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\n(Some possible spoilers)
I'm not too sure what Dreamworks was thinking when they decided to plunk $80 million down on this extremely tired and lame animated flick. They probably thought the spectacular animation would be more than enough to bring audiences (mostly families) to see it in droves. Well it seemed to work for the opening weekend, it made $26 mil., roughly and has made $38.1 mil. total (an estimation for this weekend). But I think audiences that came during the weekend saw pretty much the same thing I did, when I saw and they spread the word. This is one majorly lame movie, apart from the animation everything else, mostly the script seem to be done by a three year old.
The movie is only about 80 mins. long, but it feels like a three hour epic. A few sticking points for me are, well the irritating narration is one of them, and it's so obviously written. At one point he escapes from some captors and even though you can see the horse is obviously scared, up pops the narrator (the voice of the talented Matt Damon) to clear up any misconceptions (which would only happen in the simplest of mindsets.
Another one is the constant pop up of Bryan Adams songs, now I'm a fan of his music, I think he's good, but come on did Dreamworks really think audiences would be able to handle 8-9 of his songs throughout such a short movie, I certainly couldn't. Finally and here's a spoiler, a horse gets shot at point blank range by a member of the calvary, no less, she (the horse) then falls into a raging river, Spirit (the focus of the movie) tries to save her, but they both go over a waterfall that must have at least a 50 foot drop, well later in the movie near the end we see that this horse is alive and well. Now I know this is a kids movie, but even that little amount of realism is unacceptable.
To sum up, this is a really lame movie, I'm not saying kids won't enjoy it, but anyone else will be checking their watches just waiting for this tripe to end. Definitely on my Top 10 worst list of this year. -** out of 4 stars.

\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\nEven though an animated film it really bored everyone under at least 6.
As a grown up who grew up in an area with wild horses and native americans, it felt this was a combination of PC mixed in with too many fantasy films created by people who never lived in the area they filmed about. Talk to those who have lived on horse back, most treat their animals like family members, regardless of background. Regardless of background we have dealt with good and bad breakers of wild horses. I had to explain that was a real life issues to us vs the movie makers views to children who were surprised to see how PC showed a world different than what they knew in reality.
This dreamworks break from the normal disney or dreamworks fare of cute talking animals burning up the screen was nice from the older viewer point of view. But if you live in an area similar to what is shown, you may end up answering questions.
\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\nDecent animation and some workable character development keep this animated horse fable from DreamWorks at least watchable... however it remains somewhat slow paced and the storyline is a bit on the silly side.. It is interesting to see a reversal of the typical cowboys and indian roles, but here it just seems like a nod to political correctness rather than a proper storyline decision. GRADE: C
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFlat, soulless computer images on less than astonishing backgrounds animates a horribly predictable story in this film. Absolutely nothing takes you by surprise, you can even tell when the Bryan Adams vocals are going to come in, which are always at the wrong time.
The main character, Spirit the horse, is given an annoying voice when he narrates what is happening. The narration is not needed, though, as everything happening is really obvious. You can even tell what the horses are saying, although all they do is neigh. Which would be good, but all the horses make exactly the same sounds - one for warning, one for sorrow, one for laughing, etc. There is no variation between the horses' voices.
Young kids might like this film, though. It's soppy enough for a family to sit down and watch, and there's little danger of anyone being frightened. If you have nothing else to do, and want to watch a film with your kids, this isn't a bad choice.
But otherwise, this isn't recommended.
\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 other viewers have mentioned, this film was an interesting experiment in photography. The colors are comic book bold. I think the director got carried away with his \"artistic vision\" over the look of the film instead o badly needed attention to content. Despite its stellar cast, the performances are lackluster and the story nearly incoherent. Madonna was likely cast purely as a stunt to get pre-release press. A good thing as her appearance here lent some credence to her album \"I'm Breathless (Music inspired by the film Dick Tracy)\" which was a stratospheric hit (due in large part to the inclusion of dance-hit \"Vogue\" - which is not in, nor has the slightest relation to this film). I'd guess the major portion of money from this film came from tie-ins to Madonna's \"I'm Breathless\" album.
