storyline of Dune, it is also a break from the originals heart and soul & main vision - that of prophecy. Where are the internal monologues that characterize Herbert's writing and demonstrate what the many different characters are thinking, without the need to suddenly switch viewpoint, or expand in words or unnecessary and stilted spoken monologues? Gone. So much of the original agony of Paul's decision to choose the jihad or death, the choice to fulfill the prophecy or swing away from it, surely the most interesting aspect of the novel itself (and one which captivates people who are far from Science fiction fans) is missing.
Without prophecy, what is the point of Dune? It is simply a more educated and learned version of Farscape or Andromeda. How sad that this is all we are provided with. Lynch's film was flawed, yes. But a flawed film could lead to a correction by another film-maker, taking on some of the best points of Lynch's film-making and rejecting some of the more overblown aspects of the style whilst restoring the storyline. Now this story shall probably never be translated to film again, and this I find heartrending.
\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 miniseries/movie was so terrible at times that I nearly broke down and turned it off. I am a great fan of the novel, however this movie suffers from multitudes of problems. The costuming is poor, and many of the more emotionally charged scenes are blase. The departures from the novel are poorly chosen, significant nuances are missed or rewritten.

\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 looked forward to watching this film since I loved the David Lynch version. In my first attempt at watching it I fell asleep. Nothing was happening. The next night I tried to watch the rest, and again it was putting me to sleep! Nothing ever happened in this movie that could keep anyone's interest alive. The only time it got a bit more exciting was when I tried it on Fast Forward! The DVD came with a second disk which contained bonus material. Needless to say, I had no hard to go through the torture of watching more of Dune (2000). Here are the low points: The acting was bad, the plot moved in slow motion, the sets were and looked cheap, the direction was pathetic, and the CGI visual effects childish.
If you want to watch Dune, save your money or rent the 1984 version.
\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\nThat's a weird, weird movie and doesn't deserve a better mark than David Lynch's one! The special effects are badly made, the actors are majorly bad actors and in this movie it's not about a race which is the minority of a planet and tries to fight against the dominators, but it seems to be a crazy movie, which pays homage to sect kind of organisations. That's surely not the will of Frank Herbert, the author of the six part epic! Check out David Lynch's one, that's the perfect tribute to the novels!
\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 \"Battlefield Earth\" of mini series. It has with a few exceptions, all the disastrous ingredients that doomed that movie and will follow it to the grave in the turkey cemetery. They are both adaptations of books with a endless amount of pages who has been turned to a complete mess by a script writer and a director (In this case they are the same person.) who clearly don't know what they are doing, they have both a messiah wannabe that don't really deliver, as a hero (Played in this case by a guy that looks like Mark Hamill but sadly the force is not with him.) and a bunch of stupid bad guys who likes to betray and mess up the life for each other, they are both containing scenes stolen from better productions and they are both cheap productions who tries to look expensive with some (often badly made) computer animation. The exceptions that actually makes the whole thing worse is the terrible work made by the lighting guy who don't even have the skills to turn on the light in his own living room, the camera work that for no reasons at all sometimes are in tilted \"Battlefield Earth\" mode but for the most of the time are flat as a pancake, the extremely cheap and to small desert set that only contents a pile of sand in the front of a backdrop painted as a desert, that turns very old very fast because it appears in almost every scene, and the bad idea by the costume designer to try to mimic \"The fifth element\"'s fashion madness with the addition of the silliest hats ever made. Silly moments to remember: 1. Every scene with the guild guys, who looks like MST3K's observer guys but with silly hats. 2. Irulan shows up at the party dressed in her butterfly dress (Why butterflys? -was the one with stuffed parrots in the cleaner?) with matching silly hat, together with a couple of guys with silly balloon hats. 3. Paul the stand-up comedian. 4. Baron Harkonnen in over acting overdrive, screaming \"I,m alive\". 5. Every Scene with the backdrop, because it newer fits the foreground 6. Every scene with the Fremen's fake religious cermonies, specially the \"water of life\" cermony. 7. The battle scenes where the same guys gets killed a couple times and the same things explodes over and over again. It is a lot more but it is a 1000 words limit on this so i better stop before i gets carried away.
