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've said this in other reviews, without a story, you can give the audience all the smoke and mirrors you want, still no one will give a damn.
The director seems to have a great eye for 30s art deco (which I love), and I think the idea of using all digital backgrounds and such could indeed be the wave of the future in movie making. However, it's obvious the director got so interested in the digital rendering of his movie, he forgot to film many scenes which would have enormously helped this surprisingly thinned-plotted film. (SPOILER) For crying out loud, they forgot to have a villain in this thing! OK they have one, but he's been dead for 20 years by the time the movie takes place. Conran misses the point of HAVING a villain. As far as action goes, well let's see, Sky Captain (Law) shoots down ONE robot, two or three of the flapping wing airplanes (before Dex (Ribisi) tells him to stop shooting them down!!!), and a couple robots, but mostly spends his time looking dashing and getting others to fight his battles for him. Paltrow as Polly or Peggy or Punky or whatever is totally wasted in this movie (the reviewer who comments on hers and Law's lack of chemistry is so right) and I for one got a little sick of seeing repeated shots of the top of her camera, showing she ONLY HAS TWO SHOTS LEFT, both of which she wastes subsequently in the movie, one uncomically, one quite funny, although I saw it coming from 70 years away. No one except Law and Paltrow have any significant time on screen, and that's the movie's real flaw. An audience doesn't identify with robots, they need a hero to root for, and a visible, despicable villain to hate. Without that, plus a good engaging story, all the CG in the world won't help.
\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 feels so EMPTY. IN every scene in the movie the maximum number of actors on the screen is like 10. Because everything was shot in front of a blue screen there are never really any extras and the movie just feels weird.
The ACTING was HORRIBLE! It's so obvious this was in front of a blue screen because all of the action scenes you can see the actor/actress wondering around half running when they should be running for their lives.. Looking at the floor for their marks...
Spoilers: Also you'll find yourself banging your head watching the movie. At one point at Sky Captain's home base they have like 100 planes sitting on the airstrip. They have advanced warning an attack is coming... So what do they do? nothing. All of the planes get blown up and yet again the ONLY person fighting back is the Sky Captain...
THE ENTIRE world is under attack and he's the ONLY person ever fighting back. At the very end of the movie you see hundreds of plains taking off finally... but what do they do? Nothing... the movie is over...
\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 waste of time! I've tried to sit through 'Sky Captain..\" about 6 times, and every time, within about 3 minutes, I start doing something else - anything else! It's a downright boring movie, the acting is terrible, the writing dull, and obviously a first-time director, because it's stiff. And I wanted to love it. I love sci-fi, the old cliffhangers, and I can appreciate the attempt at nods to Flash Gordon, and Metropolis, but my God, what a waste of money. I used to work for Paramount Pictures, and I had written Sherry Lansing in 1993 about using blue screen for screen tests. She told me they'd never have an interest or need to do it. 10 years later, Paramount releases this piece of crap. Sherry was right in 1993, but must have forgotten her own advice when she greenlighted this dog. Blue screen an effect shot, but not an entire movie. Let's not forget, neither Jude nor Jolie are terrific actors (but easy on the eyes). Paltrow's performance reminds me of a high school effort. Too bad - it could've worked, but only under a skilled director. the funny thing is, Sky Captain's director will keep getting work, even after this dreck. It's commerce, not art!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn a word, this film was boring. It lacked life and spark. A big problem is with the two leads. Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow had no chemistry whatsoever. He was boring, and she was annoying.
The visuals were interesting, but they didn't enhance the scenes. If anything, the visuals tended to detach the audience from what was happening on screen. None of the action sequences felt real, and hence, the film failed to create any real drama or a sense of danger.
The film had potential, but it needed a better script, better acting, and a better director. I kept thinking during the film, you know, this movie would've worked if Harrison Ford was Sky Captain, Karen Allen was Polly, and Steven Spielberg was the director.
Ignore the critical acclaims for this film. The critics I think are praising the film because they *want* to like it and want it to succeed even though it fails on so many different levels.
