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 movie is terrible but it has some good effects.
\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\nOuch! They don't come much worse than this horrid adaptation of C. S. Lewis's beloved novel. While the adaptation is very true to the novel, the acting is simply awful and the sets and special effects are on a scale equivalent to a school play. I've read that the budget for this miniseries was the grandest that the BBC has ever given at the time, but surely they could have scraped together a bit more than the $2 that it looks like this was filmed for. The worst effect of all is Mr. Beaver. I know computer effects weren't at the level necessary or even cost effective at the time, but the costume store man in a suit look was horrid. Better to have just cut the character from the film than do that to the role! Avoid this 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\nI'm a fan of the series and have read all 7 books. I wanted to see this just to see how it was done. All i can say, is that the only people who should watch this are ones who have already read the series and are curious about it. Its pretty bad, and will turn you off reading them. Not to be mean, but Lucy is so ugly it detracts from the movie. Was she the directors daughter? Seriously, I'm sure the beavers in the movie were jealous of her teeth. She had an overbite that would put any beaver to shame. The movie just loses so much in translation. CS books don't translate as easily as the Tolkein LOTR books, or even Harry Potter.
One thing they did right! Aslan! very well done. Although the other human actors with painted faces ( beavers, wolf) look silly, Aslan was really well done since it was not just a human actor walking around. ( i guess its like that old horse custume? 2 people inside? ) Also, i would be curious what kids think of this movie. Maybe they would enjoy it? But as for adults, safe bet they wont, even if a CS fan.
\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\nHaving watched this after receiving the DVD for Christmas 2005, I came here to pan it -- but after reading the other comments, I haven't the heart. Clearly this is a film that has worked very well for children of a certain age. Well, let me not be a complete Grinch; it might still work for some children -- if they are not too media-saturated and have not become visually over-sophisticated, e.g. from watching all of LOTR and Harry Potter. But if you are an adult, stay miles away; you will not enjoy it.
The good bits: Barbara Kellerman as the Witch, especially in her early scenes with Edmund, creates just the right blend of charismatic evil and restrained madness. (At the Stone Table she goes a bit over the top.) Michael Aldridge in the minor role of the Professor and Jeffrey S. Perry as Mr. Tumnus also have the kind of polished, skillful acting we'd expect from the very best BBC dramas. And the Aslan costume works very well, amazingly well considering. They got the eyes just right.
The bad bits: almost everything else, but two areas in particular. One, the casting. England is crammed with good actors and contains tens of thousands of attractive British school kids. How could they possibly have ended up with these four stiffs? They move like wooden soldiers and speak about as well. Peter has no gravitas or charisma (and is visibly shorter than his supposedly younger siblings); Edmund is just whiny; and Lucy... Sophie Wilcox as Lucy is so dramatically, visibly, drastically wrong for this part that I can't imagine how she got the job.
Two, the animal costumes. Again, it appears that they worked for some kids. If the kids are still at a level where Big Bird and Elmo are exciting, believable characters, they might be entranced by this film. But to a viewer with the sophistication of, say, a 12-year-old who's seen Prisoner Of Azkaban? When Mister Beaver comes out from behind that tree, there will be hoots of cruel, derisive laughter. The costumes just do not work -- I could not, and I think any adult or modern teen could not, suspend disbelief when looking at Mister Beaver. The drawn animation later (gryphons, etc.) works better, is easier to take.
So: ten stars for the very young and tender of soul; everyone else read, or re-read the book and watch the far better film that unrolls in your imagination.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am a student of film, and have been for several years. And the concept of a cyber, kung-fu, satirical chimpanzee had me wondering, \"Is this the film that's going to break the mold?\" Let's face it, America has never been let down by any piece of cinema that features a simian costar. After such great classics as \"Monkey Trouble\" and \"Dunston Checks In\", I thought that the best ideas were already taken. But then comes \"Funky Monkey\". I laughed, I cried, I contemplated suicide.
Now I've read about demon possession in the Bible, but that still doesn't explain why someone would create such a product of evil. First off, having at least a shred of intelligence, I realized that a chimpanzee was in fact an ape, not a monkey at all. However, I was sure that the filmmakers would clear this problem up further into the film. They didn't. Let me sum up this work of art: A company by the name of Z.I.T. has decided to train chimpanzees as soldiers. Why? I think they mention something about the soldiers working for bananas, but when it would cost about an estimated 13 million dollars of government money to train one chimp, this doesn't seem cost-effective. Well anyways, Z.I.T. brings in a CIA specialist (Matthew Modine) to train Clemens (The Chimp). Clemens is everything Z.I.T. hoped for. He can take out an entire shift of guards, who all appear to have gotten their training skills at the local mall, and yet still manage to remind us that we're watching a kid's movie. As you may have guessed, Modine finds out that Z.I.T.'s intentions may be evil (Gasp!) and decides to break Clemens out. Being a CIA agent and all, Modine knows that best way to make himself disappear is to go to a large city, rent a guest room, regularly make appearances on television while fighting crime, and using checks to pay for everything.