\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\nDrivel. Utter junk. The writers must not have read the book, or seen David Lynch's film. Not worth wasting your time.
Longer does not make better. While more in-depth then Lynch's film, it has gross in-accuracies, and down-play's key parts of the story.
\"A Night at the Roxbury\" is more worth your 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\nWhat can I say? After having read Herbert's books and loving Lynch's movie version, I was extremely disappointed. I felt I was watching a reject version of Buck Rogers. The sets looked like left overs from a Star Wars TV special! I felt the acting was a bit amateurish by most. The costumes were garish and over done which gave it a '60s Flash Gordon, pulp feel. The worms! They're supposed to be Sand Worms and yet they appeared to \"big stalagtites\" with a mouth at the blunt end. The effects in general were pretty second rate. I won't even start about the disgraceful \"Navigator\" effect.
This so-called \"Frank Herbert's Dune\" wasn't even faithfull to his books! It should have been called \"Frank Herbert's Dune - For Dummies\". Key plot elements were left out, names were changed and the entire \"feel\" of the story was \"sanitised\". I didn't even recognise the Harkonnens! In fact most of the characters appeared nothing like Herbert's descriptions had depicted them. I'm starting to get upset just remembering what a tragedy it was. I'm glad I couldn't stomach the second installment....
\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 Dune miniseries opens with a \"flashforward\" montage of action sequences. The realisation quickly dawns that these are the *best* scenes out of the 265 minute running time, and they're not good. Not good at all. Oh dear.
But let us not judge a book by its cover (even though that's exactly what we're being invited to do). Let's give Dune a chance to redeem itself.
Well, here's the expected watery opening on Caladan. But who's this petulant, strangely ugly man? Paul Atreides? *This* is Paul Atreides? This generic plastic puppet? And why does he look so old? What's that? The actor's only 25? Well, he doesn't *look* it, and that's way too old anyway.
But at least he has charisma, right? Wrong. Alec Newman is a stumbling, mumbling buffoon. I'm picturing him being discovered sitting in the dark in a remedial acting class because nobody liked him enough to tell him the class was over, and he's just too dumb to realise it. When your Paul Atreides has all the screen prescence of soggy toast, and an acting range from \"petulant\" to \"blank\" your production of Dune is doomed from the start.
The other actors take pity on poor Alec though, and give uniformly insipid and incomprehensible performances so that he doesn't look too bad by comparison. At least, I *assume* that is what they are doing. Because I'm charitable, you see.
To be fair, they are clearly being given no direction at all. Random gestures, blank or inconsistent deliveries, missing their marks, it's all here. This is like a master class in how not to do it.
And sure, there are more elements of the book in this miniseries than there are in the 1984 movie, but there aren't twice as many, because of all the. Pauses. To fill. Time.
But we can forgive all this because of the small budget of $20 million, or only $5 million per hour. Nobody could be expected make quality science fiction on that sort of budget.
Except perhaps \"Stargate SG-1\" which makes do with $1.4 million per 50 minute episode, or \"Farscape\" at $2 million. And frankly I'd rather watch four episodes of either of those while being punched in the kidneys, than have to sit though the travesty that is Dune the miniseries again.
\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 total piece of crap. It is an insult to the awesome book by Frank Herbert. They have mangled the story and characters. The acting is average to bad. The only character done right and played well is Duke Leto, played by William Hurt. Unfortunately, he dies pretty early in the story and then its all downhill from there (not that its a very tall hill to begin with).
The 1984 movie was directed by the legendary David Lynch. I was not overly impressed with the movie, but considering the technological limitations of the time, they tried their best. Amazingly, the crappy mini series makes it look so much better by comparison. It was at least somewhat true to the book, which I really love.