If you watch it at home, by end-titles, you'll think \"there's two hours out of my life I'd like to have back.\" Save yourself the wasted time - do not bother with this.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film is stale, and misses the mark. It is far off compared to the 89 Batman that it tries to coppy. That women singer whats her name can not act, and we see why her film carrier died. Notice how this film died in the box office no one see this film on tv either. My uncle and dad were expecting Batman, and the films impression is more like Cop Rock. Not worth renting 3/10
\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\nWhen people ask me whats the worst movie I've ever seen its this one. Its not even close to MST3k level riffing, or midnight viewing at a theatre, or even as Disney channel late night filler. The only time I've ever wanted to jump off a ride at Disney World (or Disney/MGM Studios in this case) was to grab Dick Tracey's jacket off the mannequin, rip it to shreds, and ram it down the tour guides throat saying \"Eat this! Eat this unholy coat of darkness!!!\" I've never been so mad at a movie, not even \"Nutty Professor II: The Klumps\" or \"Flash Gordon\". You want pretty colors and cinematography? Ain't here babe. Reviewers keep saying \"oh, but its too look like a comic book\", well, to me, its the color of a Gordito after several weeks in the sun. About as enjoyable too. Beatty wanders around this landscape jumping around and talking to his watch, himself, and occasional at the other actors, hoping someone will tell him what time the sequel will begin shooting. To be fair, I have only seen this movie once, but my pain threshold is that of a man, not a God.
\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 just saw Dick Tracy and I thought it was terrible. The paintings in the background of the cities looked awful. Also the mob characters looked too weird. Warren Beatty didn't do an awful job as Dick Tracy but it was definetely not one of his better performances. Madonna should just stick to singing. Glenne Headly did a good job in this movie. I gave this movie a 2/10 just because of the amazing acting by Al Pacino. It wasn't a high note in his career but he still did a good job.
\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 has to be one of the worst films of the 1990s. When my friends & I were watching this film (being the target audience it was aimed at) we just sat & watched the first half an hour with our jaws touching the floor at how bad it really was. The rest of the time, everyone else in the theatre just started talking to each other, leaving or generally crying into their popcorn that they actually paid money they had earnt working to watch this feeble excuse for a film. It must have looked like a great idea on paper, but on film it looks like no-one in the film has a clue what is going on. Crap acting, crap costumes. I can't get across how embarrasing this is to watch. Save yourself an hour & a bit 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\nDirector Warren Beatty's intention to turn Chester Gould's famous comic strip into a live-action cartoon (with Beatty himself cast in the lead as the square-jawed detective) had sweet overtures of innocent nostalgia--quite unusual and intriguing coming from Warren Beatty. Unfortunately, the picture is requisite ham, fun for awhile but eventually tiring. Dick Tracy attempts to bring down mobster Big Boy Caprice, aided by loving Tess Trueheart but tripped up by evil Breathless Mahoney. For the first half-hour or so, the Oscar-winning art direction and set design are wonderful to absorb but, as the plot creaks along predictably (with no real sting in the writing), things begin to congeal. Al Pacino got a surprise Supporting Oscar nomination as bad boy Caprice, and Madonna (who is mostly used as a decorative prop) gets to sing Stephen Sondheim's \"Sooner or Later (I Always Get My Man)\", which copped the award for Best Original Song. Lots of heart, thanks to Beatty--who was dedicated to his vision--but the picture is too cool and calculated. It lacks heat. *1/2 from ****
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere have been many movies featuring Bigfoot, the majority of which are not good but most at least have a goofy charm to them. Sasquatch Hunters doesn't even have that going for it. It's just a crashing bore.
Sasquatch Hunters is about a group of paleontologists, primatologists, and forest rangers that venture off into a remote part of a Pacific Northwest forest. Bones belonging to some sort of abnormally large primate have been discovered in this region and since apes aren't natural to North America to begin with this leads to a scientific expedition. Sure enough, they soon discover a whole burial ground full of the skeletal remains of these enormous ape-like creatures. I think we all know what happens to people that disturb ancient burial grounds in the movies.
The first half of the movie consists of uninteresting, interchangeable characters assembling their gear, hiking through the woods, stopping to rest, hiking through the woods some more, pausing long enough to investigate and discuss a few findings along the way, yet more hiking through the woods, looking for a group member that has vanished, even more hiking through the woods, digging through dirt, random theorizing, and gathering around a campfire to discuss what little they've done that day. When Sasquatch finally shows up it just turns into people stumbling around in the dark while being picked off one at a time (done in a blink and you missed it fashion and the actual killing occurs off-camera). All of this is excruciatingly boring.
