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\nThis has to be some of the worst direction I've seen. The close-up can be a very powerful shot, but when every scene consists of nothing but close-ups, it loses all its impact.
Tony Scott has some very beautiful scenery to work with, the backdrops of Mexico, the cantinas, the beautiful estate where Anthony Quinn lives, and the dusty towns Costner rolls through on his journey for revenge. Unfortunately we only catch quick glimpses of these places before the camera cuts to a picture of a big, giant head. Even the transition scenes where Costner is driving alone across Mexico quickly cut to a close-up.
The score is over-dramatic and intrusive, dictating every emotion we should feel. The story itself should have been handled much better. Among other things, too many people pop up out of nowhere to help Costner along - it's just bad writing.
It's a typical thriller storyline, but many others have taken the same premise and done outstanding things with it. Costner's No Way Out had a somewhat similar storyline, but it was a much better movie.
The ending was completely anticlimactic and suffered from the most melodramatic scoring of the film. This movie was never going to be great, but if we saw more of Mexico and less of giant heads this film might have been watchable.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSorry - this movie is just a cheap TV-Production. I saw very much promotion Material and expect a professionell Movie like \"Stormriders\" - what i was presented was a Low-Budget-Movie like \"XENA\" or \"Hercules\" on TV. No Atmosphere, very boring, more then worse Fight-Scenes. Some good ideas - not more. I hope i will get the Chance to make a movie like this and then i show how to do such a movie!!!
My ASIAN-Tips: \"MUSA - THE WARRIOR\", \"STORMRIDERS\", \"SHAOLIN SOCCER\", \"BATTLE ROYAL\", \"VERSUS\", etc.
Sorry for my bad English!
\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\"Shinobi\" is one of those movies that thinks the mere act of killing off a character automatically brings a sense of gravitas or emotion to the story. Unfortunately, for the audience to actually care about the people dying, you have to develop the characters, otherwise all you have is a bunch of random acts of violence. The problem is especially compounded when you have TONS of characters, all of whom die.
OK, so if you can't be bothered to make the characters memorable or sympathetic in any way, you can at least make the REASONS for why they die plausible, right? Nope. Here we have a war between two ninja clans, with neither side really knowing WHY they are fighting each other. They kill each other because the emperor says so. Yet even well after it becomes glaringly obvious that the emperor wants ALL of them dead, they still refuse to abandon their meaningless missions. That's not stubbornness... that's just plain dumb.
Fine, fine! There is no character development, and the plot provides no reasonable rationale for fighting. At least they die fighting in cool action scenes, right? Yet again, NO! In fact, many of the fights aren't even fights at all: super ninjas that the movie spent so much time and effort introducing die suddenly (and lamely, in my opinion). I'm talking about things like, \"Lalala, I'm walking along and I- *neck gets slashed*.\" THE END for that character. Not even halfway through the film, I threw my hands up in frustration at the ludicrousness of it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have watched anime but I'm not a die hard fan; and I don't read manga. I say this because many of the reviewers who are waxing lyrical about this film seem to have that background. I have seen \"St. John's Wort,\" and although it isn't a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, it made me pick up \"Shinobi,\" especially since everyone seems to love it.
Well, I watched it this afternoon, and fought very hard to keep watching. Yes, it's very beautiful - the slow motion water scenes, the autumn leaves on the trees, even the CGI eye flicker - majestic. I liked the hawk, the costumes, even some of the fight scenes, but overall this was dull as dirt.
It seemed as if someone took \"Romeo and Juliet\" - the translation even mentions that they are star crossed lovers - and threw in some \"X-Men\" for good measure. Two of the characters split Wolverine's powers - the guy dressed in a bear costume had his claws and the grey-haired guy had his ability to heal himself. Then you have the girl who has a poison kiss - that's Poison Ivy (from Batman). Why do they give these women such dumb powers? Poison girl shows her leg then kisses you to death. Man, that's some great power for you. And the other girl, can create bugs from this yellow dust that she rubs on her hands. The other woman, one of the star crossed lovers, has the power of a hypnotic stare. Wow.
I sort of made it to the end of the film, by fast forwarding it, and did see a bit more tragedy than I expected. Some people are comparing this to \"House of Flying Daggers\" and \"Hero.\" Don't make that mistake. They may share similar endings, but that's where the similarities end. \"Shinobi\" is made by an amateur - the other films are made by an experienced filmmaker.
I would say avoid this film unless you're 12 to 18 years old.