Z.I.T. finds out where Modine is staying, and sends two of their finest to retrieve him. These guards are possibly the greatest comedy team up since Martin and Lewis, or was it Turner and Hooch? It doesn't matter anyways, because in the end, for a heck of a twist ending, the good guys win!!! Yay! Hooray for predictability! Throw in a nerdy kid who learns to be himself, a lonely mom who needs a date, and music montages that feature songs that would even be blackballed by Radio Disney and you get \"Funky Monkey\". The climax to the movie? A football game! Played by thugs, bumblers, a chimp, and the nerd boy. No one seems to care about such substitutions at a high school football game.
Funky Monkey never lets up! It's edge of your seat entertainment. Some might even call this the \"American Beauty\" of monkey-filled features. After finishing this epic, I recalled hearing a story about a railroad worker who lost much of his brain functions when a metal rod pierced his temporal lobe. Funky Monkey is a metal rod among 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\nI bought this movie from Gamestop's discount used movie bin and the cover caused me to laugh uncontrollably so I bought it for 99cents. The movie itself is retarded and they use like ten different monkeys throughout the whole film that hardly look alike. Not to mention they use a stunt double who is just a short guy in costume making a desperate attempt to impersonate a monkey.
The director more than likely committed a murder-suicide with the chimpanzees after the movie debuted in a preview for some other low rent Warner Bros. film and he ended up owing money to the studio. It also doesn't help that he wasn't even infamous for the terrible job he did, he wasn't even known for producing a poop-chute film.
Why was this movie ever made?
\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 story of two guys who found a copy of 'Funky Monkey.' Finding this seemed odd at the time figuring that there are still posters for the movie at the local Cineplex Odeon. After seeing such classics as 'Every Which Way But Loose' and 'Project X,' these two guys figured movies with monkeys are awesome.
These guys were in for a long ride as they watched this movie. There was some monkey that was replaced by a Stunt MAN when action sequences were required. It was apparent that the monkey wasn't trained in the school of Shakespearean acting. Perhaps replacing the monkey with Ben Affleck might have helped the guys thought.
Maybe a strong sidekick would help like a Jackie Chan or heck maybe even Hulk Hogan. Luckily this movie had amazing martial artist and Jet Li look-a-like Matthew Modine. While some might argue that Matthew Modine doesn't come close to Jet Li, camera tricks prove that he is every bit as good. When it becomes obvious that an untrained chimp can't handle the movie, the movie leans on Matthew Modine to be the real star.
Did I mention that there is some dorky kid that develops a bond with Modine and the monkey? Is there a possibility that the kid learns confidence and even picks up a girl in this movie? Even Matthew Modine should get jealous with this one (because using the pick-up line 'I'm second fiddle to a monkey' doesn't seem to work with the ladies.)
Shortly after watching this movie the two guys got a phone call from Matthew Modine telling them 'Seven days.'
\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 there was a 0 stars rating i would gladly hand it out to this absolutely horrid pile of waste. The fact that the actual summary is perfectly fine and that if it had been made different it could have been brilliant only makes it worse. The basic task of locking up a group of people in an experiment chamber is fine, but WHERES THE EXPERIMENT? All i see is a bunch of unintelligent surfers and blondes chatting about music and culture i don't know or want to know about... The challenges are pathetic and silly. The whole point of reality TV is to show REALITY. If you set a 'challenge' don't make them play with exaggerated props of food and stereotypical cultural elements in 'friday night games'. make them do an actual challenge. And as for 'earning' prize money, thats fine, if they actually earnt it! These people are nuts. If only they would make the show better, the actual idea would be glorious. But that ain't gonna happen!
\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 rubbish excuse for television is the single most god-awful piece of trash ever to hit Australian television. The house-mates are dull, uninteresting, ridiculously unintelligent and are picked on the basis that you would be likely to attempt to murder them if you had to live with them. As far as I am concerned Big Brother is the decline of western society, showing how us as a society are on a steep slope to becoming brain-dead morons. Whatever happened to television that didn't target the lowest common denominator of society as an audience? This cannot be classified as entertainment. I think that it true that Channel Ten can remove your soul. It happened to Rove McManus who was once a respectable comedian and, once moving to Channel 10, become horribly unfunny. With the exception of The Simpsons which is highly intelligently made.
