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 watched DVD 1 only. The program proper may have 10 minutes of good information; otherwise it's snotty putdowns of religious people. It's as if director Brian Flemming only recently discovered both atheism and sarcasm, and feels with these tools he can easily bludgeon his opposition.
Also, Flemming wanders extensively into his own personal issues, and they take over the movie. It never gets back on topic.
Religious people are prone to discount skeptics when their objections to religion are obviously rooted in abusive upbringings. Arguments from such victimized people seem irrational, and therefore unconvincing.
Anti-religious people will want more data. We don't need to be told that religious people are nutty, any more than American Jews need to be told how annoying Christmas music gets by mid-December.
In the best scene, the Superintendent of Fleming's childhood Christian school rather insightfully confronts the director on his motivations. That seems like the most honest part of the movie, and it was too short.
If Fleming were a bit more self-aware, he might have a good story in him about his own (past & current) relationship to Christianity, and the abusive institutions that indoctrinated him in his youth.
And perhaps he could lend his \"Christ never walked the earth\" material to a more serious documentarian. I'm not studying the writings of Saul/Paul to find out how air-tight this all is, but a quick browse of Wikipedia suggests most of these arguments are discredited.
The bonus interviews are pretty good, tho they don't bolster Fleming's thesis much. Sam Harris is a good spokesperson for the anti-religious POV, and he doesn't go light on those other, non-Christian religions. Harris also has some good (and easily Google'd) interviews on Salon.com , Amazon.com , and Samharris.org .
\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 my opinion this movie advances no new thought. seems to me like taking a spear to a spear without looking to the side! the director seems to have an agenda! Duh! I find that his rational is lacking there does not seem to be room for the alternative view. I for one am usually on the side of the naysayer but this movie lacks credibility as it relies on the fantastic observations of the man/woman on the street. really now if you wish to cr5eate a credible alternative to a creed held onto for 2000+ years you have got to make more of an effort allowing the other side to voice their beliefs. I'm not sure but at the beginning of the movie it felt like an attack on the Cristian faith, I for one am a non believer, but allow for the beliefs of others, and would not wish no ridicule them but try to understand and tolerate.
\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 spiritualist and non Christian. I thought i really was going to be holding onto my faith, but what a load of i seers. I thought the film would have great arguments, but only got one sided views from Atheists and Jews??? And who are all these street people he's interviewing who don't know the back of their arm from their head. Where are the proper theologians and priests and stuff he could have got arguments from. Not retired nuts who wrote books and finished their studies in 1970. Personally this DVD was a waste of time and not worth my time to check if the facts are right or wrong or if i should or should not believe because an anti-Christ told me so. Please to think he came up with the conclusion of not finding God because his own ego and demons got the better of him. No im not going to say the movie was stunning to help atheists reading this feel better about themselves. But if you really want to show the world you care about us poor souls who believe in Jesus then entice us with your worth, not your beating off the drums.
\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 personally found this movie to be terrible, first it was hardly objective, and provided one side of the debate. The only people who were presented as the side saying he did exist being a bunch of people coming from a Billy Grahm Revival. Secondly it deviated heavily from its supposed topic did Jesus (Yeshua) exist, to talking about how violent Christianity is, and showing scenes from Mel Gibsons \"The Passion\". In the end it has the director con his former Principal of a Conservative Private School into being interviewed, and attempts to trap him about teaching the kids there faith. Oh and also the Techno Music just made the film harder to watch.
\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 begins with an interesting premise -- it makes an intriguing and convincing argument that the history of Jesus as is commonly believed is probably a myth. Sadly, though, after priming us with this, the movie completely shifts gears and becomes little more than a non-stop attack on Christianity, and pretty much focusing on the easy targets.
The writer/director clearly has some issues with the Church (he is a former evangelical Christian and has some legit anger) and this film seems to be his form of release. It'd be interesting to see the first 20 minutes expanded, but as a whole, the movie is disappointing.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst let me state that I do not believe in god (if you want to use the word atheist, fine, but I don't like that word since it describes what I'm not, not what I am) but I hated this \"documentary.\" The production values were damn near non existent, the premise extremely shaky and whole thing seemed to be an exercise in Brian Flemming's insecurities.
The production values were terrible and Brian Flemming is clearly an amateurish director at best. The narration sounded like he just narrated over the film all in one shot, and he didn't practice at all. There were way to many umms and pauses when he should have been talking in the movie. animation was also pretty damn bad.
