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\nI think I've seen worse films, so I'm giving this a 3, but it's a struggle to remember what they could have been!! Possibly Xtro (nasty & dull) or possibly Creep (just plain dull), but it is a struggle to think of something worse. It's difficult to know where to start. Let's just say it's a poor man's Under Siege, starring an even poorer man's Jean Claude Van Damme. The only redeeming feature was seeing Casper Van Dien - I always wondered what happened to him after Starship Troopers. Yes, he was Johnny Rico, if you really want to know.
Judging from this site, he's been stuck in TV movie hell.... Casper, be more selective.... please!!!!!!!!!!!! Arghhhhh, I've just turned over and there's a half decent film on called Criminal Law...... now I'm beginning to get really resentful about the last 1.5hrs!!!
\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\nMaiden Voyage is just that. I'd like to say straight away that I watched 5mins of this before I just couldn't stand it anymore. As already stated in another comment, this film doesn't fall into the whole \"so bad it's good\" thing, it's just bad. The acting is awful, the sfx are poor, and the story is bland and stupid. Even the extras suck, the \"bag guy guards\" and such appear to hold their weapons like water pistols.
Don't even bother watching this film, the only thing special about it is that, no matter how low your expectations are, you will still be disappointed.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat a sad sight these TV stalwarts make, running out the clock on their careers stumbling about a little rusting hulk of a ship - boat might be more appropriate. The whole production feels cheap and shabby, and it's not helped by a \"big name\" star who is barely capable of spitting out the few lines that he's given in a credible fashion.
At no time do the supporting cast rise above the material; they're clearly watching the clock here. Bang out the scenes, get the pay cheque, go home, and try to forget all about it.
It's not particularly badly scripted or filmed; there are no real clangers, it's just utterly anodyne, and shot in a very limited number of cramped sets with a small cast of extras. The pacing is a little bizarre; an embarrassingly tentative romantic sub-plot is only begun after the main action starts, which makes it feel irrelevant.
Maiden Voyage scores a couple of points for being competently scored, and for being a fun game of \"spot the Kiwi bit parters\"; most of the cast are graduates of Shortland Street or Xena: Warrior Princess. The saddest thing about this production is that this film probably constitutes their big break.
\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\nSTAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning
McBain (played by Gary Busey, before the name became synonymous with the character in The Simpsons) is a (typically) unorthodox cop who gets results but winds his superiors up something rotten. Avoiding the cliché of his partner being killed at the beginning of the film, the plot instead takes a different turn and sees him assigned to travel to Mexico where a top secret American super tank with incredible firepower and imaging capabilities has been smuggled through, only to be taken hostage, along with the crew, by a gang of terrorists.
This cheap looking (even by 80s standards), boring little action film was a bizarre career move for Gary Busey after making an impression as the flame haired villain Mr Joshua in Lethal Weapon. He just goes through the motions with his cardboard character here, edgy and zany as ever (with 'butthorn' being his trademark put down for the bad guys), but without the material to back him up. Henry Silva has presence as a screen villain, but he's totally miscast here as an Arab leader (in a red beret!) and the awful script gives him some really clunky lines of dull dialogue that make his performance come off as laughably wooden. He's just one of a host of action film character actors, including L.Q. Jones and Lincoln Kilpatrick, who pop up but fail to add anything to the mix. After a dull first half without much exciting action, things do pick up a bit at the end, but it's too little too late and none of it manages the task of being any fun. *
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat an incomprehensible mess of a movie. Something about a cop who extracts bullets from himself after he gets shot and keeps them in a glass jar in his bathroom (and from the size of the jar he's been shot about fifty times by now) and a top secret tank guarded by five or six incompetent soldiers who for some reason drive it into Mexico. Whether they were sent there intentionally or just got really really lost is never made clear. And you'll never hear another screenplay feature the word \"butthorn\" either. Gary Busey tries out the Mel Gibson role from \"Lethal Weapon\" and while Busey is a serviceable actor the screenplay damns the whole movie to mediocrity. William Smith does another turn as a Russian soldier, the same character he played in \"Red Dawn\" a few years earlier. After playing biker heavies for most of the 70s it was sort of nice to see him expand his range playing Communist heavies. Sadly he'll probably always be remembered best as the guy who Clint Eastwood whupped in \"Every Which Way You Can.\"