\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 hate how this movie has absolutely no creative input. I know they're going for realism, but to be frank I just don't want realism. Realism is boring. If I want to see daily life, I'll uhm, live. Tell me an interesting story and we'll talk. I can deal with the low production values, hell I'm a sucker for low production values, but at least work in some good ideas. The direction only goes as far as grabbing a camcorder and walking around a bit, but obviously I'm supposed to dig that because it makes stuff so much more realistic. Hitchcock used to say drama was essentially life with the dull bits cut out. I can only conclude this is not drama, not by a long shot. We get to see Rosetta walking to someplace, Rosetta working in a bakery, Rosetta eating a waffle, Rosetta carrying around bags of far, Rosetta walking back home, Rosetta walking someplace...it's just not that entertaining. There isn't really a deeper meaning either. I got so bored I started looking for some reflections on life in this movie but it's just plain realism, the most overrated quality in the business. I guess I'm supposed to love this, but come on, there's nothing in there.
\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 no idea what idiots gave this movie a Palm D'Or at the 1999 Cannes Film Festival because it was atrocious! I actually watched the entire thing simply because I couldn't believe that someone would make such a worthless film. There is nothing interesting about the plot, the characters are devoid of depth and there is no attempt at giving any sort of ambiance with music or sound effects. Also, if you do decide to waste 2 hours of your life by watching this film, be sure to bring something to throw up in because the cinematography is simply someone running around with a hand-held camcorder and half the time you can't even see the main subjects. This style has been used much more successfully in movies such as \"Blair Witch\" because it creates suspense. In Rosetta, there is no plot and no suspense to which that style would lend anything. I should have known better when it came on at 2 o'clock in the morning that it was going to be horrible.
\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 I had known this movie was filmed in the exasperating and quease-inducing Dogme 95 style, I would never have rented it. Nevertheless, I took a dramamine for the seasickness and gave it a shot. I lasted a very, very, very long forty minutes before giving up. It's just boring, pretentious twaddle.
The last French movie I saw was \"Romance\" and it too was pretty dismal, but at least the camera was steady and not breathing down the necks of the characters all the time. I am baffled at the continuing popularity of Dogme 95 overseas -- it'll catch on in America about the same time as the next big outbreak of leprosy. (It's called Dogme 95 because that's the average number of times the actors are poked in the eye by the camera.)

\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 go to the cinema to be entertained. There is absolutely nothing entertaining about this film. From beginning to end, there is no respite from the gray, grinding reality of this woman's life. It is one-paced, with no change of mood. I remained until the end only because I was convinced that things must get better. They don't, and I don't think I was the only one, as evidenced by the many groans ringing around the cinema as the film drew mercifully to a close. Honestly depicting social depravation is no crime, but boring your audience to groans is not the way to win the sympathy of the public. A dreadful 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\nWhat were they thinking at \"Cannes\"? One of the most irritating, films of all time. Every detail of this film, no matter how meaningless was shown. If I had to watch her put on those boots one more time I think I would have shouted. If the point of this film was to show how pathetic a life Rosetta had, then it was covered within the first fifteen minutes of the movie and then the credits should have been running. But no, we had to see countless redundant scenes over and over. The whole thing was filled with un-likeable and unsympathetic characters. They deserved the misery that was Rosetta. And to think I passed up \"Tumbleweeds\" to see this over-hyped film of boredom. It was like watching grass grow, only that is more exciting.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst of all, I became dissy after watching this movie for five minutes (cause of the bas screenplay). I don't think this movie has any purpose. It's boring from the first minute to the last. I don't understand why this movie scores so high. I gave it 1/10 but actually it's not more wurth then 0/10.
\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\n\"That 'Malcom' show on FOX is really making a killing... can't we do our own version?\" I speculate and paraphrase, of course, but in our hearts we all know it's true, and that the only thing NBC added to the 'Malcom' metric was sex. And, boy, did they add sex...
Thirteen-year-old Tucker gets a boner and covers it up with his skateboard. Tucker accidentally walks in on his Aunt in the shower and she accuses him of watching her and beating off. He spies on the cute girl in the next house from his bedroom window, and she knows he wants to see her topless but she teases him by smiling and closing the window. And this is all in the pilot.