The whole idea that Jesus is a mythical character is not taken seriously by historians and biblical scholars. As I stated before, I do not believe in God, and I don't think that whether or not Jesus was a real man says nothing about the existence of God. My personal view, Jesus probably was a real man but he lived in a time where there were many massiah's (look up apollonius of tiana) and that the stories of his life and preaching were blown out of proportion the farther you got from his death. According to the Wikipedia article on the historicity of Jesus (and there's a good citation for this so it's garbage) \"virtually all scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[1]\" I was left wondering at the end of the documentary if this was more about the director's insecurities than anything else. I was left wondering if he was trying to convince himself more than anyone else. The most telling example of this is the final interview he was with the religious school principal. He's not even coy about it. The way he bombards the teacher is unfair and while I agree with the director partially, that teaching kids about hell fire is a bad thing, the way that Flemming confronted the principal was just awkward to watch. Flemming had a chance to perhaps get a good discussion going, if he was more tactile with his interview. Instead he comes off aggressive with \"isn't it bad to teach kids this stuff.\" The guy cuts the interview short and I mean, what did he expect, the principal to say \"oh yes, I see it is, I have seen the light, this will now be a secular school?\" It seems that Flemming is getting revenge for what he feels was a wrong done to him in childhood. This isn't about the documentary, this is about Flemming's insecurities, and has nothing to do with the supposed topic of the documentary. Flemming shows what he's really doing here, and that is the real downfall of this so-called documentary.
\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 curious to watch this movie. A lot of people seem to be excited. I also have my beliefs. I believe in Jesus Christ but I'm opened for any kind of views or opinions. It doesn't matter for me, if Jesus existed in the way it's written in the bible. If Maria was a virgin or not, or all the other similar pagan coincidences. What matters for me is the idea of salvation, the idea of love as the only way to find peace in this world.
What made me angry is when somebody takes a sentence, present it as a fact but without showing the context it was written. For example, they showed in this movie following sentence big: \"Those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me\" Jesus (Lukas 19:27) What they didn't tell you is the context. Jesus told a story about an evil king. There is no passage in the bible where Jesus supports killing. He is love! After quoting the bible wrong they present us yelling people (pseudo-christians) filled with hate. The majority of viewers don't check the informations presented so they start thinking Jesus=hate=not good for me or for anybody else. This is pure manipulation people. Please use your brain. Don't take everything as a fact they tell you in this movie. We destroy our own basis, our civilization if we start dismantling Jesus in this way and the message he brought to us. You saw off the branch you're sitting on.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI believe Shakespeare explained what I just read beautifully. Me thinks he (the lady) doth protest too much. The whole thing sounded to me as if the author was trying to convince himself! He sites profane literature (writings from the same time period but not connected with the bible) a number of times however I can think of at least three references off the top of my head which lend historical accuracy to events contained in the bible. Anyone can skew data & prove anything they like but it doesn't make it true. Customs change, word definitions change over time (look at English & German where it is very obviously a common root) nothing stays the same, it's always growing and changing. The bible has many different translations but the King James version is the one I've found to be the best when it comes to any kind of research. In the King James version you will notice there are certain words written in italics. These words have been added by the translators and can be dropped & the mean of the entire verse changes. Writings from around the time of Christ were written without spaces, without punctuation, without paragraphs & without numeric verses. These writings look like one long word & the translators added all of the above. For example how would you read this: GODISNOWHERE do you read it as God is nowhere or do you read it as God is now here? Same string of letters two entirely different meanings. This is why many biblical researchers use a 'Lexicon' to assist them in translation as it provides a word for word translation from the original Arabic, Greek or Hebrew depending on the language in which the scripture was originally written. It's also interesting to note that when translated into symbolic logic you can prove God exists but you can not prove He doesn't exist! In the end I just love listening to people who think they are so smart that they are qualified to judge the almighty. Talk about ego! Putting soapbox away, God Bless Maegi
\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 VERY disappointed with this film. I expected more of a Thelma and Louise female-buddy crime movie. Instead, the women prison escapees in this flick, had no sense of loyalty to one another. They were an extremely vulgar pack of hyenas, who beat each other up, double-crossed each other, and even committed lesbian rape against other women in the film.