\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\nTake \"Rambo,\" mix in some \"Miami Vice,\" slice the budget about 80%, and you've got something that a few ten-year-old boys could come up with if they have a big enough backyard & too much access to \"Penthouse.\" Cop and ex-commando McBain (Busey, and with a name like McBain, you know he's as gritty as they come) is recruited to retrieve an American supertank that has been stolen & hidden in Mexico. Captured with the tank were hardbitten Sgt. Major O'Rourke (Jones) & McBain's former love Devon (Fluegel), the officer in command & now meat for the depraved terrorists/spies/drug peddlers, who have no sense of decency, blah, blah, blah. For an action movie with depraved sex, there's a dearth of action and not much sex. The running joke is that McBain gets shot all the time & survives, keeping the bullets as souvenirs. Apparently the writers didn't see \"The Magnificent Seven\" (\"The man for us is the one who GAVE him that face\"), nor thought to give McBain even a pretense of intelligence. Even for a budget actioner, the production values are poor, with distant shots during dialog and very little movement. The main prop, the tank, is silly enough for an Ed Wood production. Fluegel, who might have been a blonde Julia Roberts (she had a far bigger role in \"Crime Story\" than Julia!) has to go from simpering to frightened to butt-kicking & back again on an instant's notice. Jones, who's been in an amazing array of films, pretty much hits bottom right here. Both he & Busey were probably just out for some easy money & a couple of laughs. Look for talented, future character actor Danny Trejo (\"Heat,\" \"Once Upon a Time in Mexico\") in a stereotyped, menacing bit part. Much too dull even for a guilty pleasure, \"Bulletproof\" is still noisy enough to play when you leave your house but want people to think there's someone home.
\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 happens when an army of wetbacks, towelheads, and Godless Eastern European commies gather their forces south of the border? Gary Busey kicks their butts, of course. Another laughable example of Reagan-era cultural fallout, Bulletproof wastes a decent supporting cast headed by L Q Jones and Thalmus Rasulala.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere is only one use for a film such as Bulletproof: it reminds you just how bad bad can be. We often see films which we describe as \"pretty awful\" or \"not much good\", but then you come across a film like this and you can see that although all those other films aren't \"good\" they are no way as stinkingly bad as Bulletproof. This was a birthday gift from someone who spent less than two seconds rummaging thru' the DVD bargain bin at our local superstore to fulfil an obligation (i.e. to give me a present). It could have been a serendipitous find but it wasn't: this is so utterly clichéd, so badly written, so poorly directed, so badly acted that I'm surprised everyone involved hasn't been arrested and sent down for 10 years. God, it's awful. I suspected as much from about 30 seconds in, but carried on because sometimes - sometimes - bad films are so bad they can be enjoyable. This isn't one of them. It is simply bad. I stopped watching after 45 minutes, and tomorrow I shall throw it in the bin.
\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 still can't believe that Wes Craven was responsible for this piece of crap.This movie is worse than \"Deadly Friend\".The plot is stupid,the acting is mediocre and the film is deadly dull.I don't know why Wes Craven hates his debut \"Last House on the Left\"-an absolute masterpiece of the genre and likes(probably)this turkey.Don't get me wrong,I really like some of his movies,but it was a real torture sitting and watching 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\nUnspeakably discombobulated turkey, a mix of anti-Nazi musical (!!), pre-war Americana and Agatha Christie whodunit spoof with one big, big problem: it's deadly unfunny. Besides the single-digit I.Q. plot and dialog, the most amazing aspect of \"Lady...\" is the berserk casting. Gene Wilder (star AND co-writer) tries hard at it all: he plays a romantic lead (with his looks!! and his age!! he and Woody Allen should start a club for clueless, mirrorless ageing comedians), and he tries to be moving and funny and poignant and smart, and tries to sing and dance, and succeeds in NONE!! A looong shot from his good old days with Mel Brooks.
For a while I thought I was having a myopia fit, because everybody in the movie keeps saying Cherry Jones is this pretty hot chick, and that Michael Cumpsty is this impossibly handsome stallion!! The guy who plays Claire Bloom's male secretary is a bespectacled balding thin actor as sexy as a chair and is the object of passion of the two leading ladies!! Mike Starr's over-the-top acting as the most incompetent, phoniest cop you EVER saw deserves to rank among the 10 most abhorrent performances in recent film history. The saddest note is to see wonderful Claire Bloom and Barbara Sukowa completely miscast and offensively wasted. At least I hope both stars payed their bills back home (and subsequently fired their agents) with this flop. No wonder acting prodigy Sukowa returned to Germany after she saw what Hollywood had in store for her!!
