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 has taken a lot of stick. It was slated by critics when it came out and was blamed for wrecking Nicolas Cage's career. The thing I don't think people get is that it's not meant to be an epic, Oscar contender of a movie, it's just some brilliant \"Bruck-buster\" action at its best. Fast cars, quick editing and a great soundtrack - it does exactly what it says on the tin. Also, for anyone who likes cars its a pure treat. It has everything: Ferraris, Mercs, a Hummer and lets not forget Eleanor! I think you'd be hard pushed to find a better action movie, and personally, a better movie at all!! Then again maybe that's just me!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\ngone in 60 seconds is a very good action comedy film that made over $100 million but got blasted by most critics. I personally thought this was a great film. The story was believable and has probobly the greatest cast ever for this type of movie including 3 academy award winners nicolas cage, robert duvall and the very hot anjolina jolie. other than the lame stunt at the end this is a perfect blend of action comedy and drama. my score is **** (out of ****)
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\ngone in 60 sec. where do i began, it keeps you in the movie with some good action and some cool cars. people say its not a good movie i disagree sure it has some cheesy parts but what action movie doesn't. i gave it an 8 out of 10 cause of the action and the comic relief if you like the Rock or Face Off than this movie is right up your alley cage dose a good job along with one of the most under rated actors in my mind Del-Roy Lindo. i think sometimes people look to far into movies some times you need to sit back enjoy the movie and after words ask yourself did they achieve what they where showing. meaning if they where going for action was it action pact. if they where trying to make a movie to change how movies are made and trying to win every award out their well did they? i think they made the action movie they set out to make, give it a chance and you wont be sorry.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat's in a name? If the name is Jerry Bruckheimer expect it to be filled with action.
In producer Bruckheimer's latest film, Gone in 60 Seconds, its all about the nomenclature. With character monikers like Kip, Sway and The Sphinx and cars idealized with names like Diane, Sue and the elusive Eleanor, it's only the non-stop action that keeps you from wanting to just play the name game.
Not a deep script by any means, but it is a great vehicle for action as Nicolas Cage as Memphis Raines, along with Angelina Jolie and Robert Duvall, comes out of car-thievery retirement to save his brother's life by stealing a list of 50 exotic cars in one night. A remake of the 1974 cult hit, this film may not be destined for the same cult status but it is entertaining.
Surprisingly, it's the action that keeps you watching not the acting. Although loaded with stars, none of them have standout performances, including a very weak performance by one of my favorite up and comers, Giovanni Ribisi. Even Jolie, coming off her recent Oscar win, is just a token love interest with hardly any screen time.
Can a series of beautiful cars and the car chases they become involved in make a great film? I think so. The film is a pleasure to look at and although one particular scene takes you into the realm of unbelieveablity, the action is non-stop and the suspense is compelling. Just be wary of other drivers fighting for a pole position as you leave the theatre.
3 1/2 out of 5
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNick Cage is Randall Raines, a retired car thief who is forced out of retirement when he's forced to save his the life of his brother Kip (Giovanni Ribisi) when he screws up on a job, by completing his brothers job of stealing 50 cars in one night. He has to get together his old crew that he can trust to help him pull it off and get his bro out of dutch. But the cops are onto him, so can he pull it off? This was one of the great candidates of a film to re-make as the Original was far from a classic. And if you don't go into it expecting much, and turn the thinking portion of your brain off so you can ignore the plot hole ans just take the movie for what it is. You'll end up enjoying the ride. Watch it on a double-bill with \"The Fast and the Furious\" for a night of high-speed hijinks, just don't take the car out for a spin right afterwards.
My Grade: B-
DVD Extras: 7 minute Jerry Bruckheimer Interview; Bruckheimer Bio/Filmography; Action Overload: Highlight Reel; The Big Chase; \"0 To 60\" featurette; \"Wild Rides\" featurette; Stars On The Move; The Cult \"Painted On The Heart\" music video; Theatrical Trailer, and Trailers for \"Shanghai Noon\", \"Mission to Mars\" and \"Coyote Ugly\"
\n
assistant\n1
\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 had the chance to watch several movies in BluRay and HD DVD. This movie stays to it's wonderful action and great story. Although if you are looking for a movie with an excellent picture this one is not it. Not having this movie on DVD helped make the purchase easier. I have always enjoyed the intense action and the excellent acting which don't always go together. Overall that is what makes this an excellent fun film to watch. Now on the Blu Ray scale. In many Blu Ray movies you either get two things. A picture that is almost crystal clear with no distortion or a movie with grainy hd picture. I was disappointed when I made this my first blu ray movie. I almost began to think that this was a blu ray standard. Although after watching other movies I know better. I don't believe they spent as much time as they should have transferring this movie over to hd. That is generally the problem with some movies. And for the price of Blu Ray players and the Blue Ray Discs you should only have the best picture. So I only consider this a worthwhile investment for people who have either never seen the movie or have not bought the DVD version.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you like cars you will love this film!