Instead of being shrewed thieves, who stuck together to plan their escape and find the hidden stash of money, the women escapees were too selfish and vicious, to trust each other for long. These women weren't liberated in a positive sense. They just ended up being a bunch of loose-cannons, incapable of respect for themselves, or each other. If you like 70s female crime caper films, skip this bomb, and see The Great Texas Dynamite Chase, which stars Claudia Jennings and Jocelyn Jones.
\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 heard about this movie for many years, and finally got a chance to see it. A massive murdering of cheerleaders back in 1963 and 1969 eventually cause a cheerleading camp to close up. Fast forward to 1982, and Bambi, a former student, opens it back up with new recruits, among them Candy (Carol Kane), Glenn (Judge Reinhold), and Sandy (Debralee Scott). One by one, they are murdered by the killer, until only one remains. It is then when we find out who did it and why.
Also in the movie are Tom Smothers doing a terrible accent as a Canadian Mountie, and Paul Reubens doing his Pee-Wee Herman schtick. The plot overall isn't very well developed, and quite lame, but some funny scenes do occur, namely the House of Bad Pies and the strip poker scene. The ending seems like it's thrown together, which is a shame.
Overall, good for about ten or fifteen minutes total, the rest you can just fast forward through. Maybe catch it on TV, but it's not worth buying.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis Is Pretty Funny. \"Saturday The 12th\", a?... Great Work... I Laughed Every Minute of the movie... This Is Like \"Scary Movie\" for the 1980's. great STUDENT BODIES-styled gags...
Too Bad This Isn't On Video... But You Can Still Watch It on FLIX...
\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\"Pandemonium\" is a horror movie spoof that comes off more stupid than funny. Believe me when I tell you, I love comedies. Especially comedy spoofs. \"Airplane\", \"The Naked Gun\" trilogy, \"Blazing Saddles\", \"High Anxiety\", and \"Spaceballs\" are some of my favorite comedies that spoof a particular genre. \"Pandemonium\" is not up there with those films. Most of the scenes in this movie had me sitting there in stunned silence because the movie wasn't all that funny. There are a few laughs in the film, but when you watch a comedy, you expect to laugh a lot more than a few times and that's all this film has going for it. Geez, \"Scream\" had more laughs than this film and that was more of a horror film. How bizarre is that?
*1/2 (out of four)
\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 only watched this because it was directed by Lucio Fulci and featured Claudio Cassinelli, an actor I like. I was certainly disappointed.
The idea that condemned prisoners would fight to the death for TV ratings has been overdone with Rollerball, Logan's Run, Blade Runner, and the new film, Death Race, which will certainly suck me in because it stars Jason Statham.
This was just a bore for the most part. The \"Kill Bike\" action was ridiculous. The \"training\" was a snooze-fest. It just never grabbed me and made me want to care about anyone, including \"Dallas\" star Jared Martin or Fred Williamson.
Pick one of the others mentioned and you'll be better off.
\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\nfulci experiments with sci fi and fails. usually in his non horror films we still get sum great gore, but not here. Sum very funny scenes like when the prisinors are forced to hold onto a bar for 12 minutes and if they drop they are electecuted. the guy falls and and has some kind of fit on the floor for about two minutes until his friends who were struggling to hold on anyway lift him off the floor. The city is an obvious model but not a bad one. and the end explosion is at best laughable. And dont get me started on the terrible battle scenes.
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\nWatching Floored by Love one thought comes almost immediately to mind, \"My god this looks like a really bad sitcom.\" Sure enough, it turns out that FBL is a pilot for a series that may start this fall in Canada, poor poor Canada.
Cara (Shirley Ng) and Janet (Natalie Sky) are a lesbian couple living in Vancouver. Janet has come out to her mother already but Cara's parents are still in the dark about their daughter's homosexuality. The pressure is on to out herself though when the parents come from Malaysia for her younger brother's wedding. That same week British Columbia legalizes gay marriage. With Janet wanting to wed, Cara has to decide whether or not to tell her conservative Chinese parents that's she's gay. Will she? Would she? Could she? Cara's situation is contrasted with that of Jesse (Trent Millar). Jesse has just declared his homosexuality to the world at the age of fourteen. His biological father Daniel (Andrew McIlroy) is coming for a visit soon. His stepfather Norman (Michael Robinson) fears that his chances of finally being fully accepted by Jesse are harmed by the fact that Daniel is gay and he is not. Will dialing 1-800-Makeover help?