\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\"Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow\" (an amazingly incovenient title) is simply a bad movie; it has no heart, no deep ideas, nothing very special about it. Yes, the CGI backgrounds look interesting, but the result is that the whole thing is shot in an annoying soft focus. Additionally, the movie uses music the same way as, say, \"Gilligan's Island\" or the Scooby-Doo cartoons-- IT NEVER STOPS. Terribly, simply terrible. There are no fresh ideas, either, just gobs and gobs and gobs and... etc., of bits taken from older movies and serials. There is no gatekeeper here, the movie just seems to exist because it can. Save your money and your time. Not entertaining 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\nVisually interesting, but falls flat in the originality department. This tedious excercise in technique wears thin after the opening battle. Jude Law has the charisma of burnt toast, but in his defense this film contains some of the worst dialogue I have ever seen on the big screen. In fact the script is so poor that it keeps taking you out of the film, and had me thinking about work, bills, my dogs, etc. There are many moments that scream bluescreen. Paltrow is as wooden as they get. This could of been saved by snappy film noir dialogue or over the top camp. My only complaint on the technique is that Black & White film (sorry, computer) would of helped because it looks like Turner colorized black and white. Just a big dull cliché mess. I would rather break my femur than sit through this endurance test again.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSky Captain is possibly the best awful movie I've seen in a long while. Rife with amazing CG and special effects, studded with an A-list cast (Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie and the infinitely likable Giovanni Ribisi) and racing along with an overused but Indiana Jones-esquire storyline, this should have been a great movie to watch.
'Should have' being the key term here, of course.
Jude Law plays Joe the Sky Captain with a dashing accent and plenty of over-the-shoulder, heart-melting smirks, but you can't make something out of nothing, and even his flippant deliveries and boyish good looks can't save the movie's stone dialogue. (If he had slapped Giovanni Ribisi on the back and said, \"Good boy, Dex,\" just ONE more time, I might have barfed all over the guy in front of me.) Gwyneth Paltrow, as Polly Perkins, is nothing less than nerve grating. Her nasal whining and not-quite-sarcastic comments get old in the first ten minutes of the movie. Perhaps she put too much effort into playing the stereotypical 30's comic book heroine- who knows? I expected more from her. An example of how a similar character was played (and played well) is in the late 90's flick \"The Phantom,\" starring Kristy Swanson and Billy Zane. Rent the movie and you'll know what I mean.
Giovanni Ribisi and Angelina Jolie were the saving graces in the film. (Angelina Jolie was incredibly hot in that eyepatch. I'll admit it.) In just a few short scenes, both actors somehow managed to rise above the tired material and deliver a more riveting performance than their dry, two-dimensional castmates.
The plot and steady story progression were old, boring, and basically just a monotonous combination of every good scene from an action movie in the past thirty years. The pace is rapid-fire in the first half of the movie, and a snail's pace in the second, giving the audience enough time not only to guess the eventual conclusion of the film, but to figure out who the key villain is as well. The pairing is rather clichéd, also- Polly Perkins and Sky Captain apparently reunite after several years of separation from a bitterly-ended romance, and their story isn't so much charming and eclectic as it is annoying and mismatched. When they finally come to terms with their mutual feelings towards the end of the film, nobody's surprised, and nobody really cares either.
Props to the director for appreciating Bai Ling enough to dress her in skintight vinyl for the entirety of the film, and also for the intriguing sepia tones that served as coloration throughout. But Sky Captain, despite having all the essential elements of being a great movie, falls flat on its face. Not even worth the $2.75 I paid to get into the theater.
\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 like the time period, I like the attempt, but watching a movie that looks like I'm looking at it through a coke bottle gives me a headache. If I played computer games that were this blurry and out of focus, I would upgrade my computer. Could be that this was the look the director was after, but not so it hurts the eyes and you want to leave after 10 minutes. If I hadn't taken someone with me to this film, I was out of there. Even though it was a series and not a movie per say, Band of Brothers accomplished this. They made it look like WWII footage, with just a touch of graininess, but it was still a pleasure to watch. Movies need real people, with real sets, and real locations; Use CGI when it is appropriate, not for an entire 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\nVisually stunning? Most definitely. I have seen few films look this good in some time. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow uses striking cinematography, computer graphics, and creative futuristic designs to create a world that is historically familiar yet something quite fresh. The time period seems to be the 1930s or early 40s. The movie tells of recent attacks on New York City by mechanized armies stealing generators and the like for some inexplicable reason. Also, mysterious disappearances of relevant scientific minds coincide. Who can stop them and save the world? Alright, it doesn't take a leap of faith to know it is the Sky Captain himself with his wisecracking reporter girlfriend always hot for a lead, and in the wings his trusty, thoroughly competent sidekick. What Sky Captain has in atmosphere and graphics it lacks in storytelling and characterization. The plot for this film is ridiculous. That being said, the film is going for a serial-like feeling of film serials of yesteryear. They had pretty far out stories and bad acting - but none of them, and I mean none of them, had the budget and big names this film had. Two academy award winning performers and Jude Law could keep a film afloat, one would think, but Sky Captain sinks miserably. Despite its fantastic dark look, I found myself wishing the film would just end and I could get on with my life. I had little interest in a story that generated little interest. I didn't care at all for any of the glib portrayals. Paltrow was just awful. Jolie was a joke with a role with virtually no substance. Law cannot carry the one-liner tradition all too squarely on his limited shoulders. I mean, let's face it, he's not Will Smith, Mel Gibson, or even Wesley Snipes. The sad thing about Sky Captain, at least for me, was that it held so much promise yet delivered so little. I was bored ten minutes into the film - waiting for something to hook my interest - and it never came.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA gave it a \"2\" instead of a \"1\" (awful) because there is no denying that many of the visuals were stunning, a lot of talent went into the special effects and artwork. But that wasn't enough to save it.