There are some superb actors in the film, especially Vinnie Jones, with his typical no nonsense attitude and hardcase appearance.The others are not bad either....
There are only two slight flaws to this film. Firstly, the poor plot, however people don't watch this film for the plot. Secondly, the glorification of grand theft auto (car crime). However if people really believe they can steal a Ferrari and get away with it then good look to them, hope you have a good time in jail!
When i first read that Nicolas Cage was to act the main role, i first thought \"...sweeet.\", but then i thought \"...naaaa you suck!\" but then finally after watching the film i realised \"...yep he suck's!\".Only joking he plays the role very well.
I'll end this unusual review by saying \"If the premature demise of a criminal has in some way enlightened the general cinema going audience as to the grim finish below the glossy veneer of criminal life, and inspired them to change their ways, then this death carries with it an inherent nobility. And a supreme glory. We should all be so fortunate. You can say \"Poor Criminal.\" I say: \"Poor us.\"
p.s. - Angelina Jolie Voight looks quite nice!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt is a great movie if you have ever named your cars or are really into old, fast, or exotic cars. It has a plot and a lot of action. The car scenes are great except for the totally fake car jump scene. All of the other scenes are great. I really enjoyed it and I hope everyone else does as well.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this on a flight over to the U.S and was a little sceptical at first as a few people had said there were so many characters in it that you didnt get to know any of them. However I didnt find this at all. The film is fast, but this is due to the nature of the director and the star. The chase scenes are excellent and yes it may be predictable but isnt that true of most films. The main villain is a bit of a let down, Christopher Eccelston is not as convincing as he could have been, but that said its still a good film.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nGood action and interesting plot. Having seen the original I must say it was an interesting improvement and showed more of the movie. Good cast .. meaningful acting.. although it would nice to see some more expansion in the action scenes rather than the background story. Fun movie to watch and keeps you alert all the time 7/10 is a right vote I think!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWeak, fast and multicolor,this is the Valvoline's movie in fact you can see always this brand of oil in a lot of scene. The real protagonist are the cars,weak performances of Cage and Duvall. A intresting Angelina Jolie is a unlikely mechanic. For the lovers of dream car(LAMBORGHINI and FERRARI over all).
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe story is quite original, but the movie is kinda slow building up to the point where they steal the cars. Its kinda nice though to watch them prepare the stealing too, but the actual stealing should've been more in picture... However the stunt work on this movie was excellent and it is definetly a movie you HAVE to see (7/10)
\n
assistant\n1
\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 movie with a bunch of friends one night. I didn't really hear much about it. So I wasn't expecting anything. But after I saw it, I really liked it. Nicolas Cage and the rest of the cast were very good. But I do have to say Giovanni Ribisi's acting performace did need a little perking up. But such a small flaw, it could be overrided.
Gone In 60 Seconds is about a retired car thief who must boost 60 rare and exotic cars in one night to save his brother's life. The movie is in no way predictable. So the ending should be a suprise. Think it's just another, fast car driving movie? Well you are partially right. There is much more to it. Everyone should take a look at this movie.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI really loved this film, yes, I know it was fairly far fetched, there is no way that Shelby car could have managed to stay on the road as well as the 540i with all it's traction control and other gizmos but other than that the whole film was well put together. Cage was excellent as usual and the rest of the cast were also pretty good with the exception of the Brit Bad Guy, he was a little \"too\" much don't you think? Anyway, great film, great cars and great acting. I for one made sure my car was locked and alarmed in my remotely controlled garage that night. :)
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n
I saw once No Man's Land (1987) - IMDB link http://us.imdb.com/Title?0093638 - and found it ok. The film is about a guy who steals only Porsches. Gone in Sixty Seconds comes 13 years after and adds nothing to it. In fact, it has a lot of scenes that are worthless. And the ending is very, very bad.
The Sphinx has a magnetic screen presence that should have been better used...
