empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is once again, one of those movies that someone thinks or tries to make others think that they understood it. Anyone who tries to make any sense of this is a MORON! My advise would be to take TWO not one but TWO hits of very strong acid and at least you'll get a visual thrill out of it!! Although at the end you may kill yourself for wasting your acid!!!! Being that this comment requires 10 lines of info, let me write something for those of you that will try to defend the movie. Unintelligble. Garbage. Schitzoid. Waste of talent. Movie is ice, with paper on destination with ringing clouds, on a sunny dive in the pudding.... Sounds like lion in a red light with seeing hair. Now explain that to me!!!!
\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\nLook, I'm sorry if half the world takes offense at this, but life is confusing enough. I don't need to watch it that way. I dig Anthony Hopkins, big time. I even watched Fracture, and I knew that would be a steaming pile of Quentin. But this thing is not well shot, and it's not daring--even if it is artsy. Well-produced films have reasons for cuts and fast edits, not this \"oh, but it's a realistic interpretation\" excuse. This thing'll make your head hurt. It's the fastest moving picture ever to take you nowhere at all. I still love AH, and I'll always give him another chance, but if you aren't made of time to watch bad ideas on screen, skip 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\nWhat a muddled mess. I saw this with a friend a while ago and we both consider ourselves open-minded to the many wonders of cinema, but this sure isn't one of them.
While there very well could be some good ideas/concepts and there are certainly some good performances (under the circumstances), it is all buried under random nonsense. Sir Anthony draws way too heavily from the same gene pool as Natural Born Killers, U Turn and similar films as far as the editing is concerned, or maybe he watched himself in Nixon for inspiration. Say what you want about David Lynch, but at least he more often than not has a method to the madness.
His quote of stating that he made the film as a joke says it all. It's not worth your money, bandwidth or time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have seen bad movies before, but this one takes the \"Worst Movie of a Lifetime\" award by far !! Anthony Hopkins has to be completely mentally ill to have his name attached to this one - anywhere ! I will never see another movie with him in it, directing it, etc., etc. ! I can't believe the other actors & actresses that I liked, (in this picture), that stooped so low to be a part of this disaster ! There must be some great drugs out there ! For anyone to not be embarrassed to be a part of such a film, is beyond me ! Save your money on this one ! HUGE FLOP from beginning to end ! Shame on you Mr. Hopkins ! Also, shame on Christian Slater ! I can't believe you put your reputations on the line for this one !
\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 actually had quite high hopes going into this movie, so I took what was given with a grain of salt and hoped for the best. About 1/3 of the way through the film I simply had to give up, quite simply the movie is a mish-mash of stuff happening for no apparent reason and it's all disconnected. I love movies that make you think, but this movie was just a bunch of ideas thrown together and never really connected.
Don't think it's David Lynch-esquire as some would have you believe, it is nowhere near that realm other than some trippy visuals. Saying it's artsy to disguise the fact there's no apparent plot or story is just a manner or justifying why you wasted the 1.5 hours in the film. The acting was good, but that cannot save lack of story. I do agree with the one comment posted previously... \"it's like being in some other person's head... while they're on drugs,\" in other words nothing makes sense.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was a disappointment. I was looking forward to seeing a good movie. I am the type of person who starts a movie and doesn't turn it off until the end, but I was forcing myself not to turn it off.
Theonly reason why I didn't turn it off was because I am a huge Christian Slater fan and I wanted to see him act in it. I was really speechless after I finished watching the movie.
This movie was one of the worst movies that I have seen in my life. Thank you Christian Slater for putting some humor into it. If you hadn't been in this movie I would of been bored out of my mind.
I also agree that Anthony Hopkins needs to stick to acting. By the time the movie was over I didn't even get the plot. I was both confused and annoyed.
\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 rented this movie on the merits of what the trailer showed, and of course Sir Anthony Hopkins.
If Jackson Pollack teamed up with David Lynch, and Timothy Leary to make a movie, this would be the end result. I don't think I've seen a movie like it that made an LSD trip look like an episode of Sesame Street.
It's a bunch of set pieces where the characters flash in and out of reality, or various realities, and the film doesn't culminate into anything until the last 5 minutes, where all of a sudden it makes sense. I wrote a scathing review on my movie review blog that essentially gives everything away, and I won't do that here. It's a well acted piece of cinema, and the soundtrack was written by Sir Anthony Hopkins, and let me say this, if there's one redeeming feature to this film, it's the music. It fits perfectly. Some of the dialogue is unbelievably good, and unbelievably bad all at the same time.