Take it from a grown man- a boy's puberty is so sex-crazy and testicle-driven it is impossible to make it funny for a mainstream audience. The only times anyone has ever come close has been in movies, and you can count those on one hand. So it's no surprise that \"Tucker\" has the warmth and appeal of a strip-club bathroom. Did the network actually think we would like watching kids grapple with puberty? Isn't this the stuff people go to jail for? If you doubt the show's depravity consider this: 13 episodes were filmed but NBC canceled it after only 4 episodes aired; they then made the unprecedented move of \"burning off\" the remaining episodes by airing them AT MIDNIGHT so no children could see them. Ironic since kids were originally the target audience.
Apart from its general scuzziness Tucker features a running voice-over from the lead character to flesh out the shoddy writing. Even in 2000 it was horribly dated, with it's ska incidental music and super-sarcasm. I couldn't like any of the characters enough to laugh at the jokes and the jokes didn't exactly come a mile-a-minute... Shame on NBC for this dirty rip-off... they're better than that.
GRADE: C-
\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\nWords can't simply describe how awful this film is. I watched it on video last night, and I simply could not believe what I was seeing. Basically, \"Snakeeater\" is about an ex-military man (Lorenzo Lamas) and his search for his kidnapped sister who has been held captive by Deliverance-style Rednecks. The film's acting, writing, direction, photography, and editing are deplorable along with a song called \"Soldier\" that has to be one of the worst theme songs of all time!
However, there is one treat. \"Horshack\" (Ron Pallio) from \"Welcome Back Carter\" is in the film playing a laughable bad guy. Otherwise, please avoid this mess 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\nNow, I've seen a lot of bad movies. I like bad movies. Especially bad action movies. I've seen (and enjoyed) all of Jean-Claude Van Damme's movies, including the one where he's his own clone, both of the ones where he plays twins, and all three where he's a cyborg. I actually own the one where he plays a fashion designer and has a fight in a truck full of durians. (Hey, if nothing else, he's got a great ass and you almost always get to see it. With DVD, you can even pause and zoom in!) That's why you can trust me when I say that this movie is so bad, it makes Plan 9 look like Citizen Kane.
Everything about Snake Eater is bad. The plot is bad. The script is bad. The sets are bad. The fights are bad. The stunts are bad. The FX are bad. The acting is spectacularly, earth-time-bendingly bad, very probably showcasing the worst performance of every so-called actor in the cast, including Lorenzo Lamas, and that's really saying something. And I'd be willing to bet everyone involved with this movie is lousy in bed, to boot. ESPECIALLY Lorenzo Lamas.
It does manage to be unintentionally funny, so it's not a total loss. However, I recommend that you watch this movie only if you are either a congenital idiot or very, very stoned. I was able to sit through it myself because I needed to watch something to distract me from rinsing cat urine out of my laundry.
It didn't help much, but it was better than nothing. One point for Ron Palillo's cameo as a gay arsonist.
\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 really bad film, with bad acting and a very boring pace Lorenzo Lamas is really cool though!. All the characters are just annoying (except Lamas), and there is absolutely no one to root or to care for!, plus the action is very boring. The film gives us 3 villains who were supposed to find menacing and disturbing when in fact there boring, laughable and just a bunch of morons that i wanted to shut up!, plus it looks very cheap and amateurish!. Lorenzo Lamas has a lot of charisma but he can't save this piece of crap, and believe it or not the opening was really cool, as was the ending, however the middle is incredibly boring, and got me to have the urge to press the fast forward button!, plus The dialog is especially laughable!.There is a cool bar scene that i really liked, but once Lamas heads to the dock it all falls apart, plus the scene where The villains torture Jennifer's family, and kills them were supposed to find it disturbing when it in fact is laughable!. This is a really bad film, with bad acting and a very boring pace, Lorenzo Lamas is really cool though!, however it is not enough, not recommended. The Direction is very bad. George Erschbamer does a very bad job here, with mediocre camera work, bland location, and keeping the film at a boring pace. The Acting is pretty bad (except for Lamas). Lorenzo Lamas is awesome here, and while he isn't required to act, he is quite fun to watch, and has a really cool character, and had a lot of charisma, however even he can't save this one,and he had no chemistry with the cast either! (Lamas Rules!). Josie Bell is terrible here, and while she's decent looking, she isn't very convincing and had no chemistry with Lamas. Cheryl Jeans is hot, but does not have much to do but scream and scared, she did okay at that.Robert Scott is INCREDIBLY annoying as the main villain, and wasn't menacing at all, he was laughable as were the other 2. Rest of the cast are bad. Overall Avoid! Avoid!, even if you do like Lamas (like me). * out of 5