The movie wants to be taken seriously and the director is clearly trying to build suspense but there is none to be found, thus we are left with dull, drawn out scenes of people wandering around the woods just to get somewhere and wander around the woods at night trying to act scared. I'd be lying if I said I didn't make liberal use of the fast forward button to speed these scenes up.
As for Sasquatch himself, much like every other character else in the movie, it doesn't have much to do and lacks a distinct personality. It looks like a shaggier version of King Kong, which isn't all that bad except in the scenes where they used CGI instead of a man in a Bigfoot costume, which is painfully obvious during the daylight monster scenes. A part of me can't help but feel that even using computer effects to bring Bigfoot to life is a tad sacrilegious. If there is any single movie monster that I believe should only be brought to life through situation, it's Bigfoot.
This is one of those movies that doesn't so much have a plot as it does a premise. That's all it really is, a premise, which the people involved stretched out to make a feature length motion picture without bothering to add all the ingredients to make a worthwhile 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 right. A movie written, directed and produced by Fred Tepper and family. (Fred should have known better, having worked the sets of 'Titantic' and 'Dogma'.)
So, the plot. There are some scientists, and some forest rangers, and a hot chick with huge fake breasts. They are all really bad at their jobs, including the hot chick(who I think is supposed to be a photographer, but who cares because she wears a bikini). One of the forest rangers comments that the scientists are \"professional people,\" which is good, because it would be horrible if they were professional grubs or jellybeans or Ewoks.
They are hiking through the woods in search of some strange ape-like bones, and no one even once mentions that the bones just might be those of the infamous Bigfoot. They just wander around and one of the rangers unabashedly hits on the hottie. We all hope he dies real soon (along with his sister who's meant to be the cute naive one, but is really just annoying). Then they, *gasp*, find a Sasqu... I mean, Ape-like Animal Burial Ground. Of course, no mentions that it might just be Bigfoot bones they're messing with... I guess scientists and forest rangers just don't think about those types of things.
Then Sasquatch and his tribe get really angry and kill all the people we dislike, chases the other losers away and buries his Great Aunt Muriel and Cousin Josh (who died in an unfortunate trout accident) all over again.
Insipid, boring dialogue (I zoned out several times), inane plot, unlikable characters, bad CGI (a man in a monkey suit would look better), and acting that just wasn't very good all add up to make a movie I won't be watching again.
You check it out though; it's good for some unintentional laughs.
\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\nBudget, decent actors ...who knew these things were important. Don't waste your time on this piece of junk. The effects are crap. The acting is crap. The only thing that could have made this even tolerable was a little cheap T&A and that gets squandered in the first 20 minutes.
The only even remotely redeeming quality about this movie is the very awkward profanity. It was like they found the only 7 people on the planet who have never cursed before. Hats off!
If you want to see some dude in a bad suit just go back and look at old prom photos. The only way for a Bigfoot flick to be any good is for it to have a big budget and some actors who didn't come from Frogballs Community 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 went into watching this movie knowing it wasn't going to be great. but what i witnessed was to awful for words. i don't mean to be harsh, its just the movie was terrible. overall it had bad, i mean AWFUL special effects, the acting wasn't too bad, but wasn't good either, and sasquatch himself was like.... well, not sasquatch. in my opinion the best sasquatch movie is Harry and the Hendersons. its not violent or horror, but it has the best depiction of sasquatch. at least its a suit and not some half-ass cgi rip-off. only see this movie if you are desperate, or really appreciate anyone in the film. or go watch boondock saints, it is MUCH better.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have always been interested in anything about Bigfoot, so when I was browsing around looking for a movie to rent, this one caught my eye. It was the WORST $4.50 I've ever spent and I want my money back! Please don't waste your money on this!! This was one of the cheapest movies I've ever seen. The entire movie was so incredibly boring and I found myself rolling my eyes a lot and I didn't even watch it all the way through. I just got fed up with it. The acting was horrible, the effects were horrible, everything was just really bad and tasteless. It all added up to be a really bad, boring movie and total waste of time and money. I hope that one day they'll make a good movie about Sasquatch, but until then, I'll have to sit through countless cheap duds like this one to find the real masterpiece.