If you want to see how to accomplish a really bad film out of a really bad script with a berserk casting director, study this one - otherwise stay away!!! - 1/10
\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(Spoilers galore) This is an absolutely awful film. First of all it has that guy from medium. I guess he's made a career out of playing super doting dads. It was OK the first time he tried to scare his son by pretending to be a monster...but then 10 minutes later they cloyingly did it again! And so it goes, this film moves in excruciating real time. At one point, I started imaging it was days later, until I was reminded that the story line was only at the next day...in the early afternoon still! I'm not really sure who this couple is supposed to be in real life. First of all they are presented as sort of a Manhattan yuppie couple who grew up and had a kid. But they drive an old blue Volvo. Those types stopped driving Volvos decades ago. Today they drive Priuses. But in 2002, I'm sure they still weren't driving Volvos.
OK, then there's Wendigo. A \"mysterious Indian man\" gives the boy a little magic Wendigo statue and tells him of its powerful magic. C'mon...are we still doing ancient Indian mysteries. Just to drive it home, they pan across every Indian statue in their tourist trap upstate New York town. American Indians are portrayed in a manner not seen for decades in this film! Oh, and about Wendigo. He is not actually the cause of the horror. He doesn't kill the kid's dad which is the most horrible thing in the film...he's just killed by an ordinary hick with a grudge and a high powered rifle. The Wendigo only comes out late in the film to avenge the guy who killed the dad...oh, but wait, it seemed earlier that Wendigo was kind of mad at the dad, maybe because he killed a deer...so then Wendigo must have been happy that the dad was killed...but...
And so it goes...insulting, boring and nonsensical. There is no reason to watch this film at all.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI had never heard of Larry Fessenden before but judging by this effort into writing and directing, he should keep his day job as a journeyman actor. Like many others on here, I don't know how to categorize this film, it wasn't scary or spooky so can't be called a horror, the plot was so wafer thin it can't be a drama, there was no suspense so it can't be a thriller, its just a bad film that you should only see if you were a fan of the Blair witch project. People who liked this film used words, like \"ambiguity\" and complex and subtle but they were reading into something that wasn't there. Like the Blair witch, people got scared because people assumed they should be scared and bought into some guff that it was terrifying. This movie actually started off well with the family \"meeting\" the locals after hitting a deer. It looked like being a modern day deliverance but then for the next 45 minutes, (well over half the film), nothing happened, the family potted about their holiday home which was all very nice and dandy but not the slightest bit entertaining. It was obvious the locals would be involved in some way at some stage but Essendon clearly has no idea how to build suspense in a movie. Finally, when something does happen, its not even clear how the father was shot, how he dies, (the nurse said his liver was only grazed), and all the time this wendigo spirit apparently tracks down the apparent shooter in a very clumsy way with 3rd grade special effects. The film is called Wendigo but no attempt is made to explain it in any clear way, the film ends all muddled and leaves you very unsatisfied, i would have bailed out with 15 minutes to go but I wanted to see if this movie could redeem itself. It didn't.
\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 opening scene of this film sets the pace for the entirety of its ninety minutes. The shots are generic, conventional, and of television movie quality. The snow drenched scenery is gorgeous, yet the characters held with in it have a similar quality to that of looking at a photograph of such scenery, the overwhelming feeling being that of distance. Some of the editing is fairly high quality and the work of an veteran professional, the dialogue however is clunky and artificial, having little bearing on 'real' conversations at all seemingly. Any emotional insight is displaced in favour of swearing, which is of course the way in which everyone shows their true feelings. The action is slow and underwhelming, the overall feeling being one of someone trickling cold water over your head, but so slowly that you barely notice, yet eventually you feel pathetic and slightly sorry for yourself for being caught in such a incomprehensible situation.
The mixture of genres that the Fessenden has seemingly tried to use; psychological thriller, horror and family drama, although commendable suffers from a serious lack of tension and interesting dialogue. The way in which the husband, wife and child trio interact is particularly unrealistic. The themes of family relationships being played out in haunting setting have been covered countless times before by far superior films, an instant example being that of The Shining (1980). The family unit here are torn by innocuous troubles which are hard to understand or sympathise with considering the relative ambiguity of the script.