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe documentary begins with setting the perspective to several light years. The voyager is traveling our milky-way with the sounds of our earthly lives, as a space monument for (possible?) extraterrestrials.
The documentary contains footage of Willy Dixen, Robert Johnson, Skip James and J.B. Lenoir. The footage of J.B. has never been published before. The narrative is from 'blind Willie' Dixon. However, it's done by an actor. The film shows the work of all these early blues men followed by covers and interpretations by musicians, such as Nick Cave and the bad Seeds among others.
The Death of J.B. Lenoir (John Mayall's song) is a striking event in the story. Lenoir got political engaged and is considered to be of the league of Martin Luther King and peers. His political interests can be found in the themes of his lyrics.
Blues is found to be 'THE' native music of America. Blues is the roots and the rest is the fruits.
The title 'Soul of a Man' is after a Willie Dixon song.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI always enjoyed watching this when it came on television during prime-time every year in the 60's. It's a typical Hollywood history epic, dramatized, stylized and full of inaccuracies but so what, it's an entertaining movie and a good looking film. Cecil B. DeMille at the end of his life is the executive producer of this remake of his 1938 film. His son-in-law actor Anthony Quinn who had the supporting role of Beluche in the '38 film is the director in his directorial debut and swan song as he had never directed a film before and never would again. DeMille assembled a crew who had recently worked on his 10 Commandments to help Quinn pull it off including longtime DeMille associate producer/actor Henry Wilcoxon overseeing the project. Also from the 10 Commandments are screenwriter Jesse Lasky, cinematographer Loyalk Griggs, assistant director Francisco Day, 2nd unit director Arthur Rosson, art directors Walter Tyler and Hal Pereira, set directors Sam Comer and Ray Moyer, costume designers Edith Head, John Jensen and Ralph Lester who as a costume design team received The Buccaneer's only Oscar nomination. A great cast here from team DeMille headed up by Yul Brynner as pirate Jean Lafitte and Charleton Heston as future President General Andrew Jackson. Also in the cast are Charles Boyer, E.G. Marshall, Lorne Greene, Claire Bloom and Inger Stevens. At just over two hours it drags in some spots but makes up for it with some excellent battle scenes. I would give it a 7.5 out of 10.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis interesting feature has a very fine story-line, rather colorful characters and a very steady pace. it also incorporates a plot device from \"Reap the Wild Wind\", and since Cecil B. Deille directed that and his son-in-law Anbthony Quinn directed this film from his preparations, that can hardly be a coincidence. it works in both cases, I must report. The unusual set-up tells the viewer that Barataria, an island ruled by Jean Lafitte is built upon piracy, but during the war of 1812, and before, he has always refrained from bothering United States' vessels. Now General Andrew Jackson has been charged with defending nearby New Orleans with only 12,000 men against 60,000 British Imperial redcoats and 60 ships. Lafitte's men want him to side with the stronger force; he wants freedom and pardons for his men before ceding such a strategic landing spot to the U.S. forces. There are other factors at work in the story-line; pirate Bonnie Brown and her father want to attack U.S. ships and do so in defiance of Lafitte's orders, leaving a boy alive without knowing they have missed an eyewitness. When his testimony finally comes out, Jackson cannot grant what Lafitte asks; but Lafitte supports him anyway and in the fog, the pirates and Jackson rout the British and he sails away to whatever destiny awaits a man who had genius and statesmanship but not fortune. The cast of this colorful and physically-lovely film are skilled indeed. Yul Brynner has one of his best roles as the pirate king, Inger Stevens is beautiful; as the girl he loves, Charles Boyer has many good lines as his adviser, powerful Lorne Greene is a rival, E.G. Marshall the Governor, and Claire Bloom is charismatic as Bonnie Brown. Others in the cast include Ted de Corsia, Douglass Dumbrille, George Mathews, Henry Hull as Jackson's adviser, Bruce Gordon, Onslow Stevens, Robert F. Simon, Henry Brandon, Fran Jeffries, and Leslie Bradley, among others. The music by Elmer Bernstein is very memorable, and the 1938 script remade here had only to be freshened a bit. The shiny cinematography was the work of veteran Loyal Griggs, the set decoration was supplied by Albert Nozaki, Hal Pereira and Walter Tyler, with set decoration by Sam Comer and Roy Moyer and costumes by Edith Head, John Jensen and Ralph Jester. Nellie Manley did the elaborate hairstyles and Wally Westmore the difficult makeup. The film contains quite a bit of good adventure-level dialogue and a very strong climactic battle scene. Charlton Heston, as as Andrew Jackson, prepared to play the part of an elder general and then discovered the man was young at the time of the battle; but he is often effective, grey-haired or not, especially in his exchanges with Henry Hull as Mr. Peavey. This is an exciting and well-mounted entertainment, which looks exactly as if C.B. DeMille had completed his production; it is a beautiful and nearly a very-fine motion picture.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n