\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 definitely the worst bigfoot movie I've ever seen and quite possibly the overall worst movie I've ever seen in my life. The actors and actresses were horrible and it seemed like they were trying way too hard to play their roles as dorks, tough guys, jerks, know it alls, etc. And the bigfoot itself was terrible. It appeared to be some kind of computer generated image from the days of Atari & Intellivision. At one point near the end of the movie as an army of sasquatches were chasing after the remaining survivors, one gets shot and as it's running it looked like a poor man's version of donkey kong himself! And one gets hit by a bullet and the blood that comes out of it was just awful animation. Another thing that was annoying was the music. Way way way too much music (classical score or whatever you call it) throughout the entire film. It was never ending. Oh yeah, the movie is boring too. Absolutely one of the worst films I've ever seen. I highly recommend taking your $3 or whatever they charge to rent this movie and spending it on a gallon of gas or a value menu somewhere. TRULY AWFUL!
\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 group of forest rangers and scientists go into the woods to find fossils.They stumble on a Bigfoot burial ground eventually (the didn't notice it in the dark), The scenes of the CGI Bigfoot are horrid, but better than the endless scenes of talking that they rarely punctuate. I used to think that there just might be a good Bigfoot movie to be made. But now after so many sad sad movies about the legend, I'm having serious doubts. To pour salt in the wound of watching this film, the ONE good-looking girl just doesn't get naked once. And while this one MAY be better than \"Boggy Creek 2\" (no mean feat there), it's still sad that the best non-documentary film on Bigfoot remains \"Harry and the Henriksons\"
My Grade: D
\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 got this movie out of Blockbuster in one of those racks were you can get like 5 movies for 20 bucks. I'd have to say I got my money's worth on this one. I had expected horrible dialogue, crappy monsters, and shaky cameras. Well, as Meatloaf said, two outta three ain't bad.
The acting is bad, though not as bad as some movies I've seen. Or maybe I've watched so many low budget movies recently I've lost perspective. There are some bits were the acting is downright terrible, but for the most part it's of at least High School Play level.
The CG for the Sasquatch in this movie is probably the second-worst part. The first thing I thought when I saw it (and I noticed another reviewer agreed with me) was that a man in an ape suit would have been better. Clunky stop-motion animation would have looked better.
So you may be asking why I call the CG the second-worst part. That's because the very worst part of the movie is the sound effects. They are loud, annoying, and constant. I've been camping, I know what insects sound like in the woods at night, and while they can be loud, they're not deafening like the cacophony in this movie. Usually when the \"background\" sounds drown out the movie's dialogue, it's a bad thing, but from what I caught of the dialogue of this film, I wasn't missing much.
The action was infrequent and boring. The tension was non-existent, as was any sense of empathy with the characters. Speaking of the characters, they were all cookie-cutter and bland. The only mildly engaging byplay was between...actually, I can't think of anything. There was a line or two that made me crack a wan smile, but that was about it.
The cinematography was decent, a step or two above what you'd normally see in a movie like this. However, it still had that \"home movie\" quality to it that you get with movies made on pocket change and a prayer.
If you're like me and get a kick out of shoestring budget genre flicks, and you see this one in the dollar bin, think about grabbing it. Otherwise, stay away at all costs.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nfoywonder's review of this cheap STV hits the nail squarely on the head. Make sure you read it. In case you don't, a group of scientists heads off into the deep woods of the Pacific Northwest, to fumble around with a bunch of bones in an animal graveyard. The Big Foot family doesn't take kindly to this, and proceeds to pick off the team one by one, largely offscreen. Big Foot himself has a distinctly ape-like face, but is less scary overall than Harry from HARRY AND THE HENDERSONS. Most of the movie has the wooden, generic actors pretending to be scientists tromping around in the woods and yakking away. This is a no-budget movie in which very little happens, at least on screen. We do get to watch the sexiest of the females take a shower while one of her male companions watches, but nothing comes of this.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is the biggest piece of lamo I've ever watched. It is excruciatingly boring I would have rather sat through a seminar on creationism than have watched this if i had known it was going to be as boring as it was. Not even the 40 seconds of the hot chick in the bikini with the big ta tas redeems this of anything lower than a 1.