The dialogue and delivery come straight out of a lesser 1950's program along with the overdone physical emoting. The Full House-style melodrama is enough to make you wince from time to time and the attempts at comedy largely fail. McIlroy, Millar & Sky are the only performers that approach competency in this miscalculation but given the material they have to work with, it's no surprise that none impress. It's possible that the campiness was purposeful. It often seems like there is no way the performers are really that bad, that they must be trying to mimic the inferior sitcoms of days yore. If this is indeed the case than this review should probably be rewritten. The rewrite would focus on Floored by Love being a poor and ineffective send-up of old sitcoms.
Writer/director Desiree Lim has put together a by-the-numbers bland-fest that's entirely forgettable. There was a time when merely having an openly homosexual protagonist was enough to make a mark on the screen. That time is gone. In this day we need quality as well.
\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\nSaw it at the Philadelphia Gay and Lesbian Film Fest.
What can I say? Against my better judgment, I liked it, but it seemed to me that that acting was a little...weak (mostly I noticed this from the family of the teen boy). I mean, the script wasn't stellar to begin with, but the actors didn't make me believe the relationships.
The plot is also predictable.
Nonethelss, I liked it. The characters are likable, and the plot is not challenging or upsetting. It's sweet, the characters care about each other, and I don't count it as fifty minutes ill-spent.
But I don'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\nI will say that at least the movie makes sense, but it's bad. The acting for the most part is not good (I think only Sky showed any promise) and you feel awkward watching it. All of the scenes that should be meaningful are really shallow, like when Ng comes out to her parents. There are a lot of corny details, like the kanji tattoo on the Sky's shoulder, the magnets on the girls' refrigerator and the god awful decor at the sets...and the music...and clothes..and everything. Real life has never been like this movie. The boy says at one point \"I'm gay, not corny.\" And not aware. Even the commentary is awful, I turned it off after Ng talks about how she was weirded out playing a lesbian.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWow...OK. So, after reading the little feud on here, I decided I had to see this movie for myself. This movie is HORRIBLE. I stopped watching it. I strongly recommend cleaning a closet instead of watching this movie, you'll be more spooked/entertained.
It's low budget with bad acting.
Whoever is giving this movie 10s is completely incorrect and should be disregarded.
I am in no way connected to any of the other reviewers.
Simply put, this movie is not worth watching.
Very, very BAD 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\nThat's the question you have to ask yourself when you watch this movie \"What was the point?\" This movie was nothing but an hour and a half of confusion with completely unlikable people (not going to use the word actors) and a script that you could tell didn't exist.
One of the things that made me laugh the most about this movie was how it said \"Victorian story written by\" which means that there was actually a script to that part of the story. The entire victorian section had no dialogue, and was just comprised of shots of a guy staring at a girl and vice versa. Making that part of the movie as scripted as a camera left on at a train station.
OK, time for the story. It starts out with a guy sitting in a chair never once getting out of it. Oh blocking, who needs you? These newspeople come to his house and practically beg him to tell this story about these dead girls. So he starts off the story in Victorian times. and here's how the scene goes (Guy and girl are in a field. pretty music starts to play) (guy stares at girl) (girl stares at guy) (guy stares at girl) cut back to movie. That's pretty much all that happens for about half the movie.
The rest of the film is incredibly awkward dialogue about a bunch of models wanting to buy an apartment. So this real estate agent shows them one and when i say the dialogue is awkward i mean, if it were a dancer it would trip during the MACARENA. None of the characters in this movie are likable. The models are incredibly irritating, the victorian people don't talk, and the guy telling the story has the personality of a sack of onions. So eventually all the girls get killed off. and by killed off, i mean drug offscreen. ooh. you showed ONE death? and by death i mean holding her face till they put the blood makeup on? awesome.
HOW this guy even knows this story baffles me. He says it's because he saw it. but how? there was no guy in that apartment! the door was locked shut with no way out, the windows were attached to a fire escape that was too rotten to work, how the HELL did he see all that? Oh plot holes. we DO love you. So the movie finishes up with the newswoman saying \"i think you made it up. you're wasting our time\" despite the fact that she begged him for the interview in the first place. Whatever. This movie was stupid, pointless, and made no sense with a lot of plot holes. I could go on and on about this movie, but i don't see the need. i'd much rather spend my time doing something uselful. Like widdle something. \"Hell's Threshold\" more belongs in purgatory with 2 dumb models. out of 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 love Dracula but this movie was a complete disappointment! I remember Lee from other Dracula films from when i was younger, and i thought he was great, but this movie was really bad. I don't know if it was my youth that fooled me into believing Lee was the ultimate Dracula, with style, looks, attraction and the evil underneath that. Or maybe it was just this film that disappointed me.