If you're at all interested in pirates, pirate movies, New Orleans/early 19th century American history, or Yul Brynner, see this film for yourself and make up your own mind about it. Don't be put off by various lacklustre reviews. My reaction to it was that it is entertaining, well acted (for the most part), has some very witty dialogue, and that it does an excellent job of portraying the charm, appeal and legendary fascination of the privateer Jean Lafitte. While not all the events in the film are historically accurate (can you show me any historical film that succeeds in this?), I feel the film is accurate in its treatment of the role Lafitte played in New Orleans' history, and the love-hate relationship between the \"respectable\" citizens of New Orleans and this outlaw who was one of the city's favorite sons. Don't worry about what the film doesn't do, but watch it for what it does do, i.e., for its study of one of New Orleans', and America's, most intriguing historical figures.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSure, the history in this movie was \"Hollywoodized\"--but it's far from being the only bit of history rewritten for the masses. Lafitte sided with the Americans because he considered himself a Frenchman and therefore hated the British, not because of any sense of patriotism for a nation that had taken over New Orleans only a short time ago; he broke his agreement and returned to smuggling, which caused his sailing to Galveston; he was more of a petty criminal and scoundrel than a hero *or* a swashbuckler. But who cares? This is one movie that's sheer entertainment--and face it, we all wanted Jean to go for the feisty wench rather than the prudish daughter of the governor. Brynner once again rises over mediocre writing to give a fascinating performance.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDuring the whole Pirates of The Caribbean Trilogy Craze Paramount Pictures really dropped the ball in restoring this Anthony Quinn directed Cecil B. DeMille supervised movie and getting it on DVD and Blu Ray with all the extras included. It is obvious to me that Paramount Pictures Execs are blind as bats and ignorant of the fact that they have a really good pirate movie in their vault about a real pirate who actually lived in New Orleans, Louisiana which would have helped make The Crescent City once again famous for it's Pirate Connections. When the Execs at Paramount finally get with the program and release this movie in digital format then I will be a happy camper. Paramount Pictures it is up to you to get off your duff and get this film restored now !
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTaken in the context of the time it was made, I found this a worthwhile movie. While the details may be 'dramatized', the overall history was a nice primer. In addition, I found spotting actors I knew a real pleasure. Who would imagine Ben Cartwright as a dastardly cad? I'll leave the rest of the star spotting to you. As to the secondary casting, this movie (as one would expect from a movie made in the late thirties) has many an enjoyable character actor, but top kudos' to Andrew Jackson's right hand man Peavey. The perfect touch of comedy. Well shot, with beautiful ships, and competent acting throughout out, I recommend this for anyone with a taste for the slightly camp, or an eye for a double-period piece, set at the dawn of America, and made in a period when great names, and top notch character actors, were a real pleasure to enjoy.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe original DeMille movie was made in 1938 with Frederic March. A very good film indeed. Hollywood's love of remakes brings us a fairly interesting movie starring Yul Brynner. He of course was brilliant as he almost always seemed to be in all of his movies. Charlton Heston as Andrew Jackson was a stroke of genius. However, the movie did tend to get a little long in places. It does not move at the pace of the 1938 version. Still, it is a fun movie that should be seen at least once.
\n
assistant\n1
\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 great stars in their earlier years: Ingor Stevens never looked prettier; Yul Brynner was a very convincing Jean LaFitte, conflicted about his piracy and desiring to keep neutrality with the United States. Charlton Heston did a pretty good job as Andrew Jackson, but some moments were a bit stilted. It's really a good flick for students to learn that part of our history, AND it shows that all happy endings do NOT include the lovers getting together with each other--sometimes the happier ending is that they sail away and find partners of similar background who will understand them better in the long run. I have viewed it every year at least twice for 16 years now; and though it is not the best movie I've ever seen, I love it every time!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nof the films of the young republic few in number as they are The Buccaneer (1958)stands out as a finely crafted film. Charleton Heston excels in his portrayal of Old Hickory's defence of New Orleans with a thrown together force of militia, regulars and pirates promised a reprieve.
after Christmas 1814 peninsula veterans led by sir edward packenham, the duke of wellington's brother in law bore down on the city of new orleans. andy jackson had a day to draw together a scratch force to defend the city behind bales of hay.