The reviews of this movie claiming that this movie is \"unintentionally funny\" are absurd and just plain WRONG. Not one thing is funny about this movie. they spend the first 50 or so minutes walking through the woods talking about stuff you wouldn't understand nor care about and it is just as lame when the people start dying because you don't even know who the people are because they are so UNINTERESTING. Honestly though, I didn't watch it to the ending, but that should say something about how horrible it is. WORST MOVIE EVER.
Immediately after ejecting this filth from my DVD player I started scraping it against the cement in front of my house, not wanting other blockbuster customers to have to fall upon the same mistake i had made as to rent this movie. Then Zach peed his pants. Thankyou for 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\nOh where to begin. The cinematography was great. When the movie first started because of the initial landscape scenes I thought that I was in for a good movie. Then the cgi Bigfoot showed up .It looked like a cartoon drawing of the Lion king and king Kong's love child.It totally took away from the believability of the character.Now I knew there wasn't a Bigfoot chasing people hiking around the woods for no apparent reason but a cheesy cgi cartoon.So from then on the whole movie was shot for me.The money they flushed down the toilet for the cgi they could of spent on a costume like roger Patterson did. His was the best Bigfoot costume ever no one else could match his.I am a hardcore cheesy Bigfoot movie fan and I was warned about this movie but my compulsion led me to watching this movie and I was disappointed like the previous reviews warned me about. I know after you read this review you will still say \"I must watch Sasquatch hunters,must watch Sasquatch hunters.\" Then you will say why did I waste my good hard earned money on such a excruciatingly bad boring 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\nWhen i first saw this film i thought it was going to be a good sasquatch film. Usually when you have these types of movies there's generally ONE sasquatch, but in this one there is like what? 7 or 10 of them?. Acting was good, plot was OK, i liked the scenes where the sasquatch is killing the first few victims, very good camera work. I was expecting it to be a gory film but it was very little. This movie was way better than Sasquatch. The SCI-FI channel really needs to make more sasquatch films, i mean i really liked Sasquatch Mountain, Abominibal was not good, the one i'm reviewing is OK, but the movie Sasquatch was not, but I'm not reviewing that so let me get back on track. This movie is good for a rainy Saterday afternoon, but for any other occasions, no.
\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\nHow did this ever come into existence? I generally love sci F/Bigfoot whatever films etc. . . but I still expect them to be written without quite so much cheese as this. The effects were sad, the lines were sadder. Avoid at all costs. I only ended up renting it because it was in the wrong case (I was looking for the Sasquatch film with Lance Henrikson in it -- still haven't seen that one). The idea of the film is actually a good one. There was a lot of potential to make a great little movie here. I just don't understand how something like this ends up like this. Go speak to the film/arts/English interested students in any high school and you'll find people who can write a better script.
\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 really is that bad of a movie. My buddy rented it because he, well, is an idiot. But then again, I must be an idiot too because I watched the whole damn thing! The actors were on par with high school drama geeks who think that are going places. The only place they will be going is back to waiting tables at Luby's. All I could think of while I was watching this \"gem\" was how it actually got made. I mean, some \"screenwriter\" actually thought that this premise was fresh, original and lucrative. Then some moron with money believed in the script so much that he decided to fork some cash over with the naive misconception that he was going to make a return on it. Actors were cast, locations were scouted, make-up artists were hired, computer animators fresh out of Al Collins graphic Design School were brought in and this turd started to take form.
There obviously were a ton of things that I hated about this move but the one thing the drove me the craziest was the overuse of music. Every single minute of this flick was scored. There was not a single break in music. And at times it was mixed higher than the dialogue, not that it made you miss some vital plot point or anything.
