empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm not a fan of the Left Behind book series - the books are written at a 6th-grade reading level with a lack of research and understanding of science, technology, and politics. While the books do manage to remain faithful to scripture, their methods of fulfilling prophecy are often ridiculous (an example is their explanation for the Russian/Arab invasion of Israel). Also, the books have an unmistakable preachy tone that will turn off unbelievers rather than bring them to the gospel. Still, I found myself reading these books because of my interest in the events of Revelation. For a similar reason, I watched this film adaptation. I am sad to say that it is a rather mediocre film bordering on poor. The acting is actually rather decent for the most part with occasional bits of poor acting and over-acting. The script is rather bad, though it is hardly unexpected when starting with the novel as a basis. The characters are poorly drawn and underdeveloped. Events feel scattered and disconnected. The dialogue sometimes sounds rushed. At least the book managed to flesh out its hokey conspiracy theory. Here, the viewer is left with an incoherent mess that only makes much sense if one has read the book. The pacing of the film is also very poorly executed with the opening and conclusion seeming extremely rushed, and the middle dragging to an excruciatingly slow trudge that makes it feel padded. The music is schizophrenic. At times, it successfully underscores the mood and sounds fitting for a motion picture. At other moments, it reminds me of sitcom and mini-series music. And still other bits remind me of a poppy MTV soundtrack that just doesn't belong in the film. I can give the film points for the scene of panic on board the plane, but that's it. The other scenes involving the disasters after the Rapture are far from compelling. The film also suffers from the book's preachiness although its message isn't quite as in your face. In all, I found the movie just as disappointing as the series. This is not the film to rally Christians around it. I hope that this film does NOT get any attention at the theaters next year. It would be more unnecessary bad publicity for Christianity. For an example of a compelling, intelligent, well-researched series based on Revelation that presents a realistic and Christian world view without offending the secular reader (who after all should be whom a Christian is trying to reach) read the Christ Clone trilogy by James BeauSeigneur. It's a great read and is a much better choice for unbelievers or believers who appreciate 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 didn't expect much from this film, but oh brother, what a stinker.
I found this gem in a giant crate of awful $5 DVD's at Walmart (where else)? As cheap as this disc was, I feel ripped off. The special effects had a high school look to them, the camera work marred by wobbly tripods and sketchy lighting and the acting was a perfect example of the 'Christian School'. One can imagine the long and exhausting 'prayer meetings' by the production company after seeing the rushes come back - the people who bankrolled this thing must have had seriously anti-biblical feelings towards the inept production company that cranked this thing out. Think of their anguish as they saw their $914.86 investment go up in smoke.
Someone asked why Christian movies are so bad - perhaps the Xian film-makers need to look at GOOD movies and attempt to copy some of the things that make them so good. Believable stories and characters, less hysterical arm-waving and fanaticism, oh, and a story that appeals to -everyone-, not just true believers. I.e. Stop The Sermon, Save It For Church. Take the Omen or Prophesy series, for example. Excellent films with compelling story lines, great cinematography and intense music. No hysterical arm-waving. No preaching.
If this film had a laugh track it would have been 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\nThis movie is maybe one of the most boring movies of 2000 that I have seen! Especially the music fails to create suspense when people suddenly disappear. Also aspects such as martial law are not treated with the necessary seriousness. The story itself has problems: the UN could never take power over the world since the United States alone would not allow it but nations such as China, Russia, Japan, etc. would not either. This would also play against someone trying to take over the world as Nicolae Carpathia does. This reminds me of James Bond movies, only that those have more action! Naturally the movie is made for Christians and only for Christians and they may enjoy it. Since I cannot count myself a Christian I find the whole idea ludicrous. This prophecy furthermore seems to be, if believed to be true, dangerously close to other prophecies by cults for the end of the world. Why fear such a possibility when we can make life as good as possible here on Earth without
\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 is it with Americans and their hang-up with religious gobbledy-gook? To think this was a best-selling novel is incredible, but to pull it off as a movie you really need good acting and a script that delivers. In this case, all the good actors have gone to heaven and we're left with Kirk Cameron as a CNN-type journalist(!) trying to discover why a lot of people have simply disappeared. Oh yeah, there's a subplot about an evil world conspiracy and famine, or something. The good news is that this is done so cheaply, and with such inane dialogue, that it has sheer entertainment value in all of its unintended laughs. Not recommended for anyone with a 3-digit IQ.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you made the mistake of seeing the movie before reading the book, please don't give up on the series. I bought my first copy of any of the books in May of this year, and already I'm almost finished with book 10. I dare say the movie is a piece of trash that doesn't do the series even a sniff of justice. While \"Left Behind: the movie\" only vaguely follows the story of the \"Left Behind\" (the book), the characters aren't even close to accurate.