They had the chance to do it right this time, sadly it was not taken.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you have never read the classic science fiction novel this mini-series is based on, it may actually be good. Unfortunately, if you ARE a fan of the book, you probably won't be able to watch more than the first hour or two. All of the political intrigue has been taken out of the film, the most important scenes from the book have been taken out, characters motivations have been changed completely, and words from the wrong characters mouths. Where in the novel Paul Atredies was a teen age boy with incredible political skill and a great understanding of the way the world worked, in this film he is hot headed and and frustrated. Avoid this movie at all costs.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhile the David Lynch version of Dune is choppy, awkward, and unfaithful to the novel, it is visually well designed and well acted. The best one can say about the Sci Fi channel's attempt to make Dune into a miniseries is that it's ambitious. Actually, that is virtually the only positive praise one can offer. The actors (with few exceptions) seem happy to recite their lines with the least emotion possible, and the least appropriate accents. The costumes seem to have been designed by someone with a a large surplus of Mylar fabric on hand and an unhealthy love of unflattering headwear.
In part, this miniseries suffers from living in the shadow of Lynch's already well known effort. However, it takes elements from Lynch's film which were not present in the novel and copies them nearly wholesale (i.e. the Guild Steersman's navigation sequence), and this only encourages encourages negative comparison to Lynch's film. A for effort. D for virtually everything else.
\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\nSurely one of the lamest shows ever to be produced on these shores and thats saying something. Even many of the lead actors didn't stick around for the duration. The fact that it ran for eight years is a sad indictment on the average intelligence and cultural nous of the Aussie viewer. It went round and round in circles, with repetitive gags and poorly-drawn characters. Arthur MacArthur, for god's sake. did they actually pay the writers of this show? I wonder if anyone checked their qualifications. There were tired gags about rural people and second-rate farce situations that were poor imitations of a thousand English and US sitcoms that had gone before. I think that's what I hate about it so much, that it appears no one involved wanted to make it memorable, original or clever, instead opting for the lowest common denominator each 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\nBut even caricatures need a plausible plot line. I suppose in 1934 some part of that audience long ago would enjoy this tepid farce. It doesn't age well. It does give Nat Pendelton and Zasu Pitts experienced and expert support players a shot at leading roles. Pendelton, who is featured prominently in the Thin Man series tries his best but is over matched by witless plot. With the backdrop being a stage play with gangsters its not exactly original material. Movie's saving grace is the always excellent Edward Everett Horton in a wasted performance. But don't waste your time watching Everett in this film. I would encourage anyone to watch him in his effort in Holiday, with Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn. Same era 1936, but much better script and storyline. Better gags and needless to say star power as well.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt's astonishing that some people saw this as art. We saw it as a poorly filmed (shaky hand-held camera and all), (generally) badly acted, unscripted mess that seemed more like a high school film project with the kids experimenting in black & white film making. Injecting mounds of poetry in place of a story does not an art film make. When we watched this in the theatre, people were starting to have fits of the giggles (us included) at the endless stupidity of this self-indulgent, meandering mess. And believe me, it does seem endless. Had we finished our candy and popcorn, we too would have walked out of the theatre with the other two dozen people who packed up and left looking for something more interesting to do!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA terrible deception: controversial film, winner of the Teddy in Berlin 2003, Mil nubes de paz turned out to be a fiasco. The actors are all reciting (well, they are not exactly actors); the film tried to be a high bet but ends up being a doubtful bet: it stays in the superficiality of two guys kissing and a guy whose lover is gone; it has no purpose: nothing to do with the homo-sexuality presented in other films (e.g. Before Night Falls (2000) by Julian Schnabel). Technically the only thing that works is the photography; otherwise, the camera is put in strange angles (to make it more `art-film') and the whole film runs in a black and white atmosphere. The film is so pretentious that bothers. I mean, it's good to be pretentious when you have talent to support it. Or maybe it is that it's so art-cinema that it's incomprehensible. The story flows slowly, slowly, slowly. To me, more form than essence. Superb edition? It was good. Superb direction? Don't think so: the film is weak. It was an interesting project. It's a shame. It's a flaw. One star out of four.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA very, very, very slow-moving, aimless movie about a distressed, drifting young man. Not sure who was more lost - the flat characters or the audience, nearly half of whom walked out.