I enjoyed parts of this movie, I truly did, and once you get to the end of it, you'll actually figure out what's truly going on. It's unfortunate that you have to wade through 2 hours of crazy to get to a salient point, which minimizes the effect of the entire movie.
I give it a 3 out of 10 for the simple fact that the real problem with this film isn't the acting, it's everything.
\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 Anthony Hopkins as an actor so I was very interested to see how he would do as a writer/director. I could not have been more disappointed by this move. The movie was so disjointed and the cinematography was so over done to the point I wanted to pull the plug out of the wall. The actors were very good but it was such a waste of talent. Not all actors are cut out to be writers or directors and clearly Mr. Hopkins falls into this category. Of all the movies I have ever seen in my 50 years, this is absolutely the worst movie ever. Please do us all a favor Mr. Hopkins and stick to acting, which you are excellent at, and leave the writing and directing to those who are talented in those areas. If I could give this movie a rating less than one I certainly would.
\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 dear... as an Englishman, and a small part Welsh, a fan of Anthony Hopkins' work in the industry..... to date, I am truly disappointed.
You see I am a nobody, who hoped for better. So my comments are as 'straw in the wind'. But, that's the point isn't it? - I have no axe to grind on the commercial value of a work. I, a full member of the great unwashed, go to see a movie to be transported to another place. To yes, suspend belief for a brief period. But not to enter a state of total disbelief.
Had this been by an unknown author and director, I would guess that this 'production' would have been castigated into oblivion. Unfortunately, its not, and I was left wide eyed and confused. Having seen some of the rave reviews given this work I am faintly worried....
Perhaps its that I try, without prejudice, to view each movie on its own merits. Regardless of author, director, studio or even the notoriety of the content.
My advice, as many before me: Don't Write and Direct the same production. It is fraught with danger. Movies need to be moderated to retain a semblance of credibility.
As they say in school reports \"Could and can do better...\"
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI wasn't entirely sure what to expect from a Comedy, Drama, Fantasy, Sci-Fi genre, but, given the actors involved I thought I'd give it a spin. The tone of the film felt awkward, going through patches of each of the genres but never quite felt balanced, so eventually I gave up trying, and concentrated on the cinematography and individual performances, which I thought were good on the whole, considering each character had little depth because of the nature of the story (won't give anything away here). I have to say it felt a LOT longer than its 96 minute runtime, and not in a good way. In the end I was looking for closure, some measure of satisfaction but it didn't turn out to be the clever or ingenious piece I had hoped it would be. I think Tony mistakenly thought what he did do at the end of the film gave us that... but it was a tragic mistake to try and validate the previous 95 minutes with the ill-conceived conclusion. Ultimately I feel cheated. IMO it would have been better to let it stand without the \"ending\" as a piece of Art... just. Or... I may have missed the point completely :)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was a complete waste of time.
I viewed this movie with a group of cinematic enthusiasts, who have varied taste in movies yet always a keen eye for a work of \"genius\" (as one of my fellow commenters on this site had the gall to label this steaming pile); not one of them found a single redeeming quality. We ended the movie with a rousing chorus of expletives I will not reprint here.
I can only guess that the positive reviews provided here were written by Sir Anthony Hopkins, himself. Afterall, as one of those reviewers will tell you, he financed the film himself  because no one else in Hollywood or anywhere else in the world, for that matter, would risk a single penny or their good name in association with this film. Don't let the semi-famous actors who appear in the film lure you into its clutches  as Christian Slater admits in the special features \"making of\" he signed on to the film without reading the script or knowing any details (a folly I am sure he will never repeat).
I pity the hapless individual who stumbles into this quagmire of self-indulgence written, directed, produced, and financed by a man who is too famous to admit to himself that not everything he creates is a masterpiece (and if you don't believe me please google \"Anthony Hopkins\" AND art).
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOkay...so i've seen a lot of really odd/unusual movies in my day. Fear and loathing in Las Vegas comes to mind when I think of that. Well not anymore...from here on out, whenever someone asks me, \"hey, what's the most unusual movie you've ever seen?\" Slipstream is what i'll say! And I do not mean \"unusual\" in a good way.
From the very beginning of the movie, it was obvious that this was going to be one of those \"trippy camera effect\" movies. By that I mean, little things like flashing images on the screen, rewinding and fast-forwarding people's words and scenes, messing with the color on the screen, flash forwards and flash backs constantly...then you have the actual acting itself. People randomly get violent, shoot things/people, say the weirdest things that just don't make much, if any sense.