The family unit is hardly stalked throughout the film, Fessenden playing down the thriller possibilities of the narrative in favour of a slow family drama for the majority of the running time. The 'stalker' figure Otis has few apparent motives for his behaviour and despite being perhaps the most interesting and well acted character is still very underdeveloped. The main characters are empty husks of people who it was extremely hard to relate to, their relationships with each other being particularly void of any sentiment or feeling. Although the ignorance of the Erik per Sullivan's young character by his parents is presumably part of the story, surely any reasonable person would question their son if he allegedly spoke to someone who seemingly doesn't exist? People can accept this film as intelligent because of its relative lack of conventional aspects regarding creature based horror movies but this film fails in respect of whichever genre you wished to pigeonhole it in. You can read deep psychological meanings into every single minute detail of anything if you should so wish to but I think people would be better off over analysing their carpet for some deep emotional meaning, rather than these vacuous sub-human creations.
\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 first learned of the Wendigo many years ago in one of Alvin Schwartz's \"Scary Stories\" books: according to that story, the Wendigo - after calling your name in the wind - drags you along, and then pulls you up into the sky and pulverizes you. While it sounds like a pretty bizarre notion, Schwartz's story turned it into a fairly coherent idea.
The movie \"Wendigo\" doesn't. It basically consists of every horror flick cliché: family moves to new house and strange things start happening, anyone who harms them is asking for it, and everyone had better listen to the old Indian guy. I've seen this stuff so many times that I no longer bother to count.
Anyway, avoid it. Patricia Clarkson and Erik Per Sullivan (Dewey on \"Malcolm in the Middle\") have done far 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\nThis movie is S-L-O-W. Spent most of the movie actually waiting for it to 'begin'.
The setting was bleak, the script was bleak, the cinematography was bleak, the plot was bleak, the budget was low (not that all low budget movies are bad, but this one had no redeeming features).
The plot was more consumed with a vengeful, slightly deranged hunter than the actual Wendigo which made a very brief appearance toward the end of the movie. This in itself was disappointing as this 'Wendigo' was just a bizarre mix of a tree and a stag. Everything about the movie was uninspiring.
The parents of the little boy appeared to be rather aloof and at times seemed completely detached from their son. Whether this was down to bad acting or a bad script I'm not sure, but it only heightened my disappointment and boredom levels.
There was no food for thought, nothing to pique an interest. With no real intrigue or chill factor, this movie creaked along so painfully, you just couldn't care less what happened by the end.
Wendigo's ambiance reminds me of the dull movie shown at the awards ceremony toward the end of 'Mr Bean's Holiday': a movie which is artistic and nonsensical, trying too hard to to be deep and meaningful, but coming across as pretentious and boring.
I would never want to watch this again. I only watched it to the end in the vain hope that something interesting might happen ... but it didn't.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you want to know the real story of the Wendigo, I suggest you pick up a copy of Algernon Blackwell's original story. This movie was not only bad but had nothing to do with the book.
I loved the book when I read it as a kid (In \"Campfire Chillers\" by E.M. Freeman)and was so excited to see a movie based on it come out. I was so disappointed when I finally saw it. Another thing is that there were too many PC (Politically Correct) undertones throughout the movie that had no place in the film. When the book was written PC didn't even exist.
My suggestion is don't waste your time or money!! If you see it on the video store shelf LEAVE IT 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\nfor all the subtle charms this student film may contain, was anyone else bored to death waiting WENDINGO to show his paper macho face??
the anti-climax pretty much ruined any sort of momentum we had speed actioned to develop.
don't get me wrong, i'm all into exploring America's dark underbelly, but this is a turd-a-flambé that gets a nod to watchable only for the fact that p.clarkson looks hot taking it.
sadly, from a guy from wings.
the best 2 minutes the film has to offer.
if you felt like ripping off DELIVERANCE, you could do better.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\ni was disappointed. the film was a bit predictable and did not live up to the hype plastered all over the box. Having said that, the characters were well developed, the windego myth was used in a unique premise and the house was pretty spooky but it just missed for me. I kept waiting for that big AHHHHH or BOO! But it never came.
Furthermore the movie was plagued with poor filming of poor special effects. Thus showing to much of a bad thing and not using atmosphere and viewer imagination to create the horror and suspense. Try movies like Session 9 or the Cube if your looking for a low-budget but well conceived horror 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\nAs I was watching this movie I was thinking,OK it'll get good any moment...I was wrong. The real best part of this movie was when it was over. A complete waste of 92 minutes. All seriousness aside the best part was when the Wendigo finally showed up which was at the end and you couldn't really even see him that good. And the tail end was really kind of dumb as well. There was too many sections in the movie where you thought something was going to happen but was a let down. The worse part is there was more talk of the Wendigo then there was Wendigo. For the creature to be so bad,you definitely couldn't tell it by 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\nif my grandma did films they would probably do much better figure than this one... incredible bad... the main characters (the mom, the dad and son) are OK. Specially the mother she's a nice actress and the kid also proves to be a nice one specially on the scenes where he is supposed to be scary. But does the the director know the meaning of the words Plot Point, Triller and Good Script. the script hasn't any evolving atmosphere to become a suspense thing. If you like being chased by trees you can probably enjoy it, otherwise just stay at home and sleep. oh... actually there was something funny: the movie's from 2001 but we couldn't realize it since the image is so bad (like on mini-dv) and the cars are so old (like 70 and 80's).