Charlton Heston projects Jackson's terrifying presence and awe inspiring power of command. Yet there are a few colorful comic relief. With the might of the English lioness about to pounce, a young blond haired voluteer from New Orleans asks: I guess the ruckus is about to start.
the battle was about to rage but not for long. true to form the British marched straight into withering American fire. in less than a few minutes an attempt to reconquer lost north American territories had been foiled.
the battle scene in this movies lasts slightly longer than the actual battle itself.
there are colorful side stories in this film of the young volunteer at his first dance to celebrate the victory.
\n
assistant\n1
\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 afraid it was a movie that you have to ACTUALLY WATCH to get anything out of it.I t is not a mindless movie like .....\"LEATHAL WEAPON PART 58\" you know the one where Riggs is really crazy? it is not a movie that is pretty much the same at the end as it is a the beginning. you can run everywhere talk on the phone do what ever and enjoy it in any way.I have noticed in the past that most people that do not like this type of movie are the type that will do most anything but watch a movie and then slam it because .....duh they don't get it or understand it or what happened.
DON'T LET YOUR DOGGY TAKE A SHOWER!!!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nhello. i just watched this movie earlier today for the 14th time in 3 days. i am a history teacher that has wayyyyy too much time on my hands. i need a life. i found the movie containing a striking resemblance to broke back mountain. i also found that i look a lot like jean Lafitte if he were white. also, my favorite line in the entire movie was from Mr. Petey--\"this baby can shoot a chipmunk's eye from 300 yards!!\" oh, and my favorite scene in the movie was when the British were coming in, and the one drummer who was so devoted to his work, and he drummed till the death, as if that drum would end the war altogether....but it wouldn't. well, thats all i would like to say about this movie. OH, one more thing..bonnie brown is an insane physco bipolar mood swinging BEEYOTCH. that is all.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI almost didn't rent this because of all the bad comments but did anyways.I thought it was similar to darkness falls which i also liked. The only part i hated about the tooth ferry was the 2 red neck brothers at the gas station.They were funny and the dialog made me laugh but this was not a comedy. It ruined the movie a bit for me because it was unnecessary.The rest of the movie was the way a horror or suspense film should be. The make-up was good and I have seen way worse movies then this one. It was a simple story with believable acting.It's not the scariest or goriest movie, but I wasn't ticked off or wanting a refund after watching it. On the DVD there was previews of other movies that all look good and i'm gonna check them out.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI thought the children in the show did a very good job. I especially enjoyed the performance of the Emma character. Well done! The stunts were pretty good for a low budget show. I was able to follow the movie and enjoy it without having to look at my watch every 5 minutes.I enjoyed the scenes with the tooth fairy and the burning of her. The ghostly apparitions of the children's souls being released was also good. Another good point of the movie is that it kept moving along. There wasn't a lot of slow scenes. The adult leads were also believable and therefore helped to keep the show entertaining. All in all an enjoyable night of movie watching.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTo Be Honost With you i think everything was so good in this movie there should be no reason why it didn't go into theaters,The Deaths in the movie are awesome the fx are awesome when used,There are a few dull moments when the story's following the little girl but all in all this was a very good movie that i hope someday get's the props it should.The very first part of the movie is prob why it came straight to video with them killing a little boy but after that the story is based on a little girl and her mother who came to visit the moms boyfriend who moved out to try to become a writer,The property he buy's turns out to be where the Witch(Tooth Fairy)lives and anyone who live in her house or goes on her property will be in great danger don't wanna give anything really away just a little info if you've wanted to see this movie then do so it's worth the price of the rental
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMy baby sitter was a fan so I saw many of the older episodes while growing up. I'm not a fan of Scooby Doo so I'm not sure why I left the TV on when this show premiered. To my surprise I found it enjoyable. To me Shaggy and Scooby were the only interesting characters *dodges tomatoes from fans of the others* so I like that they only focus on those two. However, this may cause fans of the original shows to hate it. I like the voice acting, especially Dr. Phinius Phibes. I liked listening to him even before I knew he was Jeff Bennett. And Jim Meskimen as Robi sounds to me like he's really enjoying his job as an actor. I also get a kick out of the techies with their slightly autistic personalities and their desires to play Dungeons and Dragons or act out scenes from Star Wars (not called by those names in the show, of course).