The movie is about a writer who starts to intermingle real life with the book he's writing and for a lack of a better way to explain it, you basically see this \"trip\" he goes on throughout the movie. The thing is, Johnny Depp went on a similar trip in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas but the only difference is that his trip was entertaining to watch, not painful! Honestly, I had a real hard time even finishing Slipstream. It kind of hurt my brain a bit.
I can see some film buff making a claim as to this movie having certain cinematic nuances that make it not only unique but add to the feeling of dementia...blah, blah, blah. Point is, this movie hurts your brain when you watch it....it makes very little sense, it takes all of your concentration to even remotely try and understand what is going on and even at the end, the only thing you can be happy about is that it's over...and you can say you actually sat through it! So in closing, if you want to see a movie that will have you saying \"what the heck\" over and over again both out loud and in your head, go ahead and waste an hour and 30 minutes and check this out.
Mr Hopkins, while I applaud you as an actor and commend your choice to take a stab at directing....please, do not ever make a movie like this again. Next time, try something that relies a little more on great storytelling than camera techniques that tend to leave the viewer with a headache.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat seemed as a good premise for a movie...unfortunately it fails to deliver on nearly every level. Very hard to follow at the start of the movie I actually found myself fighting the urge to turn it off the biggest problem from a visual aspect is the fact that the camera work is simply over the top with so many \"arty\" splicings and semi-subliminal cuts throughout the movie that actually distracts you from the from the overall story. It really tries too hard to immerse you in the moment and build to a suspenseful ending but the movie just has so many half conceived characters and non relevant script it just leaves you feeling disappointed and confused as to why they tried to go so deep with 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\nYep, the topic is a straight quote from the movie and I think it's pretty accurate. I was so bored to dead with this pointless effort. All the flashes etc. making no sense after first 20 minutes is just bad film making + If you are epileptic, you would have died at least five times already. Of course all the David Lynch fans would raise a flag for this kind of turkey to be \"the best film ever made\" because it doesn't make any sense AND when it doesn't make any sense it's got to be art, and art movie is always good. Right? I say WRONG. This kind of artificial art grab is just a pathetic way to try to show that you're a good film maker. Anthony Hopkins as a excellent actor should just stay acting.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWell then, thank you SO MUCH Disney for DESTROYING the fond memories I USED to have of my FORMER favorite movie. I was about 5 when the original movie came out, and it was one of the first movies I remember seeing. So, now that I'm 16, and feeling masochistic enough, I decided to rent this movie. Thus, I managed to poison all my memories of the original movie with this sorry excuse for a movie. This movie takes everything that made the original endearing and wrecks it, right down to the last detail.
In this movie, Ariel and Eric celebrate the birth of their daughter, Melody, and go to show her to everyone in the ocean...BROADWAY STYLE! After the musical number ends, within minutes, the sea witch Morgana shows up and threatens to kill Melody if Triton doesn't give up the trident. Thus, he gives it up without even a fight. Eric stands there gaping, though Ariel figures out how to use a sword and save Melody. Morgana escapes, so Ariel and Eric decide that Melody should never go near the sea until Morgana is caught.
Well...uh, nothing of note really happens. Eric is a total wuss. He never really manages to do anything. Ariel sort of does something. Melody manages to screw things up. Plus, the animation is a new low-point for Disney. The computer graphics wind up clashing with the backgrounds. Ever single opportunity for character development is wasted. The songs bite.
Look, don't waste your time. I'm pretty sure even the little kids are going to be bored out of their skulls with this, since nothing even remotely exciting ever happens. They won't want to sing the songs. If you manage to grab a copy of this, throw it out into the ocean and hope that nobody ever finds it. 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\nIf there's one thing you can count on Disney to do, it's their uncanny ability to take a story and tell it again and again and again. Even watching the commercial for Lady and the Tramp II was a horrible experience. Disney's going to ruin one of their most awesome classics ever. It even had that spaghetti meatball scene. It's been done before! And that's what I say to this sorry direct to video(the entire concept should be banned). Everything is just a rehash of the original movie and even several of Bluth's really bad movies. The penguin and walrus duo(I've even forgotten their names) are just a really poor carbon copy of Timon and Pumbaa. Morgana is another Ursula. She even repeats practically all her old lines. The songs are pathetic, really abysmal. I've never heard songs so bad from them before until now. And the dialogue is atrocious. It's pathetic and simplistic. On the plus side, at least they took the time to make the animation somewhat decent. All of the usual characters aren't as annoying as they used to be(or maybe that's a minus for Little Mermaid fans). Back on the negative, Melody is just so sickeningly cute you just might vomit. I almost did. Do yourself and your Little Mermaid fan a favor. Don't waste your money on this. True, it's not as horrific as Return of Jafar or Pocahontas II, but that's little consolation.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie makes me want to throw up every time I see it. If you take the first movie, and reverse the plot (ariel wants to leave the sea, her daughter wants to go to the sea), take the same characters and give them new animals and new names, and then throw in crappy animation and the biggest suck factor, possible, you get the little mermaid 2. Its basically a copy of the first movie with a reversed plot. I'll take you through the horror of it step by step. These are the people from the 1st movie: First of all, Prince Eric is still prince eric, with about 3 lines in the whole movie. Ariel is uptight, annoying, and is not the carefree, headstrong spirit we saw in the 1st. In fact, she is the exact opposite. Sebastian is still sebastian only less cute, less convincing as being stressed out, and the jokes just aren't funny anymore. Flounder has about 2 lines. He now has kids and he talks with a dumb nasal voice. Scuttle is still dumb scuttle only not funny. King Triton's character is probably the best, he still retains the intimidation and love for his daughter, Melody. Ariel and Prince Eric appear not to give a hoot about their daughter.