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAnyone who actually had the ability to sit through this movie and walk away feeling like it was a good film does not appreciate quality movies. This movie was an insult to watch, the direction was high school film class quality as well as the cinematography. The Blair Witch Project had better cinematography and I hate that move with a passion! The storyline had the potential to be a very intense very good movie but it fell flat from the first 10 minutes through the rest of the movie. Someone mentioned that this film was about a child's imagination, okay thats all good and fine. But they still could have done better things with this script than what they did. I mean come on, the Indian in the store. Did the kid look at the little idol and suddenly imagine the Indian and the entire story about an Indian spirit called Wendigo? Which they mention to the store employee and she casually says there is no one but me that works here, so you think okay creepy ghost scenario, but then she just barters for the amount on the idol and we forget about the little kid seeing this guy. That was so lame it goes beyond pathetic. The ending left you wondering not only what happened to Otis in the hospital but also with the feeling of OMG!!! Why the hell did I just waste my time watching this!! This is a move that I recommend NOT to watch, there are definitely better quality films out there that won't insult your intelligence! Thank god I never had to pay to see this movie, I would have demanded my money back! For those that were easily entertained by this movie.... it's very sad that you lowered your standards to this level of film making to actually say that it was a good 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\nI remember back when I was little when I was away at camp and we would campout under the stars. There was always someone there that would have a good story to tell that involved the woods that surrounded us and they would always creep me out. Well, when I found Wendigo at the library, I checked it out hoping to be one of those films that had a supernatural being haunting people in the woods much like the stories that were told at camp. Well, much to my dismay, I was so far from the truth. Wendigo is really bad. The story starts of when a family of three is driving to their winter cabin, which looks like your normal suburban home and nothing like a cabin in the woods, and they run into a deer. Well, it seems the local rednecks were actually hunting this particular deer and are pretty upset at our city folk. The movie spends far too much time following the families everyday activities instead of getting to the point of the film. It wasn't until about the last 15 minutes that we actually have some action involving the \"wendigo.\" My suggestion is that you stay very far away this film. It will leave you wanting your hour and a half back.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've seen many horror shows over the years, like Nightstalker, that dealt with the Wendigo legend, so I was looking forward to an angry spirit causing mayhem to add flavor to the Halloween season. Man was I mistaken. The whole movie creates this sense of events about to happen that will be scary and creepy, but then delivers a very simplistic tale of revenge and murder over the loss of some property. Ve-ery scary - not! This movie has a lot in common with Cold Creek Manor, another total loser.
It's getting harder and harder to believe anything Hollywood puts forward about scary movies, since they rarely come through with anything original and spooky anymore. What idiots pay for such a bogus movie to be made? Go back to the drawing board fellas, and do something useful with those millions of greenbacks you have to throw around.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI suppose if you like endless dialogue that doesn't forward the story and flashy camera effects like the scene transitions in the television show _Angel_, you'll enjoy the film. Me? All I wanted was a nice, tight little story, and it wasn't there. The pacing was practically backward, plot points were buried under a sea of unneeded dialogue, and there was absolutely no sense of dread, or tension, or ANYTHING.
Is it the redneck? Is it the Wendigo? No, it's a cameraman on speed. That's not scary. It doesn't generate a single note of tension or atmosphere unless you're scared by MTV. Like those reviewers before me, I too noticed that by the end the movie invokes derisive laughter from the audience.
Terrible 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\nThis wasn't all that great. Not terrible or hateful or anything, just forgettable.
It had a sort of, um, hesitant, diluted air, like it never properly knew whether it wanted to go for laughs or for sweetness or for satire. So we were left with weak mix of the three. The actors seemed kinda lost.
Also, the ideas were really tired and recycled, almost zombified themselves. How many more times do we have to be told the 50's in the States were infected with a banal sense of conformity? And that this was perpetuated by aggressive consumerism? And that emotional repression in men is a baaaaad thing? Old hat.