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nLike many here I grew up with Scooby-Doo. Unlike many here who did, I love this show! I think that it has been very well done and thought through. Everything about it marks it as a spin-off which isn't meant to be taken seriously. The formula is simple - it is a parody of other cartoons with a single bad guy trying to get the better of the good guy. By using the well known Shaggy and Scooby-Doo characters it is much easier to engage the viewer with the parody humour from the outset of each 30 minute episode.
There have always been Scooby-Doo spin-offs which have annoyed fans. The classic being the Scooby-Shaggy-Scrappy shorts from the 80's. These spin-offs had their place: They allowed new content to be sold, created new fans, and kept Scooby-Doo merchandise on the shelves. I would agree that \"Shaggy & Scooby-Doo: Get a Clue!\" doesn't fit in with this traditional role but it is probably what I had always wanted the Scooby-Shaggy-Scrappy shorts to be: an action packed show which focuses on the best/funniest Scooby-Doo characters! Good features of the show: the animation, the voices, the attention to detail, the bad-guys, the \"Best Friend\" relationship between Shaggy and Scooby-Doo, the constant humour! Bad features: None, although the revamped Mystery Machine is pretty close at times.
Well done Warner Bros. Animation! One of the cleverest cartoons in a long time!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI actually really like what I've seen of this cartoon so far. Sure, the animation isn't the best, but frankly, I'd rather see this type of more cartoony style done quickly and cheaply than the old type of style done quickly and cheaply (which was starting to happen more and more often--it's only a style that looks good when a lot of time and effort is put into it). There's nothing wrong with the angular lines and the little black-dot eyes--in fact, I think it's really cute. As a kid I never thought Scooby-Doo's design was particularly adorable, but I think I might like it better know.
Anyway, Shaggy has always been my favorite character, and believe it or not, but I think he has the most potential for some depth. Sure, the show doesn't center around the original \"Mystery-solving\" theme, but that was just a tired old formula anyway. Don't get me wrong--I'm sure there are writers out there who would be able to bring a lot more interest to Mystery Inc.'s traditional pursuits (which has been lacking as late), but in the mean time this show is a fun deviation from the standard. Shaggy and Scooby are still funny, but no longer only comic relief. They're still cowardly, but finally have the opportunity to use what seems to be (shock!) intelligence. They're the same old over-eating slackers as ever, but now actually seem to be getting on with their lives with the help of Uncle Albert's inheritance.
I used to find most original Scooby-Doo jokes to be pure cheese and unintentionally hilarious at best, but this show actually exercises a capacity for real humor. Also, I never really like Casey Kasem as Shaggy anyway, so the new actor doesn't annoy me as much as he does other people. (I still think Billy West was the best, though)
Overall, while not a great cartoon in the scope of all of cartoon history, still an achievement among other Scooby incarnations.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI just can't believe some of the comments on this show! The show is just genius! Sure it doesn't follow the tried and true, but do we as consumers always want the same things thrust at us over and over again. Shouldn't we have the option to sit back and enjoy something new once in a while. The style is not as realistic as previous \"Scooby Doo\" shows, but it's not supposed to be. The show it titled \"Shaggy and Scooby Doo Get a Clue\" what part of that title states that the entire beloved cast of other renditions would constantly join in the action. And nowhere does it say that they'd be solving mysteries, and they can't even stand monsters, so why would they? I'm actually glad that they put some long standing plot points that work into a Scooby-Doo show. They still have running jokes, clumsy hi-jinks, quick-change outfits in chase scenes, the standard hallway gag and even Scooby snacks. In fact I'm glad that this show is out there, because I just love it. I'm even glad they got rid of the rest of the team for a while and concentrated on just two main characters and a villain.
Sure it's ridiculous, it's supposed to be! Sure it's different, it's supposed to be. It's supposed to make you laugh at the villain, and cheer for the idiotic robotic butler to triumph over all intruding vermin, no matter what the size. You're supposed to get the running \"Roobi-Roo\" joke. The whole thing is just put together so well, there isn't a single thing I can think that is WRONG with it. The writing, the acting, the animation, all top notch. The title music is awesome (my computer plays \"GET A CLUE!\" when it boots up), and the background music is just gripping.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI grew up watching Scooby and have been a fan forever. This cartoon moves away from the same old routine that can get boring to viewers. The Crooks in Mask routine gets old and This cartoon is a change from that. It's not meant to replace the Scooby gang it's just a break from the same old crime scene for both viewers and writers I'm sure. The cartoon's focus is on Scooby and Shaggy who inherits a large sum of money and use that money to thwart world conquest plans from a mad scientist and his goons. Small homages of the gang and the gang themselves are featured from time to time. If you are a fan of Scooby-Doo you can still appreciate the bond between a boy and his talking dog, along with the jokes that come with it. Just Enjoythe Cartoon and support the creators/writers and producers so that this won't be the last Scooby Cartoon.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis series, produced at probably the most propitious time following the events of the second World War, is on a scale of value that stands far above any individual's presumption to criticize.