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nLorenzo Lamas stars as Jack `Solider` Kelly an ex-vietnam vet and a renegade cop who goes on a search and destroy mission to save his sister from backwoods rednecks. Atrocious movie is so cheaply made and so bad that Ron Palillo is third billed, and yet has 3 minutes of screen time, and even those aren't any good. Overall a terrible movie, but the scenes with Lorenzo Lamas and Josie Bell hanging from a tree bagged and gagged are worth a few (unintentional) laughs. Followed by an improved sequel.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWOW what can i say. I like shity movies and i go out of my way to watch a corny action flick, but Snake Eater i would have rather had a nail driven into my pee hole while my grandma gave me a lap dance .Lorenzo Lamas, pfft more like Lorenzo Lameass this guy has as much acting ability as Bill Clinton has self control. It has all the goods to make a really bad movie even worse. Crazed Hillbilles YEP! needless tit shot (with a real weird scar) YEP! crappy soundtrack YEP! I wish i could give the movie -10 stars but 1 is as low as it goes. Seriously i think someone was playing a joke on me when i saw this it cant be real...... the worse thing THERE IS 2MORE SNAKE EATER MOVIES!...... guess its in demand.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst, let's all agree that Lorenzo Lamas could never be considered a skilled actor, barely even decent, sometimes just plain lousy. However, in this piece of @*!^ called SnakeEater, the film industry as a whole sank.
First, let's start with the plot. A Vietnam vet named Jack Kelly, aka Soldier (who is supposed to be as tough as a strap of leather and then some, which you can believe when he shoves a palate of nails through 2 guys' feet and pins them to the floor), gets word that his family has been killed and his sister kidnapped. Therefore he goes on a solo mission to save his sister. Had some potential, but still pretty thin to begin with.
Now, the acting. Being an actor myself, I am qualified to say that this was some of the WORST acting in the history of the art!!!!! Lamas is, well, himself. The jackasses playing the Clampets/Deliverance rejects should be strung up and shot for their so-called performances which are insulting to actors everywhere, especially talented ones who never get their big break!
Finally, the action. The gunfighting is so-so at BEST, and the fist-fighting is deplorable. I've seen more real-looking fights at the Renaissance Festival (and those were pretty fake-looking)!
Readers, listen to me: AVOID THIS PIECE OF CACA AT ALL COSTS! IF IT WERE THE ONLY FILM IN EXISTENCE, YOU STILL WOULD WANT TO AVOID IT! For the sake of your brain-cell count, do NOT watch this thing!
\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 has some of the worst acting that I have ever seen! Some scenes are original such as the nails coming through the floor. This nail trap catches these bad guys. The rest of the movie degrades as you go. I can't believe that this movie is not even in the bottom 100 movies of all time. I also can't believe that there are sequels! The next crap movie that I want to watch is R.O.T.O.R. Could R.O.T.O.R really be much worse than this?

\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was not expecting much going in to this, but still came away disappointed. This was my least favorite Halestorm production I have seen. I thought it was supposed to be a comedy, but I only snickered at 3 or 4 jokes. Is it really a funny gag to see a fat guy eating donuts and falling down over and over? What was up with the janitor in Heaven scene? Fred Willard has been hilarious with some of his Christopher Guest collaborations, but this did not work. They must have spent all the budget on getting \"known\" actors to appear in this because there was no lighting budget. It looked like it was filmed with a video camera and most scenes were very dark. Does it really take that much film to show someone actually shoot and make a basket, as opposed to cutting away and editing a ball swishing through a basket? I try not to be too critical of low budget comedies, but if you want to see something funny go to a real Church basketball game instead of this movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nEvery once in a long while a movie will come along that will be so awful that I feel compelled to warn people. If I labor all my days and I can save but one soul from watching this movie, how great will be my joy.
Where to begin my discussion of pain. For starters, there was a musical montage every five minutes. There was no character development. Every character was a stereotype. We had swearing guy, fat guy who eats donuts, goofy foreign guy, etc. The script felt as if it were being written as the movie was being shot. The production value was so incredibly low that it felt like I was watching a junior high video presentation. Have the directors, producers, etc. ever even seen a movie before? Halestorm is getting worse and worse with every new entry. The concept for this movie sounded so funny. How could you go wrong with Gary Coleman and a handful of somewhat legitimate actors. But trust me when I say this, things went wrong, VERY WRONG.