But can you imagine Dracula with an snobbish English accent and the body language to go along with it? Do you like when a plot contains unrealistic choices by the characters and is boring and lacks any kind of tension..? Then this is a movie for you!
Otherwise - don't see it! I only gave it a 2 because somehow i managed to stay awake during the whole movie.
Sorry but if you liked this movie then you must have been sleep deprived and home alone in a dark room with lots of unwatched space behind you. Maybe alone in your parents house or in a strangers home. Cause not even the characters in this flick seemed afraid, and i think that sums up the whole thing!
Or maybe you like this film because of it's place in Dracula cinema history, perhaps being fascinated by how the Dracula story has evolved from Nosferatu to what it is today. Cause as movie it isn't that appealing, it doesn't pull you in to the suggestive mystery that for me make the Vampyre myth so fascinating.
And furthermore it has so much of that tacky 70ies feel about it. The scenery looks like cheap Theatre. And i don't say that rejecting everything made in the 70ies. Cause i can love old film as well as new.
\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 hard to describe this film and one wants to tried hard not to dismiss it too quickly because you have a feeling that this might just be the perfect film for some 12 years old girl...
This film has a nice concept-the modern version of Sleeping Beauty with a twist. It has some rather dreamy shots and some nice sketches of the young boy relationship with his single working mother and his schoolmate... a nice start you might say, but then it got a bit greedy, very greedy, it tries to be a science fiction, a drama, a thriller, a possible romantic love story, fairy tale, a comedy and everything under the sun. The result just left the audience feeling rather inadequate. For example, the scene when the girl(played by Risa Goto) finally woken by his(Yuki Kohara) kiss, instead of being romantic, it try's to be scary in order to make us laugh afterwards... it is a cheap trick, because it ruin all the anticipation and emotion which it was trying to build for the better half of the film.
I have not read the original story the film is base on (it is the well-known work by the comic-book artist Osamu Tezuka is famous with his intriguing and intricate stories) I wonder if all the problems exsist in the original story or did it occur in the adaption? It is rather illogical even for someone who is used to the \"fussy logic\" of those japanese comic-book. For instance, how did Yuki Kohara's character manage to get to the hospital in an instant(when its suppose to be a long bus-ride away)to run away Risa Goto's character in front of the tv cameras right after he saw her live interview on the television?
There are also some scenes that is directly copied(very uncreative!) from other films and they all seem rather pointlessly annoying ie. the famous \"the Lion mouth has caugh my hand\" scene from \"the \"Roman Holiday\"
The film tries to be everything but ends up being nothing... it fails to be a fairy tale and it did not have enough jokes to be a comedy... and strangely there are some scenes that even seem like an unintentional \"ghost\" movie. Nevertheless, one should give it credit that it has managed to caputured some of the sentiment of the japanese teenager.
It is by watching this film I have a feeling that there might be some films that should have come with a warning label that said \"this film might only be suitable for person under the 18 of age\", it would have definitly been on the poster of this 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\nHorrible film. About an old crusty painter who hangs around with a young girl. Boring. Tatum O Neil goes through the motions in her part, and has some of the corniest lines in film history. Richard Burton looks close to death in this film, and we're supposed to believe he looks \"Good for sixty\". The acting is bad, as is the plot. The characters are awful, as is the story. It's really hard to feel for anyone in this film, except Larry Ewashen who plays a guy in a porno theater who hits on Tatum, he's kind of funny. This movie is really a waste of time. If you are a Tatum fan, like me - which is why I rented it in the first place - please don't see this movie. She is really bad in it, and you'll wonder if maybe PAPER MOON was a fluke. It wasn't, because of BAD NEWS BEARS and LITTLE DARLINGS it's known she can act well, but still, don't rent this movie. And if you're a fan of Burton, rent something when he was good looking, and not a fossil.
\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 skimming over the list of films of Richard Burton when I came to this title that I recall vividly from when I first saw it on cable in 1982. I remember dialogue from Tatum O'Neal that was just amazingly bad. I remember Richard Burton's character looking so hopelessly lost, and then remembering how his motivations didn't translate to me. In short, I remember \"Circle of Two\" because it was so phenomenally awful.