Its biggest crime in my eyes though was just how detached from reality it was. I know it was a comedy and all, but - especially in a full movie where you must keep the interest of an audience for a prolonged period - you still need some sort of emotional anchor, some relatable guide through the story, to make it engaging. For the 'hero' kid to watch an old woman, two fellow school pupils and ultimately his father die painfully at the hands of zombies or whatever and for him to greet it all with a cheery smile and a shrug of the shoulders, then I just struggle to deal with that in any sort of positive way. The mum was the same. If you make your two main characters so inhuman on that level, then you risk losing me and that's what happened.
Biggest positive I can offer is that I love the look of that sort of apple pie suburbia and this captured it well enough, it was a handsome film, especially some of those wide angled shots of the street and inside the Robinsons' house. Also, the opening newsreel was cute, in a been-done-before-but-still-funny sort of way.
And I thought Billy Connolly was OK and that comes from someone who isn't a big fan of Billy Connolly: Movie Star. I just had this fear he was going to be hamming it up and trying to steal every scene, but he played it pretty low-key for him and probably came out the most sympathetic character in the whole film.
All in all, not great though.
\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 gets both a 6/10 rating from me, as well as a 9/10. Here is why: As a standard horror movie for the standard horror crowd, where action and gore and scares are taken into consideration, this movie WILL bore you. It's basically a family drama similar to what you'd see on the Lifetime channel, but put in a horror universe. The story and formula are age-old, retreaded hundreds of times. If you're looking for any originality in the plot structure or the minimal conflicts, you'll be disappointed. Take away the zombies and you'll have something just as melodramatic as A Beautiful Mind, tripping on cheese. This is the 6/10.
However, the basic synopsis and idea is pretty original and over-the-top. It's literally something you and your friends would joke about when you're half-drunk . . . but that joke actually got a theatrical release. The idea gets a 9/10 from me. The only reason it isn't perfect is because they could have taken it even further, but they didn't.
The mix of both is mixed. I thought it was funny, but as with most all comedies, it wasn't THAT funny. I had my mom and little sister watch it with me and the jokes we made about it were funnier than the jokes scripted. There were moments of utter genius, but there were also moments of pure boredom.
I sincerely hope that other movies take this kind of over-the-top risk and original ideas. I just can't say it was perfect, or even near it, because of the lack of originality to the plot.
A GREAT family movie. A great movie to watch with a bunch of guys (or girls). A great movie to watch with anyone . . . but if you watch it alone, it will be a bit boring. Other people always make this kind of movie funnier and richer.
4/10
\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\nThere's been a vogue for the past few years for often-as-not ironic zombie-related films, as well as other media incarnations of the flesh- eating resurrected dead. \"Fido\" is a film that's either an attempt to cash in on that, simply a manifestation of it, or both -- and it falls squarely into the category of ironic zombies. The joke here is that we get to see the walking dead in the contrasting context of a broadly stereotyped, squeaky-clean, alternate-history (we are in the wake of a great Zombie War, and the creatures are now being domesticated as slaves) version of a 1950s suburb.
It's a moderately funny concept on its own, and enough perhaps for a five-minute comedy sketch, but it can't hold up a feature-film on its own. The joke that rotting corpses for servants are incongruous with this idealized version of a small town is repeated over and over again, and loses all effectiveness. The soundtrack relentlessly plays sunny tunes while zombies cannibalize bystanders. The word \"zombie\" is constantly inserted into an otherwise familiarly homey line for a cheap attempt at a laugh.
The very broadness and artificiality of the representation of \"the nineteen fifties\" here can't help but irritate me. It is so stylized, in it evidently \"Pleasantville-\"inspired way, that it is more apparent in waving markers of its 1950s-ness around than actually bearing any resemblance to anything that might have happened between 1950 and 1959. There is something obnoxiously sneering about it, as if the film is bragging emptily and thoughtlessly about how more open, down-to-Earth, and superior the 2000s are.
Because the characters are such broad representations of pop-culture 1950s \"types,\" it's difficult to develop much emotional investment in them. Each has a few character traits thrown at him or her -- Helen is obsessed with appearances, and Bill loves golf and his haunted by having had to kill his father -- but they remain quite two-dimensional. Performances within the constraints of this bad writing are fine. The best is Billy Connolly as Fido the zombie, who in the tradition of Boris Karloff in \"Frankenstein\" actually imparts character and sympathy to a lumbering green monster who cannot speak.