After it was over, we decided to watch Mystic River. It was like driving a 1980 VW Diesel Rabbit then switching to a BMW 740il. You couldn't get two more opposite movies in terms of quality.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI loved this movie, I'll admit it. This has to be the best (straight to?) video movie I've seen. Well... me and my friend decided just for shits n' giggles that we'd rent this movie. We knew what to expect and we got exactly what we expected, plus more. When that red neck gets slammed up against the tree by the Sasquatch, we literally watched that part about three to four times, it was that amazing (hysterically, of course). And why? Oh why does the main character have to roll that much? Like honestly, we know that you're in danger, rolling that much isn't gonna help all that much. But really, if this movie is in you're local video store RENT IT. It is worth the money and it's not even that bad, like it's bad, but not incredibly bad. Overall, complete amazing will be in store for you if you rent this movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs a long-time fan of all the Star Trek series,I found this a disappointing episode, and I wonder if the liberal use of \"flashbacks\" featuring Will Riker's exploits, both positive (and largely romantic) and negative (lots of pain, and a crewmate's death)was a money-saving device, as were many of their \"bottle shows\" (episodes in which all scenes take place on the Enterprise). Diana Muldaur(who also appeared at least twice on the original series) deserved a better final appearance than this for her character, Dr. Kate Pulaski. Loyal viewers (in the Star Trek world, is there any other kind?) also were shortchanged. This was the last episode of second season; thus, the season ended \"not with a bang\" but with \"a whimper.\"
\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\nBecause of the 1988 Writers Guild of America strike they had to shoot this episode in 3 days. It's pretty much crap, consisting of repeat cut + pasted clips from Season 2 and was described by its writer, Maurice Hurley as \"terrible, just terrible.\"
Why the producers couldn't just wait to shoot something decent who knows. I'm guessing because of the strike the production ran out of money and could only release a flashback episode or maybe Roddenberry was too sick at the time to be able to veto this half-assery. This episode also marks the final appearance of Diana Muldaur (Dr. Katherine Pulaski) on the series.
\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 grew up watching and loving TNG. I just recently finished watching the entire series ST Voyager on DVD, which may have heightened my sense of disgust with this episode, as the difference in style and approach between the two shows couldn't be more stark. The idea may have been good if used as an opportunity to further expand Riker's character, which is how it probably would have been treated on VOY. They could have featured memories that would be \"new\" to the audience, rather than simply regurgitating old show clips. The in and out transitions between the \"memories\" and the \"present\" in this episode start as cliché in the beginning, and very quickly become intolerable as the tired pattern wears on and on. Bar none- worst episode ever.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am a huge fan of David Lynch. This film, however, was a quite disappointing experience. Apart from the ambient background music  which really sets the mood of the film  it lacks almost all the qualities that I've come to associate with Lynch's work. The visuals are dull, to say the least, and the dialog is to vague and monotone to be of any interest.
This feels more like a film students awkward try to do an arty dogma movie than the work of an experienced director. I've seen a lot of amateur movies with far superior camera-work, scenery, sound and script. This film lacks almost all artistic qualities. I feel as though I'm watching one of Davids home videos, produced during a weekend trip with some friends.
\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 finally got to have a look at this experimental Lynch short after waiting for so long....and unfortunately, it wasn't worth it! Even for a die hard Lynch fan, I found this to be really tedious....
nothing happens, there are long, long, long painful pauses where nothing happens, long, monotonous speeches where nothing is said and the whole thing finishes with the viewer not knowing, or caring, what the hell it was all about, what happened before and what happened afterward.
There was a Mulholland Drive allusion - the blonde girl and the brunette girl were very Diane and Rita -esque, and a Lost Highway moment with allusions to some significant event that happened but cannot be talked about clearly.
Unfortunately, It's all very uninteresting and very dull, nothing happens, it's very forgettable and I think i will delete it from my computer and forget I ever watched it. Sorry David!
\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, I love and respect pretty much anything that David Lynch has done. However, this movie is akin to a first filmmaker's attempt at making a pseudo art video.
To give you a couple of examples:
1. David Lynch is typically a visual filmmaker, however, this had little visual artistic content (blank walls, \"up shots\" with ceiling in the background)
2. David Lynch typically takes great pride in audio, however, in this you could even hear the video camera's hum.
In fact, it is very hard to swallow the idea that he had anything to do with this movie. unless...
...this is a joke, on David's part, to force fans search his website (for hours) only to find this drivel. I hope so, because at least that idea is funny.
\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...but this just isn't working and I am surprised to see how many people consider it good. On what grounds? There are some loose hints here and there, but the whole material is self-indulgent and unconvincing. Lynch's movies are generally intriguing because they generate a sense of confusion and yet, are very playful when doing that. There is some visual sense, there are some subplots, characters, ideas etc. But this is dull and yes, pointless. Because whatever there is to explore is either to \"small\", either too far-fetched, or simply told before in a superior manner. It's just Lynch exploring DV, nothing more so it should be treated like this. 1/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI love all his work but this looks like nothing.. sorry.. This looks more like a \"David Lynch copycat\". I think people like it only because \"it's from David Lynch\".