The \"sepia\" toned, washed out colors sort of thing has been done before many times in other movies. Nothing new there. I can see there were some hat-tips to other old, classic movies. OK. No problem with that.
But a movie has got to be entertaining and interesting, not something that would put you to sleep.
The story line and the script of this movie WAS awful, the characters two dimensional. Slow moving. Some of the scenes were pretty to look at, but ultimately, as a whole, it was quite boring, I couldn't recommend it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was way over-hyped. A lot of the viewers, who thought this was \"amazing\" must have been into the old school movies, cause the whole movie is set in the past. At first I thought the movie was just showing something from the past, so I was expecting that faded dreamy like lighting on the characters to pass, but it just going. Basically this was a movie trying to mix the future with the past, and the 2 don't mix very well in this movie, even with special effects. You could actually see the blue screen the actors were working with. There are too many movies out there that do exactly what this movie did, so there is no reason for critics to hype this movie up saying \"it's the greatest movie ever done\". It's just crap on a stick. It also didn't help that the story line was sooo crappy. I don't understand why Hollywood agreed to have this movie produced, and I also don't understand how actors/actresses in this movie are willing to be in a movie like this. It's almost as though everybody read the script and forgot to read the fine print...\"It will all be done on a computer\". This was a movie that should have been on a movie network, because nothing about this movie was revolutionary. I'm very upset with myself for paying money to see this. Whatever you do, don't waste your time and money on this movie today or tomorrow.
\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 exploding zeppelins crashing down upon 'Sky Captain' Jude Law's base present an adequate metaphor to describe how truly terrible this movie is. First off, let me state right off the bat that I sincerely doubt that Paramount will ever recover any money from this film. A cult hit it might become, but only because it is so remarkable for what it failed to achieve. I can see the studio pitch now. \"Let's combine 1920's German Expressionism and a 1940's globetrotting adventure with a modern action flick and use computer animation to dominate every scene! Wow, won't that be a success! \" Skycaptain bludgeons the viewer with its sheer excess. There are too many fake explosions, too many unconvincing dogfight scenes, and too few real moments where the characters are anything but painfully two-dimensional. After all, why shock and awe with one floating airship when you can have three, or five, or one hundred?! Moreover, what could have been a groundbreaking film, seamlessly combining computer generated imagery and human actors in a stylized and intriguing setting, will instead become a flop in no small part because it fails to meet the most important requirement of any flick using CGI. Quite simply, the graphics are amazingly poor. From the movement of the cars to the physics of the aircraft in the dogfights, everything seems to be just a little off. I'm not being nit-picky here in any way. An infant could notice that a car doesn't glide along the road like a maglev train (unless its a Mercedes S500). And for those of you raising your voices in protest, crying out 'This is a stylized film, it's not supposed to be like reality', let me just say this. Lord of the Rings has set the standard for integrating real-life actors with CGI, Starship Troopers has set the standard for ironic science fiction films, the Rocketeer did a solid job reintroducing the decade of the 1920's back into the Hollywood film portfolio, and Tim Burton's Batman created a unique picture of New York City/Gotham that has yet to be repeated. Sky Captain falls so short of all these films, it is hard for me to mention them in the same sentence. Plus, the acting is so poor, it makes me positively ill. So there you have it. I spent $9 to see this film and you get my review. I hope it might dissuade you all from making the same mistake that I did.
\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 entered the theater to Sky Captain in 2004 expecting a good film. Nearly every review of this movie had been positive, the effects looked enticing, the previews convincing.