\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 gave this movie a 5 out of pure pity. My intention is not to burst anyone's bubble, because I've seen, as I've skimmed through other comments, that this movie is quite appreciated by many. Well, it is not worth any praises, and I say this because I've seen the original anime, Basilisk, and this movie shames it deeply. Perhaps if you see Shinobi alone, you could like it. It is enjoyable due to the well-choreographed battles, based on fantasy more than on martial arts, and I agree that their beauty is deeply enhanced. But the story is nothing like the original one. Now, I understand that when one transforms an anime/manga into a movie, one must make certain changes. I was not expecting to see the freakish characters from the anime, although they have a well-established role, and some are truly profound and well-designed. But I certainly did not expect to see immense and wrongly-placed changes, that basically ruin the entire story. Characters who are dramatically and unethically mutilated, transformed in something the public might love more, perhaps. For instance, Oboro, who, in the anime is a sweet, innocent girl, completely and utterly in love with Gennosuke, becomes a vengeful clan leader in the movie. I liked the fact that the woman becomes strong and evades the limitations imposed on her by the era (we are talking about Japan, 17th century), but her mood changes are unbelievable and badly written. Hotarubi, which is one of my favourite characters in the film, but who is not known for her childish and sensitive nature, becomes a pathetic little girl who is not only not madly in love like in the anime, but is more or less worthless in the plot. I could go on and on, like how they made Tenzen, the worst and most dangerous character in the anime, exceptionally weak and unattractive, or how Gennosuke, the leading character seems completely misplaced and confused, not to mention, again WEAK. The music is beautiful and the image is astounding, which was expected of a Japanese movie, and I appreciate it for that. But do not watch this if you've seen and enjoyed Basilisk, because it is just hopeless. Basilisk, although based on fantasy, with elements of horror and largely exaggerated is splendid and has so much more depth in its characters, storyline, historical value and it is, may I say, heartbreaking. Shinobi was a waste of time and I could not believe it kept on going after what was supposed to be the climax. Alas, it pains me deeply to judge a movie so harshly, but I advise you against it. Please, watch the anime, or at least watch the movie first and then repair your image of what Basilisk really is by watching the anime. Otherwise you will have a seizure when you realize how they've massacred 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\nThe bad out takes from \"Reign of Fire\" strung together, without any real story.
Dean Cain tries to be a real actor, and fails again.
In the end the dragons quit in disgust.
BARF!
\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 mistakenly kept myself awake late last night watching this thing. About the only thing I could say good about this horrid film is that it could be used by film schools to show how not to make a movie. No proper character development, wait, I'm not even sure they were characters. Set-ups were hokey and inane, and the overuse of split screens was wasted since sometimes they couldn't even synchronize with alternate shots. If I could give this a zero or minus rating I would. Sadly, it isn't even worth the time for a few laughs.
It's just a sad example of money wasted by Hollywood, and now I waste my time even thinking about it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhy else would he do this to me?
Not that I expect Dean Cain to produce hit movies. Or even decent movies. I saw Lois and Clark, I am aware of just how... \"good\" Dean Cain is.
Obviously this is gonna be a cheesey flick, and each cheesey flick has its own special way to make you scratch your head. I will not call these spoilers as you can't really spoil this movie any more than it already is.
To begin with... why is that a fake helicopter? I mean... why?
How come that one scientist is from Chicago and that other scientist is from LA and neither one could be any more eastern european if they tried? How hard would it have been to get either an american actor, or just change that lame state sheet the movie provides us with to say those people aren't american?
Why are there 2 occasions when the movie gives us a slug line? We get helipad-day and then mess hall-day later on. And then that's it, who cares about the timeline. To be honest, who cared about it even when they mentioned it, but I guess that's beside the point.
Does a movie really get better if you are able to view it through multiple split screens? The answer is no.
That dragon sure can walk down that hall..over..and over...and over....and over...
Who on earth was responsible for one of the worst endings in film history? It was straight out of scooby doo. Oh, the dragon's dead now...say, wanna get dinner? Sure, but not at some Chinese place....with Dragon in the name!! AH HA HA HA!! HA HA HA!! HAHA HA! I used to be Superman! AHA HA HA! HA HA!
fade to black
my god, it made me cringe it was so stupid.