This movie came out at a time when America was going through a rather disturbing period of fascination with unhealthy or skewed angles on teenage sexuality. Recall \"The Blue Lagoon\" (and other Brooke Shields annoyances), \"Lipstick\", \"Little Darlings\", \"Beau Pere\" and other films that just seemed to dwell on teens having sex, particularly with adults. As a teenager during this time, I found the obsession, combined with the sexual excesses of the 70's and 80's, made for a subconsciously unsettling environment in which to figure it all out, so to speak.
\"Circle of Two\" is not execrably acted or needlessly prurient, like \"Blue Lagoon\". In fact, it tackles the question of love between the young and the old in a brave, if totally failed, way. But honestly, it is one of those films you will *never* see if you didn't see it on its first run because it was so truly awful. No one would want to have this garbage ever surface to be publicly distributed 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\nThis is an attempt, by both author Edgar Rice Burroughs and filmmakers, at an Arabian \"Tarzan of the Apes\". But, this desert-set film shows none of the majesty present in Burroughs' more successful jungle adventure. The focus is on the love between handsome English noble Jon Hall (as \"El 'Lion\" Chatham) and exotic Arab beauty Kathleen Burke (as \"Princess\" Eulilah), with revenge happening to coincide with their urge to merge. The opening states that, although guilty of conduct unbecoming, the lad's mother is living - but, she never re-enters the picture. Unfortunately, \"The Lion Man\" has deteriorated, and is looks like it's missing footage.
*** The Lion Man (1936) John P. McCarthy ~ Jon Hall, Kathleen Burke, Ted Adams
\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 addition to his \"Tarzan\" series, the prolific Edgar Rice Burroughs did write many other books, although, aside from the popular \"At the Earth's Core\", few of these have been filmed. One exception is the novel entitled \"The Lad and the Lion\", brought to the screen as \"The Lion Man\" (1936), an over-talkative, static, old-hat, slow-moving and rather dull movie, despite being filmed on real desert locations. Actually \"movie\" is the wrong word. The narrative doesn't move but proceeds at a snail's pace in an abrupt series of jerks. For instance, at least five characters are given elaborate opening scenes and then just disappear. Even more frustrating for the keen movie fan, are the characters who make an impression of sorts (like the lass who plies Hall with drugged wine) but are enacted by players who are not credited! The credited thespians generally come off worse than the unknowns. One exception is Australian actress Finis Barton who gives a good account of the kidnapped harem girl who rescues young Master Fairy. Admittedly, most of the cast are saddled with atrocious King James dialogue which has to be heard to be believed! But the way to play this rubbish is tongue-in-cheek, a stratagem which does not seem to have occurred to a single one of the film's roster of no-talent players. Maybe director J.P. McCarthy scotched that idea. Anyway, it's sad to see the lovely Kathleen Burke forced to trade lines with the likes of Richard Carlyle (her dad) and Jon Hall (her suitor). Admittedly, Mr Hall delivers his lines with marginally more conviction than Mr Carlyle, but that is no recommendation.
\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\nMan To Man tries hard to be a good movie: it has its heart at the right place, it aspires to be epic and it has a message that no doubt everybody will appreciate. But there lies also some of the problems of this picture. It strives so hard to be good and to get its message across that sometimes the viewer must feel unchallenged. So it is only adequate that the images which are used by this picture are simplistic - Man To Man doesn't let the viewer decide what he thinks is right but is hammering its message in his head. Joseph Fiennes exemplifies this in his role: he does his best to look concerned, genuinely moved and all the other emotions you can express with the single one facial expression his repertoire has to offer. Add that the movie is overlong and loses its speed towards the end you would be easily led to the conclusion that Man To Man is not worth watching. But there are enough points to defend it: it is entertaining, has some humorous scenes and the show-stealing Kristin Scott Thomas. Of course you should not compare it to humanistic masterpieces like The Elephant Man (David Lynch) but you'll be leaving the theatre satisfied. It tries to grab your heart (even if your brain thinks that it is too obvious) and succeeds most of the 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\nThe problem is the role of the characters in the film. Man to Man shows a British anthropologist kidnapping two pygmies and taking them to Scotland and then realising that they are not animals or subhumans but actually equal to himself. The problem is the role of the pygmies in the film - two people who are kidnapped, treated like animals, and yet given such a shallow, stereotypical role within the film... The kidnapper (british anthropologist) ends up being the hero of the film because he 'manages' to relate to the pygmies... No notion of how the two hostages feel, of their point of view, of their ordeal... I find it is a shallow film, with a one sided fundamentally racist view... it never manages to move away from the 'white mans' 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\nTo this day when you speak of the Japanese cinema, most folks won't talk about Rashomon, or the Seven Ronin, or Ran. To the masses the Japanese cinema means all those monsters we've grown to love destroying those Japanese cities over and over again, lots of times in battles with each other. The first and greatest of these is Godzilla who's come back a dozen times or more and in a few films faced the three headed hydra like monster from outer space, Ghidrah.