Needless to say, disappointment actually doesn't describe the feeling I got from this film. It was rage.
Beyond being boring and poorly written, the reason this film gets a 2 out of 10 stars is because everything in the film was stolen from another source. I understand the difference between an homage and stealing: this was stealing. More importantly, it seems that the filmmakers didn't steal to progress a point or move the plot along. They stole just to show that they could. There is literally no point to showing a clip of The Wizard of Oz in a theater at the beginning of the movie except to set up another scene (that I won't elaborate on) which steals from the same film. Needless to say, every concept in the film was neither original nor even a spin on an old concept: it was literally just a rehash of something I had already seen, from pulp-era robots reminiscent of the old Superman Cartoons and the recent film \"The Iron Giant\", to the silent martial artist minion of the villain that has been used in countless films, most recognizable in recent years as Darth Maul in \"Star Wars: The Phantom Menace\".
On the subject of the actual film, most of the performances were completely wooden. Perhaps this is because the entire movie was done on a blue-screen, with computer imagery filling in everything save the actors. Frankly, this is no excuse for poor acting. If a person was ever a child, they understand that a lack of visual reference is no excuse for not trying.
Finally, there is no humanity in this film. The protagonists are the only real human beings here. Nearly all the antagonists are robots, and the number of friendly characters that are shown during the film can be counted on one hand. If robots are attacking the entire planet, shouldn't we expect to see masses of humanity running from them? The sub-par performance of the main characters prevents us from connecting to, really, anything here.
The film wasn't the worst movie out there, which is why I didn't give it a 1. Rather, the film was an example of all that is wrong with modern action films: the filmmakers tried to justify the movie with special effects, but without artistic vision or originality of any kind, it falls flat.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen robot hordes start attacking major cities, who will stop the madman behind the attacks? Sky Captain!!! Jude Law plays Joe Sullivan, the ace of the skyways, tackling insurmountable odds along with his pesky reporter ex-girlfriend Polly Perkins (Gwyneth Paltrow) and former flight partner, Captain Franky Cook (Angelina Jolie).
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow may look and feel like an exciting movie but it really is quite dull and underwhelming. The film's running time is 106 minutes yet it feels so much longer because there is no substance in this movie. The visuals were great and the film did a nice job on that. However, there is nothing to support these wonderful visuals. The film lacks a story and interesting characters making the while thing quite dull and unnecessary. I blame director and writer Kerry Conran. He focuses too much on the visuals and spent little time on the actual story. The movie is like a girl with no personality, after awhile it kind of gets bland and tiring. Sky Captain represents a beautiful girl with no personality. It's simply just another case of style over substance.
The acting is surprisingly average and that's not really their fault since they had very little to work with. The main reason I watched this movie is because of Angelina Jolie. However, the advertising is quite misleading and she is only in the film for about 30 minutes. Her performance is surprisingly bland as well. Jude Law gives an okay performance though you would expect a lot more from him. Gwyneth Paltrow was just average, nothing special at all. Ling Bai's performance was the only one I really liked. She gives a pretty good performance as the mysterious woman and she was the only interesting character in the entire film.
The movie is not a complete bust though. There were some \"wow\" and exciting scenes. There just weren't enough of them. The film just doesn't have that hook to really make it memorable. It was actually quite bland and it wasn't very engaging at all. It's too bad the film wasn't very good since it had such a promising premise. In the end, Sky Captain is surprisingly below average and not really worth watching. Rating 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\nI saw this movie last month at a free sneak preview and I walked out. It was pretty horrible. In the process of trying too hard, they over acted and made a horrible movie. I was disappointed since I felt all the actors had made respectable choices in the past so this one couldn't be that far off the mark--but, I was wrong. I was hoping they would give out a survey at the end of the movie so I could tell them not to release this movie. I was lured in by the free aspect of the preview, but it turned out to be a waste of my time--and, usually, I'm very easily amused. It tried to be innovative and creative with the shots, ideas and filming, but because they threw together so many ideas at once, it failed. I'm not usually picky about movies and I usually don't feel the need to display my opinions about movies, but I had to warn everyone not to watch it. I registered on IMDb just to tell all of you guys
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you are looking for eye candy, you may enjoy Sky Captain. Sky Captain is just a video game injected with live performers. The visials are nice and interesting to look at during the entire movie. Now, saying that, the visuals are the ONLY thing good in Sky Captain.