But never fear..even though the whole building exploded...and no one was left alive..for some reason there's a second untouched, unmanned lab that survived pretty well, so they can make a sequel. Hurray for us 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\nThis is a formula B science fiction movie, and the director made no bones about it. It is about a dragon who is restored to life by a scientific team. Everything done is stuff you've seen many times before. It is a weak script, with no real characters. In fact, it is full of stereotype characters and situations. The director attacks this by just making it a formula movie, with no attempt to fool us, and that gives this movie a mild appeal, but it isn't something you're likely to remember a while. It is best seen while you're cooking, cleaning, working out. Sort of mindless fun. It has its place in entertainment, but it certainly isn't something you sit down with friends to watch, unless you're all just drunk and don't care. The mass rating of 3.2 is probably fair. I don't think it is as crappy as most people, but I am surprised that some people in the postings thought this was spectacular. That really eludes me, as I see no attempt to even make this a memorable 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\nI caught this movie on Sci-Fi before heading into work. If you've any interest in seeing Dean Cain dive and avoid being enveloped in flames at least a dozen times, this movie is for you. If that doesn't peak your interest, well, I'm afraid you'll wish that YOU were the one about to be enveloped in flames, because this movie is pretty bad. The acting, to begin with, is awful, awful, awful. The characters are all completely obnoxious, and the dialogue is worse than your typical Z-grade, Sci-Fi movie. Towards the end, the movie began to remind me of 'Hollow Man' (complete with escape via elevator shaft), except with a Dragon, not a naked, invisible man. Unlike other similar flicks, however, this one wasn't even awesomely bad...it was just plain 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\nDragon Fighter is the first Sci-Fi Channel (although I guess it's now called Syfy?) original movie I have ever seen. But I have seen one or two others since, and I can tell you that they were stupid, but this one really scrapes the bottom of the barrel. The CGI is done poorly, the acting is bad, the script is ridiculous, and what happens at the very end is unexpected and out of place (if you have seen Dragon Fighter, you probably know what I mean; I didn't want to put a spoiler in my review). Plus, there was this one musical tune that was used in pretty much every single dangerous sequence. That was really stupid; they just played it over and over. And it's definitely not original; I know I've heard that somewhere before (I just can't remember where). This is one to avoid.
\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 first 45 minutes of Dragon Fighter are entirely acceptable and surprisingly watchable. The characters are believable and interesting. The cloning lab looks really high-tech. After that, it all collapses. The characters start behaving idiotically, and a new subplot is introduced from nowhere about a fusion reactor (and this is supposedly \"present day\") going critical, the only plot justification of which is that it is required to kill the dragon - only it doesn't. The finish is incredibly weak. One wonders what made a movie that started out so well turn so wrong.
All the characters except Dean Cain are played by Russians. This results in some weird situations and details, like the character being played by Vessela Dimitrova being called \"Bailey Kent\" despite her heavy accent (and despite her, on one occasion, inexplicably switching to *Spanish*!).
Because of the decent start, I considered rating this movie a 5, but it really was more disappointing than that, so I only give it 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\nthere are those movies that are bad they are funny, then there are those where you scream \"i want that one and a half hours of my life back\"...thats pretty much what this is.
dean cain tries to be an actor but fails. the sfx are really bad (repeated scenes and rocks that look like falling paper) and the fake plastic guns that have torches taped on them...the split screen effect used to show multiple things happening at once is just terrible.
this movie cant even be used as one of those simple night entertainers, its just that bad
if i could go negative ratings, i would
\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 hard to praise this film much. The CGI for the dragon was well done, but lacked proper modelling for light and shadow. Also, the same footage is used endlessly of the dragon stomping through corridors which becomes slightly tedious.
I was amazed to see \"Marcus Aurelius\" in the acting credits, wondering what an ex-Emperor of the Roman Empire was doing acting in this film! Like \"Whoopie Goldberg\" it must be an alias, and can one blame him for using one if he appears in this stinker.
The story might been interesting, but the acting is flat, and direction is tedious. If you MUST watch this film, go around to your friend's house and get drunk while doing so - then it'll be enjoyable.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nYesterday I saw the movie Flyboys and my girlfriend told me it was the worst movie she's ever seen... Since I thought it was pretty awful as well it got me thinking - which film was the worst film I had ever seen and this was the only film that came to mind.
Unfortunately it was a couple of years since I've seen it but I remember the horribly miscast Dean Cain as cocky military man (pretty boy Cain doesn't do cocky very well). The strange deal with the CGI-helicopter when it would probably be cheaper to rent a chopper than to hire some CGI-guys to make it, but my guess is that they found the chopper as a free sample for some CGI program or the producer's son liked to play with his new computer. And how did it look?? Awful. And when the dragon charges through the corridors of the complex then reuse the same shots over and over - looks VERY cheap.