There are little bits of unsubtle allegory thrown around -- to commodity fetishism, racism, classism, war paranoia, et cetera, but none of it really works on a comprehensive level, and the filmmakers don;t really stick with anything.
Unfortunately, this film doesn't really get past sticking with the flimsy joke of \"Look! Zombies in 'Leave it to Beaver!'\" for a good hour- and-a-half.
\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 would be a watchable Hollywood mediocre if it had a good editing. It relies on the typical American thriller plot - \"who is going to outsmart everyone\". Acting is below average, but with shining appearance of the detective who is the best actor in the film and he is mostly responsible if the tension in the film rises. Film was completely suffocated by blank video and sound shots and most of it looks like raw film material. All in all, if you don't mind watching a movie that looks like a student film project, this is a film to watch. I guess that would be enough to say on this film, everything else could really spoil the tension that is probably low enough.
\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\nLoved Part One, The Impossible Planet, but whoops, what a disappointment part two 'The Satan Pit' is. The cliffhanger of something apparently rising out of the pit was - nothing coming out of the pit. Then ages spent crawling round air vents to pad out the story, the Beast a roaring thing empty of intelligence, so no Doctor/villain confrontation I'd been anticipating. The TARDIS is somehow inside the pit despite the pit not being open till long after the TARDIS fell through the planet crust. And finally another ready made solution which existed for no logical reason - I mean, why not plunge the Beast into the Hole as soon as the pit opened? Why not plunge him in all those years ago instead of imprisoning him anyway. Why not - I could go on but I've lost interest...
\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 don't know how to describe this movie. It's definitely one of the weirdest movies I've seen in a long time. It is very unsettling at times but also boring in other places. The scenes of dental torture are very elaborate and may attract anyone who's into gore & splatter. I found myself holding my teeth during some of the aforementioned scenes. The clever thing about the movie is that it plays with our fears and The Dentist is therefore quite unsettling.
The humor of the film is somehow hidden and may not be recognized by everyone. But if you're a fan of weird and strange entertainment and teeth getting drilled to dust this is just the film you were looking for.
If you read the comment and feel somehow attracted by this kind of entertainment, give it a try!
My rating: 4/10 (maybe a little too weird for my taste)
\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\nWell, I do like the gore in this movie - it is genuingly unsetteling. Anyone that's been to the dentist will know why. The story really isn't that bad, Corbin Bersen's character's motivations do make a lot more sense than in most horror movies.
I've seen worse acting, directing, script, etc. but at the end of the day this is still a bad horror movie. So it comes down to if you enjoy that type of thing or not. I tried to watch the sequel, but it was exactly, exactly the same thing as this movie. Just keep in mind if you enjoy people getting tortured at the dentist, then this is the movie for 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\nThere are probably more people afraid of the dentist than of, let's say, little monsters or scary looking dolls. Which makes it a perfect subject for a horror movie, really.
Dr. Feinstone (Corbin Bernsen) has been a successful dentist for several years now, but when he catches his wife cheating on him with the poolguy he snaps, and he brings his anger and frustration to his work. Well, give a mad dentist a drill and a mouth, and you can probably guess what happens next...
As I said, brilliant idea but not delivered as well as it should. In particular the ending is a huge let down. Last note: watch for Mark Ruffalo (You Can Count On Me, Eternal Sunshine...) in this one.
5/10.
\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\nI really wanted to like this movie, but it never gave me a chance. It's basically meant to be Spinal Tap with a hip hop theme, but it fails miserably. It consistently feels like it was written and acted by high-school kids for some school project, and that's also the level the humor seems to be aimed at. There is no subtlety and, more damningly for a mockumentary, it never once feels like a documentary. And while the lines aren't funny in the first place, an attempt at dead-pan delivery would have helped -- certainly, anything would be better than the shrill overacting we are subjected to.