A few examples: Rayford never acts on his feelings for Hattie (he is about to when he's informed of the vanishings); Buck Williams is a blonde haired, magazine writer, not a TV reporter; Chloe is at Stanford, and a lot of the book details Rayford wondering if she 'survived'; Buck and Chloe don't meet until much later, at a meeting in New York, set up by Hattie; Irene and Raymie are never 'in the book,' rather just in Rayford's flashback thoughts; the roads are so jam packed with wrecks following the rapture that Rayford and Hattie have to helicopter back to the suburbs... etc, etc, etc...
And that's just from the first movie; they're about to release the third. Please, even if you didn't like the movies, give the book series a chance.
\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\nSurprisingly enough does movie does have some redeeming quality in it when it moves toward its end. For the other part this movie is being a really bad and lame one, with a small budget, insultingly bad written script and everything that goes with it.
It's silly that with all the money going around in the Christian circles they never can seem to get sufficient funds to make a decent movie with. I'm not a religious, so I couldn't care less really but film-making does some like a good tool to reach a new audience for churches and getting people more interested and curious in reading the bible for instance. In that regard these movies always seem like a wasted opportunity.
The low budget does really hurt the movie and brings it down. It makes the movie laughable to watch with its effects and it just gives the overall movie a campy B-movie like feeling.
But what's hurting this movie more is its writing. The stuff that just happens in this movie is just insulting to the intelligence and then I'm not even complaining or talking about the religious aspects of the whole story. The way the movie progresses is just so improbable and the people within this movie do such highly unlikely things that it's being insulting to its viewers.
I also hated how the movie was being like a soap opera at times. Seemed to me that they simply had a hard time turning this into a full length movie and they added in some characters and dramatic developments just to fill things up. I just couldn't cared less really at times.
Still it needs to be said that the movie gets more solid and steady toward its end, when its story gets more focused on its essence. Still it remains predictable all but it prevented this movie from being a complete wreck to watch and as far as these type of movies are concerned, there are far worser one to watch out there, though I don't think this movie will win over any new souls.
4/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI didn't agree with any of the theology in the Left Behind series, but nonetheless I found the books gripping and I read 8 of 12 of them. Undeniably good writing and interesting story. However, I didn't have very high expectations for the movie. There was no way mainstream Hollywood would have taken up a Christian series and produced a big-budget movie. So it was done independently... and it just felt like I was watching a really long TV show. It just didn't FEEL like a movie; it didn't have that movie \"experience\" to it, if anybody knows what I'm talking about. So the movie suffered because of that, and the low-budget, poor special effects were another detraction for me.
On top of that, I feel that Gordon Currie was woefully miscast as Nicolie Carpathia. Reading the book, my impression of NC was that he was supposed to be this charming, dazzling, amazingly handsome guy who spoke English with almost zero trace of an accent. So I imagined somebody like Pierce Brosnan in the role. Instead, they found some Clay Aiken pencil-neck who looks like an employee of the month from Best Buy, and gave him a really bad fake accent. So that lost a few stars for me right there. A movie is just not convincing when the major villain doesn't look or sound the way he's supposed to.
The acting was okay, but nothing to write home about. Some of the scenes - like one of the conversion scenes (can't remember which one) - were real seat-squirmers for me. And some of the Christian rock music or whatever it was, was really out of place for some of the scenes, like in the one with Kirk Cameron praying in the bathroom.
In short, it wasn't a bad movie, but it just didn't do it for me. Stick to the book, folks, it's 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\nThis is a classic stinker with a big named cast, mostly seniors who were well past their prime and bedtime in this one.
This is quite a depressing film when you think about it. Remain on earth, and you will face illness and eventually your demise.