Avoid this movie - it is truly 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\nPretty standard B-movie stuff. Seriously, anyone who watches \"Dragon Fighter\" with Dean Cain and a bunch of people making their first movie should know better than to expect real quality or even moderate intelligence. B movies exist to re-work formulas that are popular. If you give them even token analysis, you'll wind up ruining the movie for yourself (and perhaps writing some self-important, slanderous review on IMDb).
I liked the female lead, Kristine Byers. She had charisma and I thought she was notably attractive. It was a memorable B-movie appearance. Unfortunately, I don't see where she has made any movies since. I'll watch for her 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\nWhen you wish for the dragon to eat every cast member, you know you're in for a bad ride.
I went in with very, very low expectations, having read some of the other comments, and was not let down. Unlike some other cheap and failed movies, however, this one doesn't really remain hilariously (and unintentionally) funny throughout.
-SPOILERS FOLLOW-
First of all, plot it very inconsistent. Looking past the \"small\" mistakes, such as the dragon growing up in 3 hours, the whole idea it's based on is messed up. See, the movie wants us to believe that dragons came from outer space in the form of meteorites which really were dragon eggs. After explaining this, they show some peasant poking at one with his pitchfork and the dragon pops out. Later, the obligatory \"crazy scientist\" guy babbles on about how dragons outlived the dinosaurs. So apparently humans were around when dinosaurs were, or we just have a fine little plot hole here. The other major thing is that the lab is blown up with a force \"half as strong\" as what was used for Hiroshima. Then two guys later walk in to check everything out, and it's almost unscathed! There's even another dragon, which grew out of who knows what. All in all it's very predictable. As soon as the guy mentioned cloning, I guessed they'd clone a dragon. That means that our Mr. Smarty-pants security guy isn't so intuitive and smart as the movie would have you believe, if you ignore that I knew this film would be about, you know, dragons.
Putting that aside, the second worst thing is the \"special effects.\" Others have mentioned the fake rocks falling during the beginning, the CG helicopter, and the dragon. It looks a bit better than a blob, but it ruined whatever it had going for it when it trudged down the hall in the same manner time after time. To their credit, the flying dragons in the beginning looked OK from far away (although the one in the cave is probably the worst one in the whole movie.) These things are funny to watch, however. The scenes where a million different shots of the same person facing different ways are shown are not. Nor are the \"introduction\" screens with the vital stats.
Coming to the actors, they weren't the greatest, but I guess at least they tried? They seemed more enthusiastic about what they were doing than many of the actors participating in the recent \"BloodRayne,\" for example, and you've got to give them points for that. One thing I noticed though was that the woman who plays Meredith often had her face covered in make-up that was many tones lighter than the rest of her. She looked like she had a bad run-in with some white-face.
The script is bad and cheesy. You don't really notice the music, but it's actually not too bad for the most part.
The bottom line is don't watch it unless you want to see it because you hear it's bad (like I did), although the only funny things are the bad CG effects. Other than that, don't waste your time and money.
\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 a dreadful movie! For some reason, scientific laboratories and outposts always have a staff of grubby, dirty, mean-spirited, misanthropes living inside. These folks who presumably work together on complicated scientific projects cannot seem to agree on how to survive death at the hands of a CGI Dragon. Spoilers: An extra-nasty scientist whose main acting skill is \"leering\" and \"the sinister stare\" has cloned a Dragon. While the lab was supposed to work on this kind of thing, the other scientists are shocked, because apparently they were all way behind in their experiments and got caught with their pants down. The rest of the story is like THE THING, or Ten Little Indians, where the staff is hunted and killed off as they try to formulate a way to escape and/or defeat the \"Dragon.\" The CGI Dragon creature is dark gray, which seems to be the popular color for most of the cheap CGI special effects. It hardly looks better than a cartoon, and the dark gray tones make it difficult to see any interesting details in the body of the Dragon. All it looks like is a gray blob. The acting is less than horrible. These scientists act like a bunch of children who cannot agree on anything, and this makes it easier for the Dragon to kill them off in various attempts to escape, hide, etc. Dean Cain is hardly better than any of the cast of unknown actors in this movie. He seems to sink to the level of his supporting cast. This movie is really, really atrocious. The acting is bad. The story is dumb. The CGI is very very cheap and amateurish. There is nothing commendable about this movie, it is not even a good time-killer to glance at while doing chores or other work.
\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 have been plenty of unknown movies or movies given bad reviews that I really liked. This was not one of them.