After ten minutes, I knew I was watching one of the worse movies of all time. I was hoping this movie would get better, but it never achieved any degree of interest. After thirty minutes, the urge to walk out kept growing and growing. Now, I own over 2000 movies and have seen probably five times that number. Yet, this is only the second movie I felt like walking out of my entire life.
Acting---there is none. The three main performers are pitiful. Jude Law (also in the other movie I wanted to walk out on) is just awful in the title role. I would rather sit through Ben Affleck in Gigli than watch Law again.
Paltrow tries SO hard to be campy, that it backfires in her face. The last article I had read said that Paltrow is thinking of staying home and being a mother rather than acting. After this performance, I would applaud that decision.
Story---Soap operas are better written. The story behind Sky Captain starts out bad and gets continually worse as it progresses.
Directing---none. Everything was put into the special effects that story, acting and directing suffer greatly. Even \"the Phantom Menace\" had better acting and that is NOT saying a great deal.
I would have to give this movie a \"0\" out of \"10\". Avoid paying theatre prices and wait until video release.
\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\nUnashamedly ambitious sci-fi from Kerry Conran, for whom this is clearly a labour of love. Unfortunately it's just not that good. It all starts well enough - with an epic but restrained score, a mixture of Lucas and Hitchcock style editing and the glossy cinematography of a Spielberg. The movie also references many pulp sci-fi novels, serials and films as diverse as The Day The Earth Stood Still, Superman, Metropolis, Planet Of The Apes, The Iron Giant, Star Wars and The Spy Who Loved Me. The film however, fails to be as good as any one of those for several reasons: the main being that it's such a labour of love, so concerned with throwing everything at the screen and creating a brave new world, Conran actually forgets about making a movie. There is little to no tension, atmosphere or magic on offer here despite aerial battles, dinosaurs and race-against-time set-pieces. Even the noir elements fall flat. This is a broad way of looking at things though - those elements mainly fail because nothing feels at all real and is so obviously fake - the green-screen just looks like a video game half the time and it's obvious the actors have been pasted on afterwards. The actors don't get to do much either - Jude Law is wooden, Gwyneth Paltrow is annoying and stupid, Angelina Jolie is wasted - and it's all because of an awful script - the sort that has to explain nearly everything. It is a decent experience and some might get a nostalgia feel but ultimately this is a pointless step into the world of yesterday. Nice ending 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\nPay no attention to the comments behind the curtain! The majority of people leaving positive comments about this film must be receiving royalties. This is a horrible film in every way. Imagine high school kids with no money and no sense of humor making a slasher/comedy video. They would receive a D for this. College kids would receive an F or asked to leave the school. Since this monstrosity was made by \"Professionals\" I believe there should be jail time or at least cinema probation. I enjoy watching bad movies Like \"Plan 9 From Outer Space\" but, this thing doesn't even fall into that category. The script, acting, sound, and directing are so bad that it is virtually unwatchable. If you enjoy watching bad films that are amusing stick with Ed Wood, blaxploitation, or 1970's horror films. After viewing this you get the feeling you've wasted an hour and a half of your life.
\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\nBy reading the box at the video store this movie looks rather amusingly disturbing. You know the type....funny but supposed to frighten you.... this was not funny or horrific. the writing was lame...the jokes failed to make me laugh even at their extreme mundaneness....they were so expected. the actors didn't even do much with such a not so good script...at least I hope that wasn't their best..watch this movie at your own risk......I give it negative 3 stars outta 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 went to see this film with low expectations, but hoping to be charmed by seeing my home town on film. Sadly, that's about all I got. The story covers familiar territory (the high school reunion), but the plot is convoluted and supernatural element adds little to this well-worn theme. Though the quality of the acting was good overall, the content of the film was appalling. The sexism of the film was blatant--women are apparently unfulfilled unless they are married, procreating or both (though this was couched as a post-feminist choice ). Worse still was the racism--the shrill Jewish mother, the black man who still lives at home-- and gratuitous cruelty (tormenting the class geek). We should be ashamed if these characters are thought to represent the inhabitants of the city of Kalamazoo, and the writers should be abashed at having brought such broad and cruel stereotypes to the screen.
\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 a former Kalamazoo resident with a fondness for the town I was looking forward to seeing this movie. But, what a disappointment! Although the acting and the production values aren't bad, the script is awful, the plot is unrealistic, and the theme is disturbing.
The main message of this film is that Women are nothing without husbands and children. I can hardly believe how regressive it is in it's view of women. Has the writer been living under a rock?