Oddly enough in keeping with the times, the special effects got slightly better. But part of the charm of those old films was seeing those paper mache city sets destroyed, they looked so phony, maybe three steps above Ed Wood.
Some visitors from the future have time traveled to Japan to urge that Godzilla be destroyed from when he was first discovered. And in fact he was first discovered as a surviving dinosaur during World War II when he protected the Japanese garrison on a Pacific island from those American troops. But later on with atomic testing on Bikini, Godzilla the friendly dinosaur just like Barney became the mean machine we've grown to know in the cinema.
Of course you eliminate Godzilla than you give Ghidrah a clear field to wreck Japan so it does not become the economic colossus it was by 1991 when the film came out. More I won't say, but we all know Japan is doing reasonably well as 2010.
Like all the other Japanese monster films, just sit back and enjoy the mayhem.
\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\"Godzilla vs King Ghidorah\" is a perfect example how a great idea can be ruined by pathetic topics like pseudo-patriotism. Here, travellers from the future try to ruin Japan, replacing the local hero Godzilla with their puppy monster, the three-headed golden dragon King Ghidorah. They fail, however and in the end Godzilla fights Ghidorah. The battles between the two behemoths are very cool, but the plot of the movie is full with holes and the all thing about \"Japan is great\" is really stupid. The creators of this movie didn't even threat with respect the enemies of Japan, making them stupid big blond guys, who are easily outsmarted by the clever Japanese. The good thing is that in the end Godzilla and king Ghidorah nearly destroyed the both Japan and it's ridiculous enemies in one (actually two) spectacular combats. But till this battle royale, the film was really dull and pathetic.
\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 understand at all why so many Godzilla fans think this is excellent, one of the best Godzilla films ever in fact. This film is horrible and one of the very few Gojira films I cant stand to watch again (the other being G. vs Megalon).
The plot is too campy to be in the Heisei series, a series that attempted to turn the aging Godzilla franchise into bonafide action films, revolving around ideas that seemed more in place in 1974 than 1991. It just sounded ridiculous, especially with some of the subject matter, take for example the WW2 scene, with the Japanese soldiers praising a dying Godzillasaurus, a mournful and serious tone, take the exuberant former commander turn capitalist and his death, serious seens in a film its fans somehow denote as played for laughs, as a goofy romp with guilty illogical fun, if so than this is easily one of the most tasteless films I've seen, however I think its more likely it was only talent the filmmakers lacked and this was a case of a straight faced action movie gone bad. It was made ever worse by the fact that the special effects are terrible beyond compare, from the jet packs to the android, to the hokey sound effects emitted from everything, its impossible to take anything seriously, and yet the film expects you to, there's no nudges to the camera.
Like nearly all Godzilla films there's a pointless romance, and this is no exception, though something can be said about the fact that this one is especially pointless since and inexplicable. There is literally no reason at all presented for the romance, it just happens and there lives make 360 degree commitments for it. Aside from this the other terrible aspect of this film is dialogue, both the Japanese and English is horrible, clunky and possibly the inspiration for Battlefield Earth.
The Tristar DVD compounds the problems, making everything look grainy, blurred, dim and just plain ugly, the same was for the sound. I first saw the Japanese Region 2 version and the differences are night and day, with the original vibrant colors and texture, the noteworthy score, the fight scenes especially, are actually watchable.
In my opinion, the Heisei series is a disappointment, with the exception of Godzilla 1984 (Japanese version) there is little to praise here, and Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah is case in point of this failure. It doesn't even come close to deserving the reputation and fans it gets.