It was overacted and used camera techniques that made me feel like I was watching a soap opera. It was ludicrously predictable and took most of the movie to get going then left you asking \"that's it?\". Once I decided not to take the movie too seriously and watch it from a purely corny point of view it became more enjoyable. This is one movie that would have wound up on MST3000 if it was still on.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is some of the worst crap I have ever seen. I literally got a sharp pain in my head while watching this movie. The CGI was awful, and the story was just a waste of ink. Dean Cain's character was Mr-Super-Intuitive-I-can-figure-out-anything, except he can't seem to work his own helicopter correctly. The biggest problem was the split screen camera work. I felt like I was watching the Brady Bunch or something, only it wasn't different people in the boxes, just close ups and different views of the same thing. I can only figure that the actors really needed the money, because this movie wasn't worth the film it was shot on.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n
Once I ignored some of the implausibilities, this was actually a fairly decent horror/monster flick. So, I'll give some of the good points first: - the dragon was quite convincing, especially as she prowled through the tunnels looking for lunch (hint: she likes humans). - the action was fairly non stop, and, after a weak beginning, I got quite absorbed in the storyline. - sorry to say, I was kind of rooting for the dragon - she was probably the most convincing and consistent character in the movie.
Now for the implausible stuff **maybe some spoilers**: - if you were hunting a fire-breathing dragon in 1100 AD, would you charge into its cave with a barrel of gunpowder under your arm? Duh. - a female character with an all-American name, blonde hair and obvious Slavic accent, trying to pretend she's Spanish? Huh? - a lead scientist whose Slavic accent you can cut with a knife, and he's supposedly born in Chicago, educated in USA? - a military helicopter pilot who does his own repairs, flies a huge transport copter with no other crew, and is an expert marksman and combat soldier to boot? OK. Uh huh. I won't even mention his giving 3 different call signs in 2 minutes while communicating with his base.
It's still better than some of the Japanese monster flicks from the 60's, but not by much. If we're lucky, we won't see Dragon Fighter 2, though naturally the ending left that possibility wide open. Or, maybe, they'll hire a real director next time.
In spite of everything, I gave this flick a 4 out of 10. Add 2 more if they rewrite the plot, and Dean Cain gets eaten in the first ten minutes. 
\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 Alien, Jurassic Park and countless other sci fi horror movies are your cup of tea, add a lot of sugar and you'll get this one down. The film begins in jolly old England around 1100ad and then jumps to present day California. Our hero Carver (Dean Cain) is the new Security Chief and Military Advisor for a Science Lab 400 feet underground. He arrives (Carver is also a helicopter pilot) with the lead Scientist and we soon find out it's a cloning lab and they have something newly found to clone. Is it a Dinosaur or what? As with the above movies, all hell breaks loose and our characters start getting picked off. The special effects on the Monster are pretty good for a \"direct to video\" movie and Dean Cain does what he gets paid for. But forget the rest of the group as we find out why we have never seen them before. Again, don't go in with high expectations and you'll be ok.
\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\nNothing could have saved this movie, not even Superman.
Ten years ago the special effects would have been amazing. Better directing might have gotten some more feeling and better performances out of the actors. But nothing but feeding the script to a dragon could have fixed it. Plot holes, bad lines, terrible pacing, endless replaying of the same shots of a CGI dragon stomping through hallways... ugh.
Avoid this one 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\nThis movie really, i mean REALLY, sucks. Its got plot holes so big, and 30 foot dragon can fit through them. Not to mention the dragon itself, which is inevitably the worst computer generated image ever to be put on the film real. I mean, when you see something like this, you gotta be thinking \"Wow, someone actually made this movie. Then released it. That takes guts\". Whoever they are, i'm sure they don't work in the film business anymore.
When i hired this movie, it wasn't in on DVD, so i (reluctantly) took it out on video. The first thing to appear, was a Lord of the Rings trailer, for the Two Towers. This was a very clever move, putting this trailer on the video. It justifies me (reluctantly) giving the film 1 star, otherwise i would have given it zero stars. Maybe the producers though the star attraction of Dean Cain (I think thats how you spell it) would draw in the crowds (uh, to the video store that is).
Next they employed split screen technique (like in Hulk) to (i assume) compensate for what an atrocity this piece of crap film is. On the box cover, we see a picture of our hero, and the dragon. Does the dragon look exactly like the one in Dragonheart, or is it just me? Either way, the dragon in the film looks like a reject from Gremlins 2, and has the CGI of a Nintendo video game villain from the early 90's (perhaps worse). Also, not the Dragons movement as it pursues its victims- its the same F##cking monotonous movement- right leg, left leg, right leg left leg- dom, dom, dom, dom DOM, DOM F#$king DOOOOOM! This just pisses me off. Maybe the filmmakers thought this was thrilling and would have the same effect of Jaws. Why not then have a Dragon POV shot. Either way, that was just funny, much like watching a Weebl toon.