Although I enjoyed seeing my beloved city on the big screen, I wouldn't suggest this movie to anyone. It's terrible. It's an embarrassment to the city it's named after.
\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\nOne of the serious potential environmental costs of most mining operations is pollution of downstream streams, rivers and lakes with excess sediments and toxins. One of the most serious examples in 19th century USA of excess river sedimentation was caused by hydraulic mining of gold-bearing gravely hills on the sides of the Sacramento Valley in the period from the 1850s to the early 1880s. This process involved directing a high pressure jet of water onto the hillside, causing the material to wash downhill, where the gold could be separated from the gravel and sediment. The sediment then collected in a ditch or stream and most found its way to the Sacramento River or its tributaries. The sediment that stayed in the river bed increased the likelihood of floods in the downstream agricultural fields and towns and created permanent marshes in some areas. Some of the sediment spilled over onto the agricultural fields, where it might cover a standing crop or cover more desirable soil or make plowing difficult. Thus, the conflicting interests of the companies that used hydraulic mining and of the downstream farmers adversely affected by these operations is the subject of this nearly forgotten 1938 color film by Warner.
First, we might ask why Warner decided to shoot this film in a rather poor Technicolor, a very rare treatment in 1938. A story about wheat farmers and gold miners wouldn't seem to justify the expense and difficulties of color filming at this time. The answer seems to be the inordinate film time spent indoors, with fancy colorful clothes and ornamentations. Then, we might ask why colorless George Brent was chosen as the leading man and ultimate hero, to be paired with Olivia de Havilland. Among other things, this film really needed a charismatic leading man to carry it. Even the usually colorful Gabby Hayes, in his small role, seemed unusually subdued. Unfortunately, I fell asleep before the apparently more dramatic last part of the film. The portion I saw spent too much time establishing a complicated set of relationships between too many people at the expense of graphically portraying the plight of the chosen wheat baron and perhaps nearby town folk and their attempts to deal with their flood and sedimentation problems. It needed to be more like \"The Good Earth\", released just the year before. Just maybe it would then have been suitable for a charismatic leading man, such as Errol Flynn. Finally, there is the matter of the inane title. Surely, Warner could have come up with a catchy or more appropriate title. \"Gold or Grain\" is short and to the point. Incidentally, I understand there is still plenty of gold in 'them thar hills', waiting to be extracted by means other than hydraulic mining.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is a bad to alright rip off of Friday the 13th. The movie is about a killer named Bernie who kills people around a camp councilor training camp. He kills people because the camp councilor training camp is on land that was owned by his father, and when the police came to forcefully take his fathers land they accidentally killed his mother (Another F13th take off). The intro is seeing Bernie killing his first victims. Then we are introduced to a family going camping in the same woods, soon after they arrive they are joined by a strange old man who likes talking about his son. Later we learn that his son is Bernie and that he has him locked up in the back of his caravan after having broken him out of a mental institute. He sets Bernie after the family so they can take their stuff and then the chase is on.
This Movie is only recommended to those who enjoy B grade 80's Slashers.
\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 far as I can tell you, in spite of earlier comments posted by other commentors, this film IS currently available on DVD. I found it only a few weeks ago.
It is on the Value DVD label and I paid the grand total of 98 cents plus tax for it. I found it at a 98 cent store among racks of plastic bowls and disposable chopsticks. Now don't you people who shelled out beau coup bucks for the super-duper Swedish import limited edition version feel like you were had??? I thought so.
This film was indeed well worth 98 cents. 99 cents, I might start to argue with you. But clearly worth 98 cents. And remember that saying about getting what you pay for. For slasher film mavens only.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIT IS So Sad. Even though this was shot with film i think it stinks a little bit more than flicks like Blood Lake, There's Nothing Out There & . The music they play in this is the funniest stuff i've ever heard. i like the brother and sister in this movie. They both don't try very hard to sound sarcastic when they're saying stuff like \"My friends are going to be so jealous!\" Hey, whats with the killer only wearing his mask in the beginning? Thats retarded! I practically ignored the second half of this. My favorite part about this movie is the sound effect they use when the killer is using the axe. The same exact sound for every chop!
\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 love low budget independent films and had high hopes for this one. But this film is static. Never mind the production value, which is very noble for its budget, but the pacing is deadly. Admittedly these folks achieve much with little, but the film fails on the most fundamental level. It's boring. The editing is glacial and the pacing stalls. It should have been 65 minutes. The best thing about the Dr. Jekyll is Mr. Hyde who isn't seen nearly enough. He had the most dramatic potential. Instead we have to suffer through dithering Baltimorean-Brits stammer through endless and tiresome exposition. It feels like a backwater stage play committed to video.