Like i said, all they did was use the characters from the first movie and copy them. This is what they did: Ursula- The new evil villain is Morgana, Ursula's sister who feels like she always lived in Ursula's shadow. I wouldn't be scared of her if she showed up at my doorway with a knife. She can't do anything right and she's a failure as a villain. She has the same voice ursula did. Sebastian & Flounder - Have been replaced by probably the most stupid sidekicks, Tip & Dash, a walrus and a penguin. They try to be hero's but always fail when trying. the plot is so predictable. They become heroes at the end. Yawn. Flatson& Jetsom- Now replaced by a shark who was turned about 10x smaller by triton. Hes really bad too. Morgana and the shark (sharkbait, I think was his name) have no chemistry, good or bad. Ariel-Ah, Ariel. Our lovely mermaid was replaced by her un-lovely daughter, melody. Melody cannot sing, her voice is about 2 octaves higher than it should be, and you want to punch her in the face because shes so fake sugary sweet. She wants to go to the sea, she is clumsy and the kids make fun of her, she has to go find herself. yawn.
Not only is the movie boring and unoriginal its so simplistic when you watch this movie you will gasp at how bad it is. Certain parts of the movie make you want to call Disney up and demand why such a horrible movie was made as a sequel to such a wonderful original.
Basically, comparing the little mermaid 2 to the little mermaid is like comparing and Ed Wood movie to Casablanca. Don't ever watch this, not even when your bored.
\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 wasn't good. The characters were underdeveloped and the only personality were from the memories I had of the previous movie which contrasted with the 'new' personalities (or lack thereof). I seriously thought the opening scene was a nightmare by Ariel because of how absurd it was. It was serious. It just reminded me of all the annoying characters on the Disney channel-everyone is hyperactive and the story jumps from action to embarrassing scenes without any really connection.
The most disappointing part was the horrible songs-not catchy, not amazing. In the original Ariel had an amazing and powerful voice and all the song are catchy and fun. You remember them and want to sing them. But the songs in this movie weren't creative in the least; it's as if they're talking in a annoying sing-song voice-quite weakly, disappointing. I don't have that want-to-sing-them feeling you normally get from a Disney movie.
It's as if not one wanted to do this movie, so they barely made an effort . . . this movie would needs a new story line, new catchy songs and more warmth and enthusiasm without the annoying \"look at me! look at me! I'm so annoying!\" mentality of this generation of Disney. :'(
\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\nDisney has yet to meet a movie it couldn't make at least two sequels about. And this one was no exception to the people at Disney to give a weak story to receive a quick reward. Somehow, although I did not pay to view it, I feel cheapened by watching it.
Ariel is grown up now and had a daughter. Yet doesn't allow the daughter to go into the sea because of some idle threat made by the sister of the deceased sea-witch. So here we go again.
The daughter is tricked (of course) and helps the sea-witch. After a not-so-glorious battle, she is defeated and the mermaids and humans live in harmony. Yawn.
There is nothing to view here. Go back to your lives. \"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\nSince the Little Mermaid was one of my favorite Disney movies when I was little, I was curious about its sequel.
The Little Mermaid(one) is a classic animated feature with top quality everything, a grand music score, and targets a general audience. In contrast, the Little Mermaid 2 is targeted primarily at young children, because it is spontaneous, reflects a child's self perspective, the music is bouncier and less dramatic, and the ending feels like recess.