Gwen Verndon showed that she could still dance. Too bad the movie didn't concentrate more on that. Maureen Stapleton, looking haggard, still displayed those steps from \"Queen of the Star Dust Ballroom,\" so much more down to earth from 10 years earlier.
I only hope that this film doesn't encourage seniors to commit mass suicide on the level of Jim Jones. How can anyone be idiotic enough to like this and say it gets you to think?
Why did Don Ameche win an Oscar for this nonsense?
If the seniors were doing such a wonderful thing at the end, why was the youngster encouraged to get off the boat? Why did Steve Guttenberg jump ship as well? After all, he had found his lady-love.
This would have been a nice film if the seniors had just managed to find their fountain of youth on earth and stay there.
Sadly, with the exception of Wilford Brimley, at this writing, Vernon, Gilford, Stapleton, Ameche, Tandy, Cronyn and lord knows who else are all gone. The writers should have taken the screenplay and placed it with this group as well.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe best thing about camp films in general is that you know what to expect. It's like watching a professional wrestling match or a day time soap opera or a Jerry Springer show: you immediately can follow the skimpy plot, identify the cardboard characters, and watch in satisfaction while all the cliches are being fulfilled. However, at times, the director does something real unexpected. It may be something extraordinarily stupid, or something weird, or something insightful. The director Makinen is up there with the best camp directors, and this is his best movie.
In Yon saalistajat, everything seems to come together. There's nothing good about it, but still manages to be a coherent whole. Not once does the movie slow down - the action flows on and punches keep on coming.
The weirdest thing is that there's no sense of time: some characters seem to take months doing something while other characters have only spent one hour at a bar. This is partially due to Finnish summer where the sun never sets, so you don't experience the day turning into a night at all.
Finally: there is a plot, there, somewhere. You may have to watch the movie three times before you realize it, though.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSundown - featuring the weakest, dorkiest vampires ever seen, accompanied by one of the most unfitting, pretentious scores ever written - and with Shane the vampire, who's every move and spoken word was so ridiculous that I burst out laughing half the times and rolled my eyes the rest.
The vampires don't seem to have any special powers at all - except for strength (sometimes), being able to switch off a lamp with their mind (one time) and... that's it, really. Ever imagine count Dracula worriedly recoiling from a fight 'cause he ran out of bullets? Neither did I. Practically any other movie-Dracula would eat this one for breakfast, skin his followers and use their bones as toothpicks.
The main plot of the movie is that a human family of four gets caught up in a vampire gang fight - Dracula's vs. some old geezer's. It could have been some good old B-flick fun, but the overly dramatic music was clearly written by someone who took this movie a bit too seriously, and ends up ruining the remaining part of the movie not already ruined by clay bats, mediocre acting and the laughable screenplay.
In the end it's just too silly to be funny. Sure, it has some amusing moments, but they're few, and far apart.
\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\"Sundown:The Vampire in Retreat\" is a rubbish.The acting is terrible,the atmosphere is non-existent and the characters are uninteresting.The only scary thing about this piece of scum is that majority of the IMDb users gave it a 10.This is really horrifying.No gore,no suspense,no violence,nothing.Bruce Cambell(\"The Evil Dead\",\"Intruder\")is completely wasted,the supporting cast is also terrible.Yes,some people may like this picture,especially a mainstream society but hard-core horror fans or gore-hounds won't enjoy this piece of crap.Personally I hate horror comedies,I prefer watching serious horror movies like \"Cannibal Holocaust\" or \"Last House on the Left\".In my opinion,a real horror movie is supposed to be scary,excessively bloody and disturbing,without stupid humour,which usually ruins the whole concept.This one isn't scary,isn't gory,isn't even funny as a comedy,so don't waste your precious 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\nThis may sound crazy to even the people who remember this show...But I remembered this as being live-action. I don't think I ever saw the cartoon. but movie? maybe. I remember it very clearly. The guy was in a building kinda like a showroom. He even had the red jacket. It was dark out and he turned into a red car and there was this guy on the second level looking down at him. The car/guy spun around and crashed through the big showroom type window and out onto the street. And then proceeded to drive off. That is all I remember. I really hope someone else out there remembers this too. If not, Maybe I'm still crazy. But I'm hoping I'm not.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've always thought that most huge box-office flops usually have something to recommend them, but after the remake of Around the World in 80 Days and Thunderbirds, I'm beginning to doubt it. For those not familiar, it's based on a puppet show about a family of astronauts who use state of the art rockets, spaceships and subs to rescue people from various disasters (falling bridges, stricken planes, burning buildings, etc) each week. Well, the puppets are gone (replaced by far more lifeless teenagers), and so is the premise - only one ineptly staged rescue and a plot shamelessly ripped off from Spy Kids without any signs of imagination, wit or entertainment. Young Alan Tracey feels left out of all the rescuing we never see the other Traceys do because dad won't let him play with a real rocket until he passes his exams. Grounded on a beautiful tropical island (some punishment!), his chance to shine comes when the rest of the family - a bunch of identikit bleach-blondes who look like a gay neo-Nazi boy band without a single bit of characterisation between them - are stranded in space and he has to have the day by, er, running around the jungle, making a phone call, firing a hose at the inept comedy relief villains and dousing them in gunk for bad measure.