Attempting artiness with black & white and clever camera angles, the movie disappointed - became even more ridiculous - as the acting was poor and the plot and lines almost non-existent. Very little music or anything to speak of. The best scene in the movie was when Gerardo is trying to find a song that keeps running through his head. He goes to a used record store to buy it for his lover and has to sing the song for two sales clerks before they find the album. Cute scene gave promise, but it went downhill from there. The rest of the movie lacks art, charm, meaning... If it's about emptiness, it works I guess because it's empty. Wasted two hours.
\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 nearly fell asleep during a screening of this. Of a boring story that seems to go on forever, it follows several days in the life of a male prostitute who falls in love with one of his tricks. After a heated affair, the trick leaves a long letter explaining why they cannot be together and how they must go on their separate ways.
The male prostitute then goes on a downward self-destructive spiral trying to find his \"one true love\", repeatedly returning to the same places they frequented, looking for more clues or signs as to where he may locate his love.
In the meanwhile, he hooks up with one ugly guy (who I thought was also a male prostitute), a gay basher, and some guy who ends up having a \"three-second sexual intercourse session\" with him in a back alley.
It never ceases to amaze me how films STILL portray random sex acts as scenes that can take place in a brief matter of seconds, such as in this case where the trick barely has his pants unbuckled before thrusting three times and miraculously experiencing orgasm!
All of these random encounters end with the sexual partner asking him to call them, to which he discards their telephone numbers.
There is a brief side-plot involving the main character visiting his busy mother who seems to have no time for his lifestyle. There is also another brief side-plot involving some random conversation with a young woman who has noticed him several times standing on the bridge from her window. And there is also one more brief side-plot involving him showing the letter to a male acquaintance, but the audience is not advised of his relation to this person.
None of these things really connect with each other, only to show us how lost and confused this young man really is. He seems to be living life like a ghost. There was one good scene in the entire movie that involved him rummaging through a yard sale looking for a particular record with the world's saddest song on it.
Otherwise, this movie just seems to go on forever. Filmed in black and white, it may seem very dreamlike, but sitting in the theater for nearly two hours watching this drivel will resemble something more like a nightmare!
I found the ending to be confusing as I wasn't quite sure whether the young man had died and gone to heaven? That would have been a nice pay off to end the misery that both audience and the main character had to endure in this meaningless tripe. But seeing as this is an \"independent film\", movies with endings like these are supposed to encourage you to \"use your imagination\".
For those of you who are seeking out nudity, there are only brief scenes and most of them are filmed in such a way that anything suggestive are artfully concealed within the shadows. In other words, don't waste your time with this one.
My Rating - 2 out of 10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe only reason I am giving a second star is for the first half of the movie. This was a good rendition of the story. I enjoy seeing a few fictional characters added to add some color to a well known story. But the second half was horrible!!! Yes there were violent aspects of this story. But the writers of this movie chose to only include the violence and forget about the good things God did for the Israelites. Towards the end of the movie Scott looked as though he were getting messages from the big giant head instead of talking and hearing from God. This rendition had some HUGE problems with deviation from scripture. And big surprise, there are no favorable deviations! Their portrayal of Moses as this screaming naked lunatic who did all of this against his will is totally false. It showed a Moses who had to scream in order to get God to talk to him. WRONG The scripture says God spoke to Moses all the time and not just after a temper tantrum. They got the people's complaining right, but failed to show that God spoke to Moses at Sinai in an audible voice that the followers could hear and believe.(Chapter 19). They also forgot the pillar of fire and cloud which guided them in the day and night.