Noble efforts by everyone in the production, but a story this tired needed a kick in the pants and funky new low budget technology should have given it a fresh voice. Instead it's just a lame retread.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn sixth grade, every teacher I had decided it would be a great idea to make this movie the curriculum for an entire semester. Every class had something to do with this terrible show. We watched it in English and wrote in journals as if we were one of the characters. In math we talked about charts and other sea crap. In science we talked about whales (which was actually somewhat interesting, so this wasn't a 100% waste of time). All day everyday was torture. Not only that, but they would subject us to this horror twice a day by making us watch it in study hall as well. I could see if this was a new series or something, but it was, like, '93. I'm still trying to block this out.
\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\nThey made me watch this in school and it was terrible. The movie is outdated. The episodes become confusing because fact is combined with fiction to make the story more interesting.The teachers talked about it as a treat but really it was a painfully boring experience.I have read that very few people who appear in this are actors, but most of them them do what they do in the movie in real life.This accounts for cheesy acting very often. Also, very often the story becomes mildly outrageous and far-fetched. I don't like the way some of the lines were written and wish they had more meaning to them. Though, it was written to be educational, funny, suspenseful, and hip, It ended up being boring, dry, far-fetched, and old. I hope no one takes time to watch this movie because you would be just fine not seeing it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe major flaw with the film is its uninspired script. It plods back and forth between vignettes of Bettie's story and re-creations of the Klaw short films. While the Klaw re-creations are well done, it is unnecessary to recreate them in their near entirety. Page Richards, while not an amazing actress, does a decent job overall. And, at times, she does bear a remarkable resemblance to Bettie. Also of note is some faithful attention to detail. Costumes and clothing well done, as is some of the set direction. The sets are generally sparse and feel stage-y, but do feel of the era. It is sometimes surprisingly well lit, and the color palette was clearly thought-out to give the overall look a vibrant, retro feel.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was bad beyond belief. I saw it during the 2004 San Francisco Film Festival. Before it started the owner of the theatre got up and told us how half the audience had left the theatre the night before, which happened to be its \"world premiere.\" I don't think anyone in the theatre understood just how bad the movie was going to be at that point. We all understood by the end.
Its not a documentary though it was sort of sold as one. Dark Angel was a bad biography and misguided homage to Bettie Paige, in which half the movie is actually just remakes of old Bettie Paige movies. The movie is only 90 minutes long and the content of those 90 minutes is sub par to say the least. A scene would start going then someone would say \"wow you're so great Bettie, why don't we make another movie.\" this would be followed by a 5 minutes of a Bettie Paige remake which was almost as ridiculous as (and even more boring than) the normal part of the movie. by the end of the movie people were laughing every time another Bettie Paige movie remake came up. it was that ludicrous. I heard a lot of laughter in that theatre, but people were not laughing with the movie maker, they were laughing at the movie and its poor content and structure. This was easy to tell as the parts that would get the most laughs were the ones which were supposed to be serious or revelatory.
I know movies are expensive. I have seen many cheaply made independent films but somehow the cinematography and quality of this movie set it apart from anything else I have ever seen. The movie looks like it was made for $12. The cuts, the graininess, and the lack of a sensual plot made this a memorable experience. This movie makes \"Dude, Where's My Car?\" look like Citizen Kane.
My friends and I left the theatre feeling like we had just paid 8 dollars to be tortured. The only redeeming part of the experience was that we got to laugh about the fact that someone had actually made this movie and thought it was good. Apparently, the previous night, the night of the \"world premiere\" the director/writer/producer had been in the audience and had gotten to witness people laugh at and walk out on his movie. Bettie Paige's movies were destroyed. They should destroy this movie too.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm kinda torn on DARK ANGEL. The film appears to be a \"loving\" tribute to the greatest pin-up to ever live - but there is so little actual \"content\" that the film itself is virtually pointless. I can't really see what the motivation or \"point\" of this film is - as there is very little biographical information provided in the narrative - so those who don't know much about Bettie aren't gonna know much more after watching DARK ANGEL either...