The good points are few and far between. One of them is that the film is mostly in focus. The other is they all got to go to the Seychelles, which looks nice.
The bad points: where to start? Ben Kingsley's career lowpoint performance? The aforementioned inept comedy relief sidekicks who would disgrace the Children's Film Foundation at its worst? The almost complete lack of action or effects in a $70m sci-fi film? The terrible script, the lifeless direction, the odious moralising? But most of all is the fact that the film is so patronising in every possible way. Forget the life lessons and off the peg sentiment, this is a movie aimed straight at the under-eights by people who know they're making a kid's movie and are constantly talking down to their intended audience, throwing in fifth-rate jokes and routines that would insult most children who had only recently mastered the art of speech. This film could replace being sent to bed early without their dinner as parents' favourite punishment for kids.
The biggest flop in British film history (it didn't even cover the cost of prints and marketing), it's just about watchable if only as an object lesson in how NOT to make a summer 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\nThe basic formula for the original series was; take someone, get the audience to like them, then put them into Mortal danger. This formula worked for the 32 episodes made between 1964-68.
Now, we jump forward 40 years to 2004.. We are introduced to Alan Tracy, a somewhat less-than-diligent college school kid, with his friend, Fermat, a young know-it-all. They are whisked off by Lady Penelope in her pink Ford Thunderbird to the island paradise where the Tracy Family live, for the school holidays. Almost immediately, they are left in the care of Kyrano and his daughter, Tin-Tin whilst the adults go to rescue John from Thunderbird 5 which has been damaged by a staged accident. This is all part of The Hood's scheme to take over Tracy Island so that he can steal the Thunderbird machines ...
To rob a bank!
Yes. The plot IS as limp as that!
The dialogue is banal, the acting more wooden than that of the (fibreglass) puppets, the effects, anything but special and Hans Zimmer's score? What little there was of Barry Gray's glorious theme shone through Zimmer's lackluster orchestration. The rest of the score was eminently forgettable. In fact, part of the score was broadcast the following week on the radio and didn't recognise it! I didn't even bother to stay to witness Busted's mediocre efforts with the end titles
To be fair, Ron Cook worked quite well as Parker, he and Sophia Myles as Penelope seemed wasted. With the right material, they could have been show stoppers. The CGI work was what I would have called leading edge - 5 years ago.
The Dynamics of the main craft were just wrong; The original series models at least moved as if they had mass
Another sore point is that the whole production seemed to be one long set of product placements, from every vehicle being built by Ford to the entire content of the Tracy Freezer being produced by Ben & Jerry's.
My son (9) enjoyed the film but this cross between Spy Kids and 'Clockstoppers', aimed squarely at his age group, added nothing to the Thunderbirds legend. When Star Trek hit the big screen in 1979 with 'The Motion Picture', a whole new lease of life was breathed into the franchise which then continued for another 20 years or so. With this film, Frakes has missed a golden opportunity to do the same with the Thunderbirds franchise.
I predict that this film, like 'The Avengers' and 'the Saint' before it, will sink into obscurity within 6 months, leaving the original series to its 'classic' status.