The Little Mermaid 2 starts out when baby Melody is presented to Ariel's side of the family. Abruptly without any visual cues to aid the drama, a giant tentacle grabs the baby. I laughed, wait a minute it's not funny, the baby's being attacked! Okay, I'll stop laughing. Morgana's crime in broad daylight and her spontaneity, takes away potential drama since it happened so quickly.
Throughout the feature, Melody seems superhuman, which I defend is how most children envision themselves. This quality in Melody's character is clearly brought out toward the end when she fights Morgana without an inch of fear on her face.
Like the first movie, Melody has a lot of Ariel's problems, except the reverse. Queen Ariel turns out to be like her father by restricting her from the ocean, whereas King Triton restricted Ariel from the surface. Ariel and Melody both rebel against their parent.
The music is more emotionally moving in the first. This sequel has a bunch of songs, but not as much orchestral work went into it. It's great for little ones, because it doesn't take an orchestra to impress them.
The ending in the first movie was strong and uplifting. The sequel ends with a bouncy song and everyone playing in the water. It's definitely more targeted at kids, because instead of the ending being solemn and leaving you blown away, this ending leaves you thinking, \"It's time for recess!\" Ultimately, this movie is fun for kids, so we should let them have fun.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt was nice to see all the familiar characters again, but the story bothered me. We loved Ariel in the first movie- so why is the second one centered around her daughter? The new characters were annoying and I didn't like the plot of this. Worst of all, Christopher Daniel Barnes didn't come back as the voice of Eric! Disney, please stop remaking classic movies with these shoddy imitations.
\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, as a long time Disney fan, I really -hate- direct-to-video Disney sequels. Walt HIMSELF didn't believe in them. He believed in \"AND THEY LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER\" being the end of it. But this one...REALLY ticked the taco. There were so many ripoffs of other Disney films in this, it wasn't funny. Quick summary, if you don't already know...: Melody, the daughter of Ariel and Prince Eric, is born. Ursula's sister, Morganna (who basically looks like Ursula, if she were to dye herself green and go on the Ally Macbeal starvation diet) shows up and, after trying to do the newborn tyke in, and failing, prophesizes doom for the characters. After that ordeal, Ariel goes into a lapse of being like her father, and refuses to tell Melody about her mermaid heritage, and later on, forbids her to go near the sea. Well surprise surprise. Melody finds out, being the stubborn brat she is, and runs away, then makes a deal with Morgana to become a mermaid, in exchange for something. (Gee does THAT sound familiar?) She becomes one, but in her half of the bargain, has to retrieve her granddaddy's Trident and bring it back to the sea witch. While doing THIS, she runs into a couple of outcast animals, a penguin and a walrus named Timon and Pumb--huh? wait...no! that's not Timon and Pumbaa! or is it? Could of fooled me. Anyway, i'd like to reveal more, but pretty much anything that could be guessed to happen does. OK so...long story short. This movie \"borrows\" too much from other (better) Disney films...and does it horribly. Come on...Tip and Dash? Why not just make Dash obscenely flatulent and make it an even more obvious ripoff! Ugh. Not to mention, the total character butchery of Ariel's persona. She's gone from being a freespirited, headstrong woman, to a clone of her father. Not good at all...they're basically telling us the sweet, firey little mermaid we've known to grow and love is dead. Plus Melody herself isn't such a great character either...she's damned annoying! And bratty! Not to mention what they've done to Flounder. Ugh...anyway if you decide to see this piece of created-mainly-for-profit-reasons, no-imagination, Eisner-sponsored c******t, I suggest maybe waiting 'till its on the Disney channel or some other tv station. Because, it's not even worth the price of a rental.