I'd recommend this to people who like \"comedies\" in the vein of \"Big Momma's House\" or \"Norbit\"; people who think that words like \"butt\" are inherently hysterically funny. Other people should stay away and not waste their time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI cant describe how terrible this movie is. Am i the only one here who finds the way its animated totaly disgusting? The Men of Rohan look 100% fake with their poorly colored hair, that doesnt even come close to matching what the actors look like. The orcs looked terrible. Why does gandalf walk with a bad limp? Why cant they pronounce things correctly? Saruman isnt Aruman. There were other what sounded like terrible pronounciation*sp* of Tolkiens characters. All and all im glad the studio who made this pulled the plug out from the sequal, it was just a terrible terrible adaptaion. Go watch the hobbit cartoon for a better cartoon of Tolkiens work. Hell, even the cartoon version of ROTK is better then this dribble. 2/10
\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\nSome people don't like the animation. Personally, I think the animation was quite remarkable given when this movie was done. There are lots of older cartoons that I just love. My problems with this movie are not the animation, but basically the way it was constructed. The characters are all just... well, goofy. And for this movie, they shouldn't be. Apparently, everyone in LOTR has a limping problem (for starters.) Just the way they acted in general annoyed me. My two sisters and I were laughing through most of this movie. I think that if many people had seen this before seeing the newer ones, they wouldn't have gone. I'm glad I rented this and didn't buy it. There are few movies that give me a headache. This was one of them. However, this isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, although it ranks up there. Or down there, depending on your view.
\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 remember going to see the movie in the summer of '78 with my parents, and being pretty into it at the time. Of course, I was seven at the time.
Right before the Jackson movies came out, my wife and I rented this movie since she had never seen it and I was feeling nostalgic.
Ralph Bakshi ran out of money about mid-way through the animation process for this movie, and was forced to drastically cut corners on this production. Since this movie was done primarily with rotoscoping, the animation technique for people on a budget, this is saying something. Much of this movie is animation only in the very loosest sense of the word. There are some scenes which are very obviously just people standing in front of a screen, with maybe some animation effects superimposed on top of them.
Because of budget constraints, the movie -- already a compression of \"The Fellowship of the Rings\" and part of \"The Two Towers\" -- was pared down even more. What you get is sort of like a film-strip version of the Cliff Notes of the books.
Its not all bad, though, the animation brings a warmth to it, that I found lacking in the Jackson movies. Its nice to imagine what it could have been like with decent funding.
This movie is also noteworthy for having the sequel which never came. Several years later, a half-hearted half-hour long TV special was aired, which was meant to wrap things up. All I will say about that is that it was a musical.
\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 haven't seen this movie in a while, so I'm afraid I can't be very specific about details... It did have some interesting points. Ralph Bakshi's attempt at an animated adaptation of J.R.R Tolkien's masterpiece was a very ambitious project, so ambitious in fact that it went bankrupt at some point during the production. Therefore, not only does it stop abruptly somewhere around the middle of the second book of the trilogy (with sort of a shade of a hint of a sequel that was never made), the film itself seems less than finished. It seems that some characters were animated while others were filmed, but whether or not it's intentional is hard to say. The whole thing seems shabbily made and undone, especially the Orcs and the Nazgul. Another problem, of course, is the huge gaps in the plot. Bakshi was in a rush to finish this movie, and he somehow hoped to cram a book and a half in little more than two hours (the new trilogy by Peter Jackson does it in about twice that time.) Far too many important bits were left out (and I don't refer only to Tom Bombadil, which, I think, was lovely in the book but would look silly in a movie.) And of course, the ending, which is completely sudden and out of place. I'm not even sure if Bakshi originally intended to end the film there, or if he even had any idea where he's going to end it.
The characters... well, most of them were okay. The hobbits don't look so bad (except for the gay Sam. Did you know that the producers of the new trilogy originally wanted to make Sam a woman so there would be a feminine lead character?) If you're a Tolkien fanatic (like me), watch this movie (though I'm not too sure about buying it. What special features does the DVD version have, anyway?) But know in advance that you're not going to watch a real 'Lord Of The Rings Movie' but not much more than a historical curiosity, which probably looks not much better than the 60s version would have had the Beatles carried on with their plan (I actually think a psychedelic LOTR could have been quite cool. The idea was to cast George as Gandalf, Paul as Frodo, Ringo as Sam and John as Gollum.) If you didn't read the book or didn't like it much or don't like animation films or don't want to see a half-finished movie... stay away.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI might have given this movie a higher rating before Peter Jackson's trilogy came out, but seeing the two of them side by side there is simply no comparison. The pace of this movie is rushed, many important scenes from the book are left out, and there is little character development. The animation is a strange mixture of traditional cartoon drawings and live action scenes that were painted over, which I found distracting. And the most disappointing thing about this movie is that it breaks off in the middle of the story and was never finished. There are some good points- the battle scenes are exciting to watch, and the dialogue follows the book pretty much to the letter. Watch this one if you're in a hurry and can't spend 10 hours watching the new trilogy. But if you haven't read the book you'll probably be confused, because there is a lot missing from this version. 4 out of 10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"