\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 hard as it is for me to believe, with all of the awful reality shows out there over the past few years, this one has to take over the top spot for worst one yet. I am still wondering if this was actually just a spoof done by the SCTV gang. If Andy Kaufmann were still alive I'd be sure he was behind this. Can a rock band stoop any lower than has INXS to do such a shameful thing as this? The premise is simple and moronic. Audition a bunch of karaoke rejects to become the new lead singer of INXS, to take the place of Michael Hutchence (who committed suicide in 1997). Eight years and no hits later, the band commit the ultimate act of patheticness by subjecting themselves to auditioning a bunch of talentless wannabes to be the new lead singer of a band that is 20 years past its prime. So they trot all of these awful singers (I thought American Idol had its share of doozies) who do atrocious renditions of just about every classic (and predictable) rock song imaginable. And then they cut to the INXS band members who are seriously discussing the merits of each of these candidates. You could see better (and more original) rock performers at just about any night club in any city in the world.
It has all the usual uncreative elements of every other reality show. Lame reality participants, lame interviews, lame host/emcee, lame \"judging\" of performances, and the lame booting of one participant at the end of each show. Can these shows get any more predictable? It's clearly a publicity stunt on the part of the band; a last gasp of hope at rekindling their lost stardom before they are finally buried into oblivion. Michael Hutchence, if he had any shred of dignity when alive, has to be rolling over in his grave. Not that INXS were ever a great band, but I had no idea they were this pathetic. If INXS are at all representative of what rock and roll has become, this show would be the final proof that rock and roll is once and for all, dead.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst of all; it's very dilettantish to try describe way of history only from positions of guns, germs and steel. The same tried to do Marxists from economical positions.
The reason of Western success can't be just dumb luck, the advantages of domesticated plants and animals. We see, that all around the world any advantages and bonuses are complete useless if they aren't wisely managed. In the Japan there isn't huge natural resources, but Japan is one of the top world economies, the same situation in Singapore, but in Nigeria, country with rich oil resources, there are only middle-low success. Both of this nations had and still have access to Western technology and inventions, but why such gap?
In the end of movie Daimond declared, that it's very important to understand factors of guns, germs and steel, to UNDERSTAND. Maybe the main factor of world's difference is not geography, but people ability to understand and use things? The mental ability to understand. And in this case geography is only subordinated.
\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 film is an attempt to present Jared Diamonds theory of \"Guns, Germs and Steel\", explaining how Europeans have dominated much of the globe.
The version I saw of this documentary came on 2 discs covering 3 hours. I think the information could have been presented in 20 minutes. There are completely useless scenes of: Professor Jared Diamond watching birds through binoculars, Professor Jared Diamond failing to use a bow and arrow properly, Professor Jared Diamond firing a muzzle-loader badly. Was this documentary supposed to make a hero out of \"Professor Jared diamond?\". This part of the documentary was so bad, it could have been a spoof. The worst was when Diamond is shown breaking down and weeping when touring the malaria ward in an African hospital. None of this helps me understand his theory of \"Guns, Germs and Steel.\" BTW, \"Guns, Germs and Steel\" is said about 100 times. \"Can the Europeans guns, germs and steel get them out of this dire situation? Stay tuned and find out!\" When he finally gets down to business, his theory is equal parts interesting and utterly boring. Europeans conquered the natives peoples of other lands, because they had guns and fine blades against stone and wooden weapons. Do I really need a professor to convince me of this? The parts of his theory that explain how the Europeans came to have the advantages that allow the conquest are interesting, but the coverage is paper-thin.
In the end, I think the documentary was only trying to convince me that non-Europeans are as capable as Europeans. If I'm not a racist, I already know this. If I'm a racist, Jared Diamond is not going to convince me with his bumbling use of native implements.
I don't think adults are the intended audience for this documentary. Kids may enjoy this more than I, though. I have read that the book from which this documentary is much better than the 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\nJared Diamond made a point in the first episode that other peoples of the world didn't have animals to domesticate but Europeans did, and that accounts for why we were able to make steel and invent complex machines.