* out of ***** 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\nI'll say it again: this movie was totally lame. Kids will like it, sure, but adults...doubtful. The whole thing was basically a rehash of the original, which is to be expected, since they pretty much explored the whole concept in the first movie, but still, did they have to completely rehash the entire movie? I mean, everything is re-done from the Little Mermaid. The worst part of it is Morgana \"Ursula's crazy sister\" who appears out of nowhere and threatens Melody, which is ridiculous since Triton is there with his magic trident. Why didn't Triton do anything about it? Because the plot required him to do nothing. I could go on, but I won't. The whole thing is a shameless attempt to rake in more money from the Little Mermaid, and was obviously thrown together without any thought, because they knew it would sell. Overall it is a terrible waste of time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI loved the first Little Mermaid. I know the songs, I love the characters and I love the story. I can't say anything like that about The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea. It was terrible. Let's start with the story. The plot was a reversed copy of the first movie. Same situations, except in reverse! Ariel wanted to live on land, her daughter Melody (creative name) wants to live in the sea. Ariel was tricked by Ursula, Melody is tricked by Ursula's sister, Morgana. Ursula had a sister?? Not sure where that came from. Besides being a strange copy of the first movie, this movies plot seemed tired and was uninteresting compared to the first movie. Now the characters: 1. Ariel- What happened to her??!! No longer the spunky, headstrong teenager we all knew and loved from the first movie, she has now \"grown up\" and her personality went down the drain. Her singing voice wasn't as strong either, due to either Jodi Benson being a lot older, or the songs being so terrible that her talent was wasted. 2. Prince Eric- While he didn't have a lot of personality in the first movie, like all Disney princes, somehow his new voice and his very few lines made him even more robotic. To top it off, he just can't seem to defend himself, and Ariel becomes the tough one of the two. 3. Sebastian- Say goodbye to the lovable crustacean from the first movie, because a whiny, aggravating little crab just took his place. He also had no good songs in this movie. You can almost forget the glory he earned from singing the incredible \"Under the Sea\" and \"Kiss the Girl\" from the first movie, and it is very sad. 4. Flounder- They destroyed him!! He is not cute anymore, his voice is terrible, and he has kids now?? Who's the mother??? 5. Morgana- She appears to be Ursula's sister out for revenge against her mother, who always picked Ursula over her. So she plans to get King Triton's trident to become the new ruler of the sea. Sound familiar? Anyway, she's a very cliché villain and falls short of Ursula's greatness as a villain. She epically fails at witchcraft, she's not very tough, and not threatening at all. 6.Melody- Ariel and Eric's daughter. Ironic name because she, unlike Ariel, can't sing. Her voice is annoying, her friends (a walrus and a penguin?? Really?!) are not funny or likable, and she's exactly the same as Ariel, in reverse and not as likable. Skip this one. Don't watch any Disney sequel except for Lion King 2. This movie butchered the classic that lives in all our pleasant memories. I will look back at this movie and just laugh.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI had such high hopes for this film because I loved the original so much. It seems that Disney, however, is trying to perfect the art of crappy straight-to-DVD sequels. They deserve a razzie. Several, in fact. I thought the idea had merit, but the music was absolutely awful and the story wasn't much better. What happened to the great music Disney used to have in their films. Mary Poppins, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King...even Hercules and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. They've made so many great movies over the years that it's really sad that they've sunk to point of making sequels that aren't even good enough to put in theatres.
I hope this movie is not an indication of things to come for the Walt Disney Corporation.
\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\nThough I've yet to review the movie in about two years, I remember exactly what made my opinion go as low as it did. Having loved the original Little Mermaid, and having been obsessed with mermaids as a child could be, I decided I'd take the time to sit down and watch the sequel.
Disney, I've got a little message for you. If you don't have the original director and actors handy...you're just looking to get your butt whooped.
In the sequel, our story begins with a slightly older Ariel and her daughter, Melody. My first big issue was that Eric and the rest of the crew sang. Yes, I understand that Disney is big on sing-and-dance numbers, but really, that's what made Eric my favorite prince. He was calm, collected, and a genuine gentleman that knew how to have fun. And he DID. NOT. SING.
And then there's the villain. Oh, how could we forget the shivers that coursed down our spines whenever Ursula slunk onto the screen, terrifying both Ariel and audiences around the world? Unfortunately, that gene was not passed on to her seemingly useless sister, Morgana. Nothing was ever, EVER said about Morgana in the first movie; she just pops out of nowhere, trying to steal the baby. Oh, how cute. The younger sister is ticked off and instead of going after the trident, decides to kidnap a month-old baby. Gag me.
Other than being a flat character with no sense of originality in her, Morgana was just very unorthodox. The same plan as her sister, the same minions (who, by the way, did not scare anyone. I had a three year old on my lap when I watched this movie, and she laughed hysterically.) She had no purpose being in there; I'd like to have seen Mom be the villain. I'm sure she would have done a better job than Little Miss Tish over there.
King Triton held none of the respect he'd earned from me in the first movie, and don't even get me started on Scuttle, Sebastian and Flounder. Triton was a stern but loving father in the first movie, and in the second, it's almost like he's lost his will to knock fear into the hearts of his subjects. Scuttle, once a comic relief that made everyone laugh with his 'dingle-hopper' (yes, I'll admit it; I did call my fork a dingle-hopper from time to time after that). In this film, Scuttle's all but forgotten. A supporting character even in the first, he at least added something to the movie. He was rich with a flavor the others didn't have, and in the sequel, they all but stripped it from him entirely. Sebastian was still the same, but twice as worrisome as before. Disney, don't do that. Don't even try to mess with our favorite crab. Or our favorite little fat fish, who becomes a dad and has a multitude of very annoying children. He's fat, and he's bland, and he looks like he's going to flat line any second.