What was the whole Joshua thing? The righteous peace loving Jew who would not fight until Moses threatens him? WRONG (He was known as a great warrior) What about the great speech that Moses gave the army telling them God had helped them enough and now they were on their own?? WRONG (They only won through God's help as shown in their own scenes with Moses lifting his staff)And what was that sorry looking Ark of the Covenant? Instead of overlaying it with gold this movie was on a tight budget and attached little gold chips to it! Oh yeah, it was a \"molten calf\" not a straw one with little chips tacked on. Someone forgot that they came out of Egypt with a huge amount of gold tribute from the Egyptians. You wouldn't know it from this sorry looking bunch.
By the way, the part about them slaying the Israelites after the golden calf incident says \"men\" and does not mention women and children which the movie delighted in showing the viewers. Oh yeah - Manna wasn't the only thing sent from heaven - don't forget the birds for meat. Also, the Bible mentions Jethro bringing Moses his wife and children and then says Jethro went back to his own land. It does not say that Moses gave up his family.
Oh well, if you know nothing about the real story, read Exodus for yourself. If you know the real story, you will hate this version.
\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 watched this series out of curiosity,wanting to see if they could possibly and with ALL this modern technology,out do Cecil B. DeMille's classic epic of 1956, starring Charleton Heston,Yul Brenner and Sir Cedric Hardwicke. Of course, I was let down. Yes, they had all the Biblical characters correct, but they didn't give us any of the spectacular theatrical scenes, that held your interest throughout the first movie. If you going to have a mini-series, you have to have some \"rivoting\" scenes, the \"Burning bush\", Parting the \"RED Sea\",drowning \"Pharohs Armies\", \"building Sethi's Pyramids\", could have been done with todays' technology on the scale of blockbuster movies such as \"Lord of the Rings\" or the Matrix. Obviously, they didn't want to leave a LASTING impression of \"faith and sacrifice\", which is much needed in these trouble times.
\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 had high hopes for this movie I even gave up a night of watching Stargate for this movie. I found it had a rushed feel about it and a lot of the key biblical moments and facts were missing. I might be a bit jaded and spoiled for the 1956 version, as I have watched that one every year for the last 20 or so years. I doubt this one will make it to the realm of yearly classic, as the other one has. If you have not seen the 19546 version, you might like this one but, I seriously doubt it and urge you to skip this one and go rent or buy the classic one. This has some nifty special effects but that is not what I look for when telling a movie like the Ten Commandments. I was kind of looking to see how they told the story, and the writers did not do a good job with this one.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie deviated from the Bible and fell so below the bar of the 1956 movie. I hate that they replaced the 2006 movie over the traditionally seen 10 commandments. Moses looked like a criminal in this movie, not like the kind looking man Charelston Heston in the 1956 movie. I will not waste my time again watching this movie. They tried so hard to modernize this movie in order to keep you on the edge that it was more like a soap opera (and not a good one at that). I'm pretty sure that younger ones out there who never paid attention to the original 10 commandments may disagree with me, but to each his own. Also, it took them 10 years to make the first 10 commandments, it probably took them 2 months to make this one. The special effects were not as amazing as the first one and after all these years with so much technology, you would have thought they would have done better now.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you are a Christian or a Jew hoping to see an accurate Biblical (or Torah) portrayal of the events in Exodus, you will be disappointed by this movie. In typical Hollywood fashion people who are not even in the Bible have been \"created\" for supporting characters and play a large role in the movie. Jethro's role is changed completely and he becomes nothing but an untrusting father-in-law instead of a Shepherd priest who gave Moses excellent advise. God is largely removed from the movie, and instead viewers are given the impression that Moses had to figure things out for himself. Nothing could be further from the truth.