Dean Cain gives many puzzled looks during the film (maybe his coming to terms with the fact that this film could end his career). Don't expect Superman here. The first time i saw the trailer for this film, i thought it was an add for a PS2 game.
As for the story, its so so bad, my 5 year old brother can come up with better ones when he's unconvincingly trying to lie about why he was messing around in my room while i wasn't there. Oh, and did i mention that I F@#KING HATE THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THIS INCREDIBLY STUPID STUPID CRAP ATROCIOUS 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\nOK.... I just have 3 words - cheesy, cheesy and CHEESY! The only redeeming feature of this movie is Dean Cain. Other than that - it's CHEESEBALL SUPREME!!!!
The movie DOES have some promise in the concept - an underground lab creates a real live fire breathing dragon - basically giving us more of \"Jurassic Park\" meets \"Reign of Fire\"..... There are some great possibilities, but they just don't follow through.... The special effects are decent - even though you KNOW the dragon is CGI, it doesn't horribly LOOK like CGI....
I wouldn't lay the blame on Dean Cain (although he IS one of the producers), I'd lay more of the blame on Phillip Roth - the director and writer. It's HIS job to make this film.... and, unfortunately, he failed.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen I am watching a film, I am aware that it is `just a movie,' but nonetheless I do like to allow myself to become engrossed as much as possible under the circumstances. I think this is what makes us cry, scream, laugh, or otherwise react emotionally as audience members, even though, deep down, we know it is `just a movie.' What I don't want is for the movie to remind me it is just a movie so that I am unable to slip into the aforementioned engrossment regardless of the quality of the film. This film's director chose to frequently use multi-angle camera shots simultaneously on the screen. Maybe it is just me, but I find this to be terribly distracting and downright irritating. They might as well run a continuous banner across the bottom of the screen reading, `Attention: This is just a movie. Do not allow yourself to become too interested or engrossed'. If I want `picture-in-picture', I'll activate it from my TV remote, but never during a movie I want to enjoy.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen I rented this I was hoping for what \"Reign of Fire\" did not deliver: a clash between modern technology and mythic beasts.
Instead I got a standard \"monster hunts stupid people in remote building\" flick, with bad script, bad music, bad effects, bad plot, bad acting. Bad, bad, bad.
Only reason why I did give it a 2 was that in theory there could exist worse movies. In theory.....
\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\nSaturday Night Live, National Lampoon, and SCTV alumnus are all together in a sometimes funny sketch film.
However, it is very interesting to watch now, at the start of 2005. Twenty years after this movie is supposed to take place, look at how many of their gags have become absolutely true: There is a mock movie trailer, that probably wasn't even clever at the time, for something called \"The Pregnant Man\" which came true with Arnold Schwarzenegger's dumb movie \"Junior\" There is a commercial spoof, that probably wasn't even clever at the time, for something featuring Sammy Davis Jr. and Jackie Onasis called \"Celebrity Wrestling\" which has now come true with a popular show called \"Celebrity Boxing\" There is a mock movie trailer, that probably wasn't even clever at the time, that features John Candy in a movie about a severed head. Watch this trailer and look how similar it's shots and plot are to Frank Hellenlotter's Basket Case!! And finally there is an ad for a late late show documentary about \"a dead dream, the only two left ...\" The name of the documentary is ... THE LAST HIPPIES! LOL.
Four prophecies come true!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nStephen Feinberg, who Played the Proctologist and was one of the writers of the movie, passed away in early 2006. I met Steve in Portland in 1993, it was a year latter when he told me that he had been a writer in Hollywood years earlier, working mostly on TV promos. He asked me not to see 'Tunnel Vision', but it was too late, I had seen it already! Actually I had seen it years before, when it was released. At that time I didn't think it was that bad a movie. However seeing it as an adult my opinion was somewhat different. Yes is is a bit puerile as well as dated. Steve admitted it was not a very good movie. That said he was just a little proud of 'The Proctologist' sketch.
\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 I ever paid to see and with the exception of \"They Saved Hitler's Brain\" the worst movie I have ever seen period. When this movie came out I was a big fan of SNL and SCTV and therefore was anticipating what I thought would be the funniest movie that could be produced since it did not have the restrictions the TV improv shows must deal with.