The walrus and penguin were unneeded, and after a while, you just start to resent everyone. Especially Melody, who has no depth to her whatsoever.
And one of these days, Disney, I'm kicking out of my life.
If I didn't love your originals so much.
\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 was the first sequel I'd seen (apart from Return of Jafar) and I honestly thought before watching it that it would be close to the original. I was horribly disappointed.
The storyline was, basically, the first script with a few extra characters and the situation turned around. Ariel and Eric have a daughter, Melody who isn't satisfied with life on land. She wants to become a mermaid. However, Ariel has kept her past from her daughter because she wants to protect her-and when Melody finds out she's upset and angry. And she then decides to run away, and she becomes a mermaid. So she's happy swimming around, and Ariel sets out to find her-as a mermaid.
The story doesn't sound too bad written down, but the clichés and repeats of situations from the first movie are just too obvious. And adding the fact that Melody is, overall, extremely annoying, and the movie becomes almost unbearable.
There's also a whole load of other new characters-Tip and Dash being two of them. They aren't too bad as characters in themselves-just try not to think of Timon or Pumbaa! The songs leave a lot to be desired too, they just don't have the same magical energy as the songs from the original did. The animation obviously didn't have a whole load of work put into it either-in parts it's jumpy, and not much imagination is used for the characters movements.
Another piece of advice-try to forget about Ariel's original character while watching this movie. The beautiful, rebellious, curious teenager has 'all grown up' into a bland, boring wife and mother, and her trademark red hair is all tied up. This is much better viewed if you've never seen the original-you'll have nothing to compare it to.
However, all in all, it could have been worse-it's not as bad as certain other sequels, such as Cinderella II. But it's not in the same league as the original. But it for your collection if nothing else but if Disney go on like this they'll lose all their older fans.
\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 child the first installment (\"The Little Mermaid\") was my favorite movie. It was filled with great characters, songs, and a fun family film. A week or so again I watched this movie for the first time. I believe that this movie was like most sequels and didn't surpass their original. I think that I feel this way possibly because I had high expectations and I have grown up. However, it is not a bad film.
It starts when Ariel has just given birth to a beautiful child, Melody. Eric and Ariel feel threatened by Morgana (Eurselas' sister), so they build a large wall around their house which lies on the sea. As Melody grows up she begins to wonder outside of the walls where she is forbidden to go. Trouble stirs up as Morgana tries to take control of the seven seas.
I don't want to give away any of the movie so you have to see it to find out. I did like that the voices are the same and again wonderful singing. I think this is a good family film though overall!
\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 Little Mermaid is one of my absolute favorite Disney movies. I'm sorry to say, however, that Disney completely messed up when they made this sequel. I'll admit it has some good points to it. The songs aren't bad, and the animation is clean and clear. There is some humor, I'm sure--I don't remember, because after watching it I immediately banned it from appearing before my eyes again. The worst point of this movie is the plot. In this movie, Ariel becomes her father. She forbids her daughter to go near the sea (yes, out of fear), just as she was forbidden to go near the land. I personally think that, given her past, Ariel would maintain some of her headstrong ways and not treat her daughter like she herself was treated.
Besides this fact, Ursula was replaced by a non-scary, pathetic sort of sea witch (the underfed, forgotten sister) who is more comical than scary. She, too, has some little underling to do her bidding--but she's not scarier or worse than Ursula. Ursula spoiled us with her believability for badness. This sea witch is a joke.
To make matters worse, Flounder is a fat, deep-voiced father (no longer the cute guppy we all know and love) and Eric's voice is not even done by the same actor (something that always annoys me in a remake/sequel). (His voice difference was very obvious to me, by the way!) I felt that the only reason this movie was made was so that Disney could catch a few fast dollars, something I hate to think about a corporation I actually really do enjoy. I felt that this plot lacked imagination. I know that this act (child following in the footsteps of a parent) happens, but Ariel was different. That was what we loved so much about her. She had a dream, she fell in love, and she made that dream come true. Until she appeared in this movie, that is. Then she became just like the other adults. This isn't the Ariel I know. And I don't like her.
I know of some children who have enjoyed this film, and I know some adults who didn't mind it, either. But for me, and for all of you out there who have the utmost love for Ariel, please don't see this movie. The Ariel we know dies within, resurrected only for a song or two and one final scene that actually isn't bad (where she accepts the water back again)--although she takes very little part in the ending, regardless.