This movie is a typical Humanistic twist on Biblical things and attempts to put most of the responsibility on Moses for trying to understand what God wants and what he should do. Those who know the book of Exodus well will see not only inconsistencies in the movie, but outright glaring changes to events. Most importantly, they will see a near total absence of God's dialog with Moses, which determines everything Moses does after the burning bush. Far from being alone as portrayed in the movie, Moses is guided by God with detailed and direct communication.
Even Hallmark apparently can't acknowledge God's direct role, and without his spoken words to Moses many events make no sense. To compensate, Hallmark has actually changed some things. For instance, after the golden calf God plagues the people and they must look upon a symbol of a serpent to live. Hallmark creates a civil war instead and the Israelites pick sides, then slaughter each other. Moses side wins of course.
There may be minimal value in this movie to unbelievers since it may cause them to seek answers, but believers should stay away. The twisted events and changes make this a danger to anyone who doesn't know their Bible. Read Exodus for yourself, there is no substitute.
\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\nWith a name like \"10 Commandments\" you would expect a film to be representative of the account in the Bible, specifically Exodus. Not so here. This is standard procedure with any Biblical Hallmark-made film. Remember \"Noah\"?? That was utter fiction and one of the worst films ever made. At least this film had \"some\" truth to the original story. However, Menerith, who was a major character in this movie - half-brother of Moses, is not in the original story. Other characters were absent, not to mention important events were completely eliminated. So what, you may ask? Because this should be representative of the actual story; otherwise, some might and do believe that is the way it actually happened. In today's age, people get their religion from movies instead of Church and reading the Bible. Also, it is a great error. See Revelation 22:18-19. The script is already written. Why change it? Other than the account in Exodus itself (which should be the main focus), you have the Cecil B. DeMille film to compare it to, which is clearly a far better presentation.
The night it first aired, my wife was anxious to see it. I told her not to get her hopes up because it was a Hallmark-film. She looked puzzled and said, \"Why? Hallmark makes good movies\". That might be so, but they butcher the Bible. I'm sorry to say that I was correct. Not just the story, but the acting as well. With today's technology, you should be able to make a wonderful Biblical movie. I'm still waiting...
\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 appreciate the effort that the filmmakers wanted to depict the story of Moses and the exodus of Israel, and that the film helps viewers to put themselves into Moses' shoes and gain understanding of the intense burden laid upon Moses' shoulders. As excited as I was to see this film, I was greatly disappointed in the storyline. (I'll leave out the videography, special effects, and artistic ability in this review.) What is most disappointing is the historical inaccuracy of this movie and how it is so far from the historical accounts from Biblical texts. One of the overarching principles from the Bible is that *God* led His people out of Egypt, and He promised that He would take them to a land that is flowing with milk and honey. Not only did He give this promise, but He led His people in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. He never left them; He always was visible to the Israelites. The movie, however, depicts a God who remains silent during the entire wandering through the desert. This movie changed the essence and theme of the Biblical text and instead depicts God as a silent, cruel, disciplinary void.
In addition, the depiction of Moses was just as wrong. Moses was known as a man of faith (why else would he be such a father-figure to Israel throughout the Old and New Testaments, even that Moses is known as a man of great faith). However, the movie depicts him as a pragmatic, angry, insecure loner who despises the calling that God placed on his life. OK, I'll allow some creative freedom for the filmmakers in the Exodus story... but this is beyond creativity -- it is heresy.
\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 as a Christian am outraged after seeing just the first half of this picture. The film's website says they researched the movie before writing but I believe they forgot to consult the ultimate source THE BIBLE. I sat with two different versions of the Bible and could not find half of what happened or was said in this picture. It was like they made up what was not in the Bible and changed what was in the Bible to what they thought modern film viewers would want to see instead of the truth. I personally am too young to remember the 1950's Ten Commandments but it can't be any worse than this. I have written to the network and can only hope they publicly apologize for this travesty.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"