\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 wanted to like this film, I really did. It's got some good actors but ultimately it falls flat. It tries too hard to be funny in some places (the daughters over zealous cooking attempts), over reaches in others (the scene where they clean up someone's yard, so he agrees to join the team) and has some scenes that, while mildly interesting, are really just filler (all the work scene's). And I didn't find the \"villians\" intimidating, or worth hating, so much as I found them to be childishly annoying.
I've met people like those in the film while playing church ball. And I will say the referee's are spot on, Still, in the end, I really didn't care all that much about the characters, or their quest for church ball glory. Maybe because they were all so one dimensional, which I might not have minded so much if the film were funnier or seemed to flow a little more smoothly overall.
Kurt Hale, and Halestorm entertainment, has made some good films, but this is not one of them.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've never been a huge fan of Mormon films. Being a Mormon, I've always felt that the humor was too exclusive to the LDS community and made us seem like a bunch of obsessive wackos. I was hoping this would be the breath of fresh air, the Halestorm movie I could finally discuss with my non-Mormon friends.
Boy, was I wrong.
I figured, since this had B-list talent like Clint Howard, Gary Coleman, Andrew Wilson, and Fred Willard (one of my favorites), this would have to be at least a little funny. And besides, church basketball is ripe with potential for plenty of hilarious gags and such. But I must say, throughout the entire movie, it seemed as though no one knew what they were doing. Every joke fell flat, and every opportunity for a genuinely funny gag went ignored. The dialogue was bland, and the film had some of the worst character development I have ever seen. Every single character but Wilson's was less than one-dimensional. It's hard to believe that after nine re-writes the film was still as mind-numbingly stale as the train wreck I witnessed. I can't put into words the rage I felt sitting through this. My friends and I were extras in the final game scene, so we went to the premiere in Washington City, UT. Kurt Hale, the director, was there, and I must say, I avoided all contact with him after the show. He waited at the door, seemingly ready for feedback. I couldn't bring myself to tell him that his film not only ripped away a good hour and a half of my life, but it left a nasty, painful scar that I will never forget.
Here are a few specific problems I had: There was a minor love story subplot between the janitor and the chubby piano player, but these two characters came out of nowhere, and were impossible to care about, so my friends and I were left constantly wondering why we were supposed to care about these two lame, uninteresting characters. There were many subplots that popped up every now and then, each promising the audience the chance for laughs, but each one came and went in a puff of smoke, ending before you could even start caring. This was pretty much how the whole movie felt.
This film was a major letdown, and I feel bad for everyone who's expecting the first REAL funny Mormon movie. True, the jokes in this one aren't too exclusive to Mormons. Then again, it's hard to tell what was a joke and what was a loud ringing sensation in my ears.
Please, do NOT see this movie. Keep in your mind the fantasy that this movie is hilarious. Spare yourself the disappointment I went through
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst of all, let me say the I am LDS or rather, I am a Mormon. So when I watched this film, I automatically gave it the benefit of the doubt. I can usually find something redeeming in every movie I watch. And this one was no exception. It does have its redeeming moments. But they are few and far between.
One of the first things I noticed that bothered me very greatly was that it seemed as though Halestorm was ashamed of our Church! In the LDS Church, congregations are called \"wards\" and the basketball court is in the \"cultural hall\". NEVER ONCE are either of these two names mentioned. The Church is never referred to by name and \"the standards\" is as far as it goes in mentioning what our Church believes.
It makes me wonder if the directors are really LDS or LDS wannabes? This film had so much potential! It could have really shown our Church in a positive light and helped the public to see not only what we have to offer, but also what we believe. Instead it was only mildly entertaining and left much to be desired. If I were not already LDS, I'd be left thinking Mormons are stupid, idiotic and ashamed of their beliefs.
It is NOT a film I will recommend to my nonLDS friends.
Sorry Halestorm. You can do better than this!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTrot out every stereotype and misrepresentation you've heard about semi-devout Mormons, and you'll see they've all starred in this ridiculous excuse for a film. Finally Kurt Hale's fortunes have changed (thank goodness) and hopefully it will be a long while before we see any of his features in theaters.
The cinematography was amateurish (I think they used a camcorder for some of the basketball scenes). The plot was limp and very unfunny. You really didn't understand why anyone did anything. It was like I had sand in my eyes, and a 300-pound lady was sitting on my face, it was that painful.