\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 a movie that is bad in every imaginable way. Sure we like to know what happened 12 years from the last movie, and it works on some level. But the new characters are just not interesting. Baby Melody is hideously horrible! Alas, while the logic that humans can't stay underwater forever is maintained, other basic physical logic are ignored. It's chilly if you don't have cold weather garments if you're in the Arctic. I don't know why most comments here Return of Jafar rates worse, I thought this one is more horrible.
\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\nDisney goes to the well one too many times as anybody who has seen the original LITTLE MERMAID will feel blatantly ripped off. Celebrating the birth of their daughter Melody, Ariel and Eric plan on introducing her to King Triton. The celebration is quickly crashed by Ursula 's sister, Morgana who plans to use Melody as a defense tool to get the King 's trident. Stopping the attack, Ariel and Eric build a wall around the ocean while Melody grows up wondering why she cannot go in there.
Awful and terrible is what describes this direct to video sequel. LITTLE MERMAID 2 gives you that feeling everything you watch seemed to have come straight other Disney movies. I guess Disney can only plagiarize itself! Do not tell me that the penguin and walrus does not remind you of another duo from the LION KING!
Other disappointing moments include the rematch between Sebastien and Louie, the royal chef. They terribly under played it! The climax between Morgana and EVERYONE seemed to be another disappointment.
I will not give anything away, but in 75 minutes, everything seemed incredibly cramped and too much to handle. An embarrassment to Disney, LITTLE MERMAID 2 is better left to rent and laugh at. Then you can prepare for the rest of the other sequels Disney is going to drown you in later 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\nWhen I was younger, I thought the first film was really good in childhood, so I decided to see the sequel. This is an example of why some films shouldn't have sequels, because the first film is usually best, and it is. Basically now that Ariel and Eric are married they have a daughter who isn't allowed outside the house because they are worried about the sister of Ursula (the octopus legged villain from film one), Morgana getting to her. When the kid gets out she asks Ursula's sister to turn her into a mermaid, like her Mum was. This makes Ariel go back to the sea to find her. The same good voice artists, it's just the story that could have had a bit more thought. Adequate!
\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's a good thing The Score came along for Marlon Brando as a farewell performance because I'd hate to think of him going out on Free Money. Not what his fans ought to remember him by.
Brando in his last years is looking more like Orson Welles and Free Money is the kind of film Welles would have done looking for financing of his own work. Brando is the warden of a local prison which in America, when it's located in a small rural setting is usually the largest employer in the area. That gives one who is in charge a lot of clout.
Unfortunately he has one weakness he indulges, his two twin bimbos otherwise known as daughters. Even when they get simultaneously pregnant by a pair of losers, Charlie Sheen and Thomas Haden Church, their hearts still belong to Daddy.
Not to fear because Brando's willing to give them jobs in the prison where they work under conditions not much better than the convicts have. What to do, but commit a robbery of a train which goes through the locality every so often carrying used money to be burned by the Treasury.
Although Free Money has some moments of humor, for most of the time it's quite beneath the talents of all those involved. Some of them would include Donald Sutherland as an equally corrupt judge and Mira Sorvino as his stepdaughter, but also straight arrow FBI agent.
Of course these people and the rest of the cast got to work with someone who many rate as the greatest American actor of the last century. Were it not for Brando's presence and were it some 40 years earlier, Free Money would be playing the drive-in circuit in red state America where the populace could see how they're being satirized.
Or a feeble attempt is made to satirize 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\nI still can't believe this movie. They got so much unbelievable things in it, that it's hard to believe anyone wanted to make it.
The story is a joke, but in the sense of being funny, but more like no story at all. How can you mix a slapstick comedy with a train robbery, a prison movie, town conspiracies, sex-jokes and a FBI-agent? You can't.
Beside the terrifying directing the most noticeable thing are the actors. I watched this film and thought: 'Is this really Marlon Brando? No, it can't be. (5 minutes later) Is this Charlie Sheen? Wow, maybe Brando is true. (5 minutes later) This can't be Donald Sutherland. (5 minutes later) No, not Mira Sorvino. This movie is too bad for all of them. (At the end). No, no, no, this can't absolutely not be Martin Sheen!!! Not for 10 seconds of such a movie.' Then it was over and I down with my nerves. SO many good, oscar-winning, usually convincing actors in such a stupid, dumb, awful movie. I rarely wanted to know so much how they came to act in this one. They couldn't got so much money.
Only just an unbelievable silly idiotic movie.
3/10 \\ 1/4 \\ 5 (1+ - 6-)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"