The timing of World at War's production in 1974, amounting to some three decades after the events of the war, permits an accurate relating of events in a manner uncoloured by residual propaganda and slant. The passage of thirty years allows the telling to be backed up by an impressive and fascinating panoply of the very individuals involved, ranging from some of the highest military and political figures down to the field soldiers, civilians, and such survivors of the death camps as have remained to bear witness to the unimaginable inhumanities of which civilized humans are capable. Most approaching or well into their senior years, the interviewed subjects have had enough time to reflect on their experiences and in most instances have had enough time for whatever propaganda and fervor may have affected them in the past to have receded away, leaving only the memories of what they saw and what they did.
The information that these survivors give, strikingly reinforced by the postures and expressions they display while telling their part, give their stories all the more impact. Such names as Ira Eaker, Adolph Galland, Louis Mountbatten, Albert Speer, Gertrude Junge (Hitler's personal secretary)... the list is far too long to relate.
Today, within the lifetime of the survivors of this enormous lesson in the hideous price of political ambition, are young people who chant the same sort of militaristic and nationalistic war promotion as led to WW2. The DVD series we discuss here ought to comprise the core of a mandatory history subject in schools, that the lessons bought at such a horrible cost in those days should not have been wasted but should be taken to heart by those who did not see firsthand the terrible price.
I am almost done watching the 11 disk set, having seen most of the series when a local TV channel aired it more than 10 years ago. It has lost none of its poignancy to me, indeed has become even more of a magnificent chronicle of some of the very darkest days of human times.
The highest possible rating seems unworthy of being applied to this presentation. I think the value of this series is beyond counting.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nUtterly brilliant. Powerful and evocative. The most compelling documentary series ever made concerning war. It's tone offers a stark contrast to the often gung-ho attitude towards World War 2 that the media exhibits. Rather than opting for screaming about the horror of war, it allows Sir Laurence Olivier's quiet voice to take a back seat to the true images of war: corpses everywhere, explosions, terrified citizens and soldiers, broken men, indifferent politicians, mistakes that cost thousands of lives, the suffering of the innocents. Most of all it truly brings home that mankind is capable of when all normal rules of \"civility\" are removed. There is something distinctly Hobbesian about man in a true state of nature, he will return to a more beastly form capable of crimes that will still shock and fascinate 60 years on. Perhaps there could be a follow up series called \"The century at war\" for the twentieth century was truly the century of horrors. I feel it is an irony of immense magnitude that it took an event which caused the death of 50 million people to produce such a compelling and excellent series such as this.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTheo Robertson has commented that WAW didn't adequately cover the conditions after WWI which lead to Hitler's rise and WWII.
Perhaps he missed the first ONE and a quarter HOURS of volume 8? Covers this period, and together with the earlier volumes in the series, shows clearly the existing conditions, I feel. A friend of mine grew up in Germany during this period, joined the Hitler Youth even, and his experiences were very similar to that mentioned in WAW.
This documentary is SO far above the History Channel's documentaries I also own, that there is no comparison.
The ONLY fault, and it is a small one, that I have with WAW is this: the numbers are not included, many times. For instance, if you're talking about lend-lease, then how much war material was lent/leased? How much to Russia, how much to Britian? How many merchant ships did the U-Boats sink, and when? How many ships did the German or Japanese Navy have, total, in 1941? What type were they? How many troops? How many troops did the allies have, in total, and by country? Lots of numbers could have made a lot of viewers nod off, but I would have preferred MORE! And naturally, I always want to see more military analysis. Like WHY didn't Patton & Clark trap the German army that was at Cassini, after they had it surrounded, instead of racing Monty to Rome, and letting it escape? I don't think you can begin to understand war until you've seen some of these video segments on \"total war\", like the fire bombing of Dresden. It's like trying to understand Auschwitz, etc., before you see the clips of the death camps: you just can't wrap your head around it - it's too unbelievable.