The only reason I didn't give this movie a negative rating was because the scale won't let me.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe really sad thing is that this was supposedly the highest budget \"Halestorm Entertainment\" has had to work with. All involved should be fined for littering since all the celluloid they wasted is good for nothing more than filling the trash. Not only is the writing atrocious and the jokes awful, but the camera work and film quality are amateur at best. The soundtrack sounds like it was created on some guys laptop PC. The worst part of all is that I actually sat through the whole thing. I think just because I couldn't believe that I had actually paid to buy a ticket and that the theater I was watching it in had actually agreed to show the \"film\".
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI went to see this film with fairly low expectations, figuring it would be a nice piece of fluff. Sadly, it wasn't even that. I could barely sit through the film without wanting to walk out. I went with my two kids (ages 10 and 13) and even they kept asking, \"How much longer?\" After lasting until the end, I just kept wondering who would approve this script. Even the reliable Fred Willard couldn't save the trite dialogue, the state jokes, and the banal plot. I'd suggest that whoever wrote and directed this movie (I use the term loosely) should take an online screen writing class or drop by their local community college for a film class. At the least, there are many books on directing, screen writing, and producing movies that would teach them something about structure, plot, dialogue and pacing.
\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 total dog. I found myself straining to find anything to laugh at just so I wouldn't feel like I'd totally wasted my money--and my time. The writing in this film is absolutely terrible. It's a shame it's not up to the standards of other Hale Storm movies.
They should have saved the money on getting D-list actors like Fred Willard and Gary Coleman and spent the money working the script until it was right. Even Gary Coleman wasn't properly utilized for his role.
This movie leaves you wondering what the point of most of the plot was--including the subplots. After viewing this movie, I'm left with the impression that the producers were hoping to capture some kind of Napolean Dynamite-like humor, where it's not so much the lines as the character and the delivery. Unfortunately, this movie fails to deliver the lines, the characters, the delivery or the humor. I should have gone to the dentist instead!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was the beatliest mormon movie made yet. It made the RM & Sons of Provo look like well done films! It was supposed to be funny from what I was told. The best part was the best actor in the movie-Travis Eberhard-if he wasn't in the movie it probably wouldn't have been made! He ruled!
10. It wasn't funny 9. It was beat 8. It had Thurl Big T Bailey, who's character made no sense 7. It was made in Provo 6. It didn't make fun of Brokeback 5. It had Larry H. Miller in it 4. It was the 1st movie Clint Howard wasn't funny in 3. Gary Coleman chose the perfect movie 4 a comeback 2. They should have cast at Surreal Life auditions 1. It was made by Halestorm Entertainment!!
\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\nJust saw this movie, and what a waste of time. The movie was predictable and slow. It's basically the Mormon bad news bears that play church sanctioned basketball. Rather than watching this movie, I should have had a root canal. The cameo performances were obviously driven by sponsorship / funding. This movie had potential due to the outrageous behavior that is exhibited by Mormons when they play church sanctioned basketball, however because it's rated PG, the true nature of the spectacle could not be transfered to film. The acting is horrible with the exception of Clint Howard and Fred Willard. Thurl Bailey's appearance in the film was completely unnecessary.
\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\nReviews for this film were lukewarm at best while expectations were sky high: a big budget, tons of popular faces, a rather funny idea and a main actress everyone loves. The end result is a disaster. Alice Tremblay's supposedly humorous journey in fantasy world fails in every way to entertain it's audience (I didn't hear a single laugh throughout the entire presentation), going through it's page-thin story line and one-dimensional characters without a single spark, not a sign of the magic it wished it had. The 90 minutes of film here are sterile with clumsy direction and some good actors doing their best to come of as professionals in a feature that certainly couldn't seem that great an idea on the set, let alone on paper. 'L'Odyssée d'Alice Tremblay' is a collage of comic sketches, linked together with a (very) thin layer of good ideas. Avoid or boredom will haunt you.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhile the idea is more original than most Sci-Fi movies, the execution is, as usual lacking. While the practical mummy effects are not bad, and the \"Gun Nut\" character is over the top giggle inducing, the only real draw is to see Morena Baccarin and Adam Baldwin reunited on the small screen. I suspect that was the idea all along. They do the best they can with what they have but the \"must see\" moments for me were in the first 40 minutes or so when Morena's character sported some Tomb Raider style shorts. Not high brow cinema I know but you can't deny true beauty when you see it!!! And Adam Baldwin once again hams it up as the guy you love to hate. If you just want to watch a couple of your favorite Firefly characters have a good time with some sub par material then this might be for you. If you want good acting and character development then be advised to look elsewhere.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm at this very moment debating whether I should even finish watching this \"poppycock\" of a movie. They had a pretty interesting idea, with the buried movie set, and that was it. So far this incomprehensible mess has no real story. There is the buried set, some wolf headed monster running amok, an amulet, and a bunch of bad actors attacked by the wolf masked whatever it is. What I would have missed, had I had the good sense to eject this nonsense is a dune buggy chase, some really bad C.G.I., some incredibly stupid dialog, more bad C.G.I., and the hero fighting paper cut outs. Other than the original idea, this film has absolutely zero redeeming qualities. My mistake for continuing to watch. - MERK