The film basically chronicles the last few years of Bettie's career in bondage modeling. Almost the entire film is comprised of \"re-enactments\" of some of Bettie's more \"famous\" photo-shoots and loops. These re-enactments take up literally 75% of the films run-time, and give virtually no insight into Bettie as a person. The film touches briefly on her short-lived legitimate acting pursuits, and her subsequent decision to leave the \"business\" and become religious - but all of this is pretty much glossed-over in favor of showing long and drawn-out re-enactment scenes...
DARK ANGEL isn't a horrible film - there's just no substance to it. The other problem is that the actress that plays Bettie only really resembles her in farther away shots - up-close it's a no-go. The other thing that irritated me, is that although Bettie did several topless modeling shoots - the only nudity in the film was a short segment shot in a zoo during the end credits. The film itself is obviously extremely low-budget, but does what it can set and costume-wise within it's limitations - so no gripes from me there. The acting is pretty wooden and unmemorable from everyone involved. In fact - the most memorable thing about the whole film for me, was noticing during the end credits that the actor who played Irving Klaw's real name is Dukey Flyswatter. No joke - check the cast list. Can't say that I recommend this one too highly unless you are a true Bettiefile completist and must own anything relating to her. And if you are that bad off - then you need to seek treatment anyway...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\nThis documentary is a reenactment of the last few years of Betty Page's(Paige Richards) career. The Tennessee tease was the most recognizable pin-up queen in history. Her most memorable work came in the 1950's and was fetish photos, bondage and cat-fight \"girly flicks\". Irving Klaw(Dukey Flyswatter)at his Movie Star News instructed Betty on what to do in front of the camera. There was no nudity in the famous photos or \"stag films\", but nonetheless, Klaw was charged with distributing obscene materials and was ordered to destroy them to avoid prosecution. It is no surprise that Betty had a cult following at the height of her career. The girl-next-door with jet black hair, blue eyes and an hour glass figure dressed in fetish gear or not would mesmerize for decades. After all, it has been said that she was photographed more than Marilyn Monroe and second only to the most photographed image in the world, Elvis Presley. Betty Page would disappear and devote her last years to religion. This movie actually could have been a lot better; but good enough to hold interest.
Miss Richards is stunning in her own right. Bra, panties, garter belt and hose do not hurt her image in the least. Also in the cast: Jaimie Henkin, Jana Strain, Emily Marilyn and Julie Simone. Be advised this movie can change your heart rate.
\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...and even then, even they can live without seeing it. To be honest, this film (if one deigns to call it that) is of real interest only to bondage freaks. Bettie Page fans will learn absolutely nothing new (and I do mean *nothing*), nor will they enjoy the warm fuzzies of experiencing anything familiar, loved, or cherished.
Nevermind the abysmal screenplay, the wooden, less-than-community-theater acting, the utter absence of direction, the crappy lighting, or any of the rest of the bargain basement production values. This is definitely \"Hey, kids, let's make a movie!\" movie-making of the lowest order. I suppose one could be thankful that at least they knew how to run the camera. No, I'm sorry to say that none of that is germane to why this thing is so outright *wrong*.
It's wrong because the young lady playing Bettie Page, a somewhat zaftig girl whose only resemblance to the Queen of Curves is dark hair and the trademark bangs, utterly fails to bring anything to the role beyond a willingness to be bound and gagged. This is apparently a good thing for her film career before and since this wretched excess, but not for the wretched excess itself, which consists primarily of a number of lovingly re-enacted B&D set-pieces sandwiched between horrendously awful faux-biographical scenes delineating Ms. Page's fall from grace (so to speak). There's actually probably more information, per se, about Page's life in the opening and closing credits than the rest of the movie.
Do not be fooled. This is not a worthy companion film to \"The Notorious Bettie Page.\" This is not a worthy film at all. This is a fetish piece that trades on the allure of one of the greatest pin-ups of all time, and does it without class, without style, and without any real sense of understanding the character of Bettie Page whatsoever. No true Bettie Page fan will find it to be anything but a disappointment, I guarantee that.
Avoid at all costs. If free, remember that time is money, too. Yours may not be worth much, but I'm betting it's worth enough that you'll be sorry you wasted time with this one. That's it, I'm done, you've been warned.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched the movie, and was dismayed to say the least that the movie failed to communicate with me as an audience. The language would put to shame the street loafers.
The plot; a father forcing none of his son to marry, seems far-fetched.
The idea of a grandmother asking her grand kid to mess up with an enemy would only draw feeble minded's attention.
...and I was waiting the whole movie for a laugh, and laugh I did on my stupidity to waste 3 hours to convince myself that the movie is not even worth a first look.
Hope it saves YOUR time!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"