Unknown at that time, and of course, unfilmed, were the most egregious cruelties and inhumanities of the Japanese, including cannibalism, (read \"Flyboys\"), and some LIVE vivisection of medical \"experimentation\" prisoners, w/o any anesthetic!
Dave
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMy wife and I have watched this whole series at least three times. I can't imagine how it could be better. This isn't the \"complete\" history of WWIIno library could hold such a historybut it is the best summary of that history. Lots of detail, lots of personal stories, and still keeps the overall picture in view.
Olivier's narration is excellently written and, of course, superbly given. The interviews are from all sides, except the Russian, because the producers were not allowed to talk to many Russians. It is very much worth owning this complete program on DVD. We treasure our copy.
The producer's do an excellent job of providing pictures and action where there was almost none extant in any archive: There are almost no films of convoys and submarine battles, for instance, but still, the episode on this subject is very well done.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe music and Laurence Olivier's sombre delivery set the tone perfectly for this outstanding documentary. This is still a must see for WW II buffs, descendants of the participants of that conflict, politicians who think things always go their way when they extend their foreign policy via the deck of an aircraft carrier (did you hear that George Bush?) and anyone else curious or needing to know the whys whos and hows of some aspect of that conflict. The 26 episodes are roughly in chronological order but can be seen out of sequence since they are more or less self contained. There is bound to be new insight for the new viewer because of the sheer volume presented. Actual footage of the battles is interspersed with interviews of those involved in the stories. Many of the interviews are with second line authorities, that is, support personnel to the main characters, privates, captains, secretaries, eyewitnesses and the like. You get a real upfront taste of what war is all about.
I am presently watching the DVD version of the original television documentary. I strongly recommend this over the worn out, gaptoothed, overpriced VHS offerings available on eBay. I paid $120 Cdn for five 2-sided DVD discs. This new release includes bonus material and is in full screen mode. The menus are easy to follow, there is first a choice of which episode you want to view and then after selecting that you are given the option of various chapters in the episode or to play the whole episode. It is understandable with such a comprehensive presentation there is a tiny amount more of navigation in the menu but the impact of what you will see is not diminished after 30 years, nay, after 60 years since the war finished.
I remember watching the first broadcast on the Buffalo PBS station just before moving from London in 1975 and wishing right from that time that I could have a copy. Now my wish has finally come true.
See this documentary. Tell your friends. Buy a copy for your library. Remember and honour the sacrifices and challenges overcome by those from America, Russia, Britain, Canada and all the other nations and peoples involved in the final victory. What an eye opener.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAlthough too young to remember the first showing of the series (being just a baby) I later caught repeats of it on television in the late 80's, just when I was getting interested in the war and all of its aspects. It was my grandfather who first showed me the series and also gave me my first interests, relating tales of his time in the Royal Navy at Malta and later in the Pacific. Since then I have devoured many books and seen many television series about the World War Two era, with mixed opinions. The British television stations are generally very good at producing these, as The World At War can easily attest, with many gems made by both the BBC and independent companies. I strongly recommend such titles as \"The Nazis - A warning From History\", \"Blitz\" and the BBC series about Dunkirk. \"Britain At War In Colour\", with its companion series \"Japan\", \"Germany\" and \"America\" are of a very high standard. The World At War is by far the best and, despite its age, never fails to deliver. There will always be new revelations about the war that will keep cropping up that obviously aren't included in the series and of course World War Two took place over such a large canvas that to produce a series with EVERY detail would take more time and money then any other, even if such an undertaking was even possible. What I feel I must say to those who decry that it does not include everything is that The World At War can't physically do that as a series but it sure as heck can prompt you to do further research - and make it enjoyable. That certainly worked for me: I now have a very comprehensive library of books, videos, DVDs and tapes and CDs. Recommend to anyone with even a passing interest. The series was so well made that they'd find it hard not to agree that it is quality programming and highly informative.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you want just about everything you want to know about WWII from multiple perspectives, this DVD delivers, you WILL learn new things guaranteed, so much so that you won't need any other documentary's on the subject. Get this, watch it, learn from it. Good for school use as well. As a bonus, watch this with Tora tora tora, saving private ryan, patton, band of brothers, a bridge too far, the longest day and other WWII epics along with this to make your knowledge of WWII even more complete. Sir Laurence Oliver's voice adds to the overall atmosphere of each episode in this 26 part series. Seriously you won't find a better WWII documentary set on the subject. PERFECT 10!!!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"