\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\nWatching the first 30 minutes of Sands of Oblivion gave me high hopes. It seemed I was in for a cheaper version of the Mummy. The setup was promising, in the 1920's Cecil B. Demille makes his opus of the Ten Commandments. It seems in using real Egyptian artifacts for the movie set they unleashed an ancient and terrible evil (don't they always?). Aware of what had been unleashed DeMille orders the entire set buried instead of the usual practice of tearing it down. Hopefully the evil will be buried with it for all time. Then we switch to present day where a team is attempting to excavate the site (the movie's first mistake, but hey those period costumes are expensive and this is a Sci-Fi channel movie). The first sightings we get of the Anubis monster are well done and it's a costume that they put some effort into and not the usual cheesy CG effect. Then the body counts starts. This is were the movie went south for me. The reactions to the fact that people are dying in gruesome and strange ways gets a strangely subdued reaction. Once they realize that the ancient evil has again been unleashed and is on a killing spree what do the stock issue leading man and lady do? They make the usual stop to the \"guy who knows the truth but never told anyone\". After getting that vital information do they share it with the comrades at the dig site? No, they stop off at a hotel for a refreshing shower and some pleasant small talk. Really I'm not the most motivated person but if I knew a demon from ancient Egypt was on the loose and killing everyone in sight and would be coming after me I'd put a little hustle in my step to solve the problem. After this overlong and pointless middle section they get around to destroying the Anubis monster in the usual way, by racing around in dune buggies and shooting it with a rocket launcher while it's standing by a pile of phosphorous grenades. For a Sci-Fi movie it was above the usual crap they put out, which isn't saying much at all. What disappoints me is this could have been a lot more if someone had wrote a decent script for 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\nTV movie about an ancient Egyptian curse brought to the US in the 20's during the filming of DeMille's first version of the 10 Commandments and which is reawakened when DeMille's sets are unearthed in the desert.
One of the worst films I've seen in a long time.
The question is were the filmmakers serious or kidding when they made this film? If this is serious its a laughably bad movie and a great film to pick on for its badness. If its a comedy its less good but funny for all of the wrong reasons.You will laugh long and hard AT this film, probably more than many other Hollywood \"comedies\".
\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\nWorse than the rating it has been given. This is a typical SciFi movie nowadays: bad to awful acting, a script that is poorly written, and shoddy direction. From the opening scene where DeMille is burying his set to the end, this movie is terrible. In the beginning scenes this movie has Moses (which was Charlton Heston in the DeMille film), Pharoah (Yul Brynner) and Nefretiri (Anne Baxtor) overlooking a boy burying a box in the sand. The characters that were to represent the three aforementioned icons were awful and had to resemblance to the people they were to \"supposedly\" be. The fact that this is in the desert away from civilization is hilarious when someone is hurt and they are all yelling for an ambulance. The screenwriter obviously is oblivious to the fact that there are no ambulances in the middle of the desert. I was sorely disappointed that Morena Baccarin decided to do a film of such low quality.
\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 make a point out of watching bad movies frequently, and the sci-fi channel original movies tend to be one of the best sources for these movies you can find. As such, I'm sure you can imagine my disappointment when I saw Sands of oblivion. The acting was uncharacteristically sub-par, as opposed to the woefully disgraceful display sci-fi usually has in store for us. There are a few cameos made by people you'd most likely recognize, although you may not know their names by heart. The CGI special effects are minimal, and as such, one of the largest sources of comedy in a sci-fi feature is lacking. Sure, there are some funny moments like when a guy gets beheaded by a bulldozer, or when the main character leaves his friend to die in order to save a girl he's known for a couple of days, but overall, it ends up just not having you rolling on the floor with laughter, and I consider that a major disappointment.
If I was rating it on a 10 star scale made specifically to judge made-for TV movies, I'd probably give it a 4, maybe even a 5. A real shame that I may have to wait 'till the next sci-fi original movie to get a good laugh, and I really hope that this movie isn't part of some overall quality increase in sci-fi original movies.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"