The writers must have thought we will throw in some grossness, some flatulence jokes, some cheap sex and hey we have a risky side splitting laughable comedy. The game show skits are nothing more than cheap unimaginable take offs on Let's Make a Deal with stupid grossness. The sit com take off involving the single girl and her boyfriend was just plain bad high school humor. The stun gun advertisement was suitable humor for Seasame Street. The LA subway skit was bland humor using tasteless bloodiness. The french chef walking around blind constantly uttering \"there is no difference\" with a french accent was, well you get my point.
The only funny skit involved Chevy Chase which lasted for a whole minute. This means you get 60 seconds of entertainment in this movie. Oh yea I've read the comments about the entire country being stoned in the 1970's and you will like this movie if you are high. Well most of the country was not stoned in the 70's. If the inept writers were stoned it must have been on drowsy sinus medicine. There were 4 other people in the theater besides myself when I saw this movie. Of course word did not get out yet about how bad the movie 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\nIn the future of 1985, a governmental committee headed by Howard Hesseman, is holding hearings on TV's first uncensored network. They sample it's programming, that play as a series of skits. I can name the good 'skit' movies on one hand, not using my thumb. \"Amazon Women on the Moon\", \"Kentucky Fried Movie\", \"The Meaning of Life\", and \"Mr. Mike's Mondo Video\". Notice how I didn't mention \"Tunnel Vision\"? The reason for that is that this 'movie' is death in cinematic form. None of the skits are even remotely funny, or even the least bit clever. It takes some sort of great ineptitude on the film makers' part to not even get one laugh out of me.
My Grade: F
Eye Candy: Dody Dorn goes full frontal
\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 missed the beginning but I did see most of it. A friend got it on DVD in the cheap room at FYE.
The skits are all very short, and yet most of them are still too long. The majority of them, they seem to have forgotten to have something funny! Quite a lot of racist/sexist/\"homophobic\" humor in it, skits based on stereotypes, or skits which use racist terms for people.
I'm trying to remember anything I thought was funny in it, and I'm having trouble.... The logo for the Tunnel Vision network is a lipsticked mouth with an eyeball in it. The mouth opens and closes over the eye like eyelids. Kind of creepy.
What a disappointment. Most of the actors went on to better things, and it's lucky this bomb didn't hold them back.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is a prime example of squandering great resources in a film. You've got future SNL and SCTV stars in their prime, such as John Candy, Chevy Chase, Laraine Newman, Al Franken,Tom Davis and Joe Flaherty essentially making 70 minutes of coarse, uninspired fart and racist jokes. The concept of a network from the future subverting society could have really been taken to some interesting extremes, but instead right out the gate, makes a lame, juvenile proctology joke and stays in that vein of humor the whole way.Seek out the earlier and much more subversive and witty Groove Tube or the later, hilarious Kentucky Fried Movie. This movie is only for those who want to see a time capsule of bad 70's sketch comedy movies.
\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\nBack in the 70's, when I had first seen this, I was in high school. It was cool then. Now as an adult I look back at it and I say to myself..yeah right. What was so funny? It has it's moments but they are few and far between. It is so dated that the jokes no longer stand up. Show this to a younger crowd and they will be totally lost. If you like this type of humor you may want to stick with Kentucky Fried Movie or Amazon Women From The Moon. Tunnel Vision as well as Groove tube are too dated for today's viewing.
\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 decent endeavor but the guy who wrote the screenplay seems to be a bit in the dark as to what exactly makes a zombie movie cool. No, it isn't CGI bugs and software companies. Actually I'm not sure whether it was a software company - I saw it without subtitles so I had to guess what they're talking about. Anyway my point was - instead of wasting your time animating some dumb-ass bug, why not throw in more zombies and more action. 2/3 of the 20 minutes consist of news bulletins, bugs, some guys yelling about something. And to makes matters worse (more boring) most of the deaths occur off-screen. I realize that's all too common for no-budget movies, but then there were some very impressive effects (well, kind-a of) which left me wondering why did the director (or screenwriter, whatever) chose to focus on how the epidemic started - it's a short, nobody's gonna care anyway.
\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 bought this DVD after seeing it highly ranked here. It's just a short 20 minutes zombie film. Nothing special about it except for the music perhaps.
Don't buy it! Not even really worth spending 20 minutes to see it. Only if you're really bored...