But then in the third episode he says that when the Europeans in South Africa got too far north they ran into Zulu people and other tribes that *herded cattle and planted crops*. So what explains their lack of technological, economic, and artistic achievement if they had the key things the author claims are needed for success?
Diamond also claims germs in the form of smallpox (brought to North America by black slaves) were our biggest weapon. Well, if 150 Europeans can defeat 20,000 native warriors and 400 non-military South Africans can defeat 10,000 Zulus *without a single casualty* in either case, then I think you have to conclude that germs are irrelevant. With or without germs, we were going to succeed.
He says Malaria stopped Europeans from colonizing further North, killing \"thousands\" of Europeans while not affecting Africans. (I'd like to know real numbers but he doesn't say.) Then at the end he says today Malaria is killing thousands of Africans and that is why they can't catch up with us. So which is it, Jared? Did Malaria help the Africans by halting Eurpeans or hurt them? And how come Europe did okay despite massive plagues throughout our history?
He also seems far too eager to say that the reasons Europeans succeeded was because of dumb luck. At times when the evidence threatens to overwhelm his rickety theories he's reluctant to admit that maybe Europeans were successful because they worked for it. It's sad watch this obvious neo-Marxist contort reality to try to prove his point.
\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 rare that I get to rate a movie without having some reservation as to whether I should have gone up one or down one but this one.....Did the explosion rate a notch higher, or one down because my brain hurt trying to CREATE a plot. No, THIS ONE....yeah, a solid, no brainer.....ONE/ten
\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 was just a terrible movie. No one should waste their time. Go see something else. This movie is, without a doubt, one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my life. If you want to see a good movie, don't see Made Men.
\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\nRight away, this film was ridiculous. Not that it didn't have redeeming aspects For example, the best thing about this film was the beautiful background scenery. Anyone not living on the East Coast should know the South doesn't have beautiful mountains like those found in the West. I knew it was Utah right off the bat, but perhaps Dalton couldn't suppress his English accent, so they had to excuse it by saying this was a southern town. Subverting his accent into a Southern one was easier. Sure the film has plot twists, but its phony sense of place was something I couldn't get past. It's not like Utah doesn't have meth labs... so why the writers thought it necessary to pretend it was in the South is beyond me.
One other thing in action pictures always puzzles me. Why do they always make the \"cocking\" sound effect when the character pulls out an automatic handgun? It seemed every other sound effect in this movie was a \"chuk-chich\" signifying a 9mm was loaded and ready to fire. Of course, the weapons already had rounds chambered so this was unnecessary.
Lastly, the pyrotechnics were WAY over the top. But hey, this film was targeted to a certain 'market segment' I suppose... It's too bad. Each of the actors can act, but this film was lame.
\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\nSo this was an HBO \"Made for TV Movie\" eh? Is that an excuse for such a pathetic plot and terrible acting? Such a shame to see Jim Belushi reduced to a role so repetitive (shot at, survived, lies, beaten up, survives, shot at, lies and so ad infinitum. Call that a script? As for the Brits, embarrassing to see Timothy Dalton's pathetic (or was he just taking the p***, depends how much he was paid I guess?) attempt at a Southern Sheriff). As for that other Brit, the bleached blond one, what a w***er! There is a trend towards glorifying these \"English speaking\" (sic) super-violent thugs lately, perhaps thanks to Mr. Madonna's two movies succeed in entertaining and justify the violence by skillful use of irony and humour, like Pulp Fiction does. However, this movie discredits and devalues the genre. definately one to miss.
\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 what the title should be, anyway.
This movie combines guns, explosives, and mindless killing to make one flop of an \"action\" movie. Let me make my point in a series of questions: answers type deal.
What happens in the movie? People die.
Is that it? Yes.
What is the plot about? What plot?
What is the point the movie is trying to make? Killing is the only solution.
What are the characters like? Extremely flawed and contradictive toward their own personalities.
Is there anything good about this movie? Yes. I'm sure they used some nice Panavision cameras in filming it.
If you like constant killing and greed, then watch the movie. If you happen to be repulsed by such low-standard \"entertainment\", then \"Made Men\" is not for you.
To sum it up, the plotline stinks, the characters aren't worth their while, the storyline is completely resistable, and nothing fits together.
This proves one thing: the actors, directors, and whoever helped make this movie certainly aren't \"Made\".
\n
assistant\n0
\n"