2 out of 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\nYet another colourful excuse for men in rubber suits to wrestle with each other. This time around, time travellers from the future arrive in 1992 and recruit a few people to go back with them to 1944 and prevent the creation of Godzilla, thus saving a future Japan from destruction. But having accomplished this task, the time travellers are revealed to be a bunch of double crossers whose own creature goes on the rampage, and with no Godzilla to stop it Eek! It all sounds very silly, and it probably is, but the plot is surprisingly decent and the final battle looks pretty good too. Unfortunately the rest of the visual effects are just rubbish rather than enjoyably rubbish, and the movie turns out to be just as dull as its predecessors. Look out for the shaky Spielberg in-joke.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNothing new in this hackneyed romance with characters put into unbelievable situations, speaking dialogue that borders on the ridiculous. This is an example of another movie put into production before serious script problems were solved. Don't waste your 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\nlet's value it.
entertainment: a trashy script which has been typed by unintelligent people in front of typewriters a thousand times.. pathetic acting that is thwarted by the story...OK production value, including good set/location and gorgeous girl.. -rating 4/10
social message: the movie has no social message. it's thought free... .but if I pretend I were 10, and my IQ were 70. I feel the message is:don't be afraid to love? -rating 0/10
objectionable things: nothing special, just the mild Jewish hedonic and arrogant attitude that is presented by the writer/director. generally speaking, good , nothing degenerate -8/10
overall rating is 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've tried to like this film, really. In watching it, all I can think is, \"This guy gives me the creeps, I would have gotten a restraining order\". It also calls out CODEPENDENCE in capital letters. Was this really the conversation before making the movie? \"Let's make a film that puts two chronically depressed, socially inept people into a relationship which deepens their isolation and encourages them to complain about how bad their lives are!\" From what I've seen in life is that the last thing on earth we find attractive in a potential mate is constant self-pity.
The mood of the movie is distinctly 80-ish; brooding and slow. Don't get me wrong, the film has its moments, just very few of them.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDolph Lundgren stars as a former cop/boxer who searches Boston's kinky scene to find out who killed his brother,who was well thought of in the community, however along the way he learns how his brother enjoyed kinky sex and that a serial killer is to blame. Dolph Lundgren is very good in this movie, in fact on the basis of his performance here, one would forget Lundgren's rise to fame involved action roles. That said the material gives Lundgren nothing to work with, in fact, Lundgren is completely left out to dry in a dreary thriller which is both predictable and incomprehensible. Co-Star Danielle Brett is also good, in fact the film works best when it centers around the chemistry of Lundgren and Brett, indeed had the film taken the time to explore their relationship the film would've been fairly decent. However the movie is lackluster, the action is non-existent, the plot not given enough exploration (Too much boring B.S around Lundgren's investigation of his brother's employer) and the film is needlessly gory and ridiculous. Once again, Lundgren is actually really good (As is newcomer Danielle Brett) but the film just lumbers from one sequence to the next, which makes this movie particularly disappointing. If anything else though, it shows how underrated Lundgren is, as an actor.
*1/2 Out Of 4-(Poor)
\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\nOkay, I rented this movie because of the director...he has made some interesting flicks in the past (if you haven't seen Waxork you are missing a fun ride). Anyway, I had my doubts about this movie from the beginning but I decided to suck it up and give it a look. It's bad. Very bad. If you haven't seen the movie and don't mind spoilers read ahead. First of all, the old saying 'You can't judge a book by it's cover' applies here. The box for this flick seems to indicate that Jill is the stone fox with long hair with highlights. The back of the box has a cool shot of the red-leather Jill and some other shots. The description makes you want to rent the movie because it SOUNDS good. You start watching it and suddenly you find out that the movie takes place (inexplicably) in 1977. Jill is a total dog who is not the girl on the cover. The movie is not quite as predictable as you would think...and that's not a good thing. Characters do so many stupid things without any modicum of motivation...it's embarrassing to watch. 10 minutes before the end of the movie Dolph and another lady have sex for no good reason. Also, what was the point of having Dolph kill this other lady in cold blood who had been helping him. Anthony Hickox the director should have seen a stinker when he read the script. Had it been set in the underworld of the new milennium and made the characters halfway intelligent it might have been decent. To set it in the 70's makes no sense and has no bearing on the story whatsoever. Avoid 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\nDolph Lundgren stars as Murray Wilson an alcoholic ex-cop who gets involved with a serial killer who kills during sex, after his brother is murdered, Wilson starts his own investigation and finds out a lot of his brother's secrets in this very dull thriller. Lundgren mails in his performance and the movie is flat and lethargic. Also when has anyone watched a Dolph Lundgren movie for anything but action?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"