\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\nSteven Vasquez directed and co-wrote with James Townsend, the star, this strange little drama cum horror flick with evidently very good ideas and intentions: make a gay film that takes a different storyline than the usual fare and make a drama that wants to be judged on its merits as a thriller. So why doesn't it work? For starters the film loses direction from the opening frame and wanders rather aimlessly throughout the film, dead set on making a suspense thriller but getting sidetracked into satisfying an audience who wants to see nude encounters. Not that that is a bad thing: it can certainly enhance some films that have been Hollywood successes. The film also tries to talk about coming out experiences in young men and women, relationships, disturbed parenting, the club scene with all the wild antics that accompany such events - and murder. It is all a bit much to cram into a 96-minute film.
Devon (James Townsend) by all appearances is a successful kid with a kind girlfriend Jenna (Sarah Kelly) but he has an eye for boys and visits a bar where he meets Brian (Alex Wilson) who has been down the same path and can offer Devon assistance on every level. They bond, Devon comes out, and the mysteries begin: boys are missing in the neighborhood, Devon's stepfather psychologist Dr. Kirk Tyler (Dan Swett) is not at all what he appears to be and despite Devon's consoling mother Donna (Sonja Fisher) Devon is cast into the streets because of his new relationship. It seems Dr Tyler is in a dark business with hunky Detective Cunningham (Earl McDougle) who apparently is investigating the missing boys... Devon gathers his resources from his understanding girlfriend Jenna and her cronies and together the group unveils the dark doings of Dr. Tyler and his detective sidekick. And through it all Donna radiates warmth and understanding as the perfect mother of a gay boy, etc.
Some of the actors are pleasing to the eye (and there is very little the eye doesn't examine frequently!) but the degree of acting is at an all time low. The only thing that makes us forgive that (and in some cases it is just too poor to forgive) is the feeling of commitment on the part of everyone involved. Yes, this is a low budget movie and yes, the director needs time to learn his trade. But in the end there is something to be said for the involved people to try to take a gay film to a different level. Maybe their next one will be more polished. Grady Harp
\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 are some good things about the movie. The music and cinematography is great. Alex Wilson is hot and gives a great performance. Ryan Bauer is also hot. The production was very lucky to have casted them because they really give production value to the movie. Jonny Vincent (Sean) and a lot of the boys in the movie that don't speak are cute too. Why isn't the actress who plays Amy listed in the credits? Brandon Alexander gives a great comedic performance as Clitarissa Pink.
The worse thing about the movie is probably the star, James Townsend. He can't act. He's also very scrawny, not nice to look at at all. His arms are like spaghetti. It's disgusting. They have no muscle tone at all. It's no wonder he has to make his own movie and cast himself in it. No one else would cast him in anything.
James Townsend is not believable as someone who would even have a girlfriend because he acts so gay. They should have casted someone else as the lead if they wanted what's best for the movie. Then again, maybe he just wants to use this movie as a vehicle to launch a career in soft-core porn, definitely not real acting because he would have taken some acting lessons. Plus, anyone who does porn is blacklisted in Hollywood.
The most ridiculous thing about the movie is probably the casting of a tan-skinned Latina as Devon's mother. Sonja Fisher does not seem like an actress at all. All in all, this movie is soft-core porn and is no better than something you would see on Skinemax. I think even Alex Wilson, probably the best thing about this movie, is embarrassed by it and doesn't want to be associated with it. There is no photo on his IMDb page and nothing else listed, so Alex Wilson is probably a disposable stage name. Plus, I ran into him in West Hollywood one time recently and when I mentioned this movie, he just turned around and walked away. I understand. If I had worked on this movie, I would be embarrassed and wouldn't want to be associated with it either.
\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\nUntil now, the worst movie I had ever seen was Ben & Arthur. You really should check the reviews for that movie instead of this one. The review statistics for this movie have been skewed positive through a relentless and unscrupulous push by some of the people involved in making it, evidence for which is fairly easy to uncover online. At least the people who made Ben & Arthur were honorable enough to let it stand on its own shaky legs, instead of unscrupulously promoting it so suckers like me would buy it.
Everything about this movie is terrible, the script, the story, the casting, the acting, the direction, the photography, the editing, the music... what else goes into a movie? Whatever it is, here it's as bad as it gets. If it weren't so unpleasant it would be ridiculous. I kept watching it thinking it must get better, because I hadn't yet discovered that none of the positive reviews for it are reliable.
It does not take a lot of money to make a great movie, nor does a low budget mean a movie has to be bad. My favorite example of a shoestring-budget masterpiece is Gus Van Sant's amazing Mala Noche, but there are many others. Sideline SecretsDirector's Cut or originalis bad not because the people who made it had no money, but because they had gigantic egos and no talent for anything at all except self-promotion.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"