\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'Thunderbirds' was an immensely popular Sixties show that has transcended the years and generations to the point it is still as popular now, with both adults and children alike, as it was in its heyday. So, one would deduce the chance to produce a live-action feature film with a million pound Hollywood budget was an excellent opportunity to revive the series as has been done with 'Spider-Man' and 'The X-Men'. But a terrible storyline and bland acting obliterated this opportunity and it was soon apparent all that was destined for this film was a trip to the bargain bin of the kiddies' section.
Instead of a film focusing on the five Tracey sons, their father and trusty geek Brain striving to rescue people and protect the world from villains, our hero in this drudge is a malcontent and bratty thirteen-year-old Alan Tracey, fourteen-year-old Tin-tin and ten-year-old brain-box Fermat, son of Brains (yes, Brains' son despite this being a man who could surely never score a woman if he tried; maybe he grew the kid in a petri dish). As one can tell from a run-through of our three lead characters, this 2004 remake 'Thunderbirds' was clearly aimed at entertaining only children under twelve instead of trying to appeal to a broad age-range as those involved in the much superior revival of 'Spider-Man' did. The plot itself was so bland with clunky, awkward dialogue and weak jokes that probably wouldn't amuse brighter pre-teens. The scriptwriter seemed more interested in ripping off 'Spy Kids' (which was at least quirky and original) instead of remaking the show people know and love.
Although Sophia Myles and Ron Cook were excellent as Miss Penelope and Parker, they only had about three lines between them so their presence was barely felt. Bill Paxton's Jeff Tracey was just boring and there was only the slightest of mention of the other four Tracey boys while Anthony Edwards and Ben Kingsley, as Brains and the Hood respectively, were just embarrassing. The Hood, in particular, is not at all threatening or sinister and instead comes across as a campy, two-bit stereotypical villain as limp as a piece of rotting lettuce.
Brady Corbet, who plays Alan Tracey, may well be a good young actor but it was hard to see that in a film where he plays a whinging brat who just grates and the same goes for Vanessa Anne Hutchinson as Tin-tin since the most she gets to do is look pretty and be all for 'Girl Power'. Ironically, it is young Soren Fulton's Fermat who is the only interesting character of the film as Fulton delivers a natural and relaxed performance.
'Thunderbirds' the series will be forever remembered as an excellent show that proves puppets can give solid performances! 'Thunderbirds' the film will be forgotten by most and remembered by a few as one big flop.
\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 truly awful film. What they have done is taken a TV show, which was never aimed at young children & given it the George Lucas treatment (i.e. ruined it by kiddifying it to appeal to the younger audience).
OK so the Thunderbirds TV show wasn't exactly the most cerebral of shows, in fact it was pretty formulaic, but it was always enjoyable to watch (especially when the models got blown up) and the voice cast wasn't too bad.
This suffers from bad casting & bad acting (with the notable exceptions of Sophia Myles as Lady Penelope & Ron Cook as Parker, who seem to be the only cast members to have a clue about how their characters should be played) & after this travesty I wouldn't let Frakes direct traffic.
The whole point of Thunderbirds was that it was about the whole Tracy family & how they worked as a team, preventing disasters or coming to the rescue of those involved in disasters.
Avoid this rubbish like the plague.
I only give it 1 out of 10 because a zero rating is not supported.
\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\nOK..this movie could have been soooo good! All generations have been exposed to Thunderbirds and have come to love it and this film had some of the features one would look for in a good thunderbirds movie. The craft themselves and Tracey Island were realistically transferred to the big screen, whilst still keeping to the designs we fell in love with. Sophia Miles was, simply, fantastic, as Lady P and Bill Paxton, whilst not exactly who I envisaged Jeff Tracey being, was solid enough...but then the adults were taken out of the equation and we were asked to believe 8 year olds could fly 200 tonne machines.
It's not so much the fact that the movie was centred around the children that made me feel like Jonathon Frakes was slapping me with a wet fish and laughing at my hard earned money spent on the film, it was the fact that Alan Tracey was so obnoxious in the film and that he seemed to be as able to fly the machines as well as his brothers...who were at least 19/20. Seriously, these are some pretty damn simple machines to use if this is the case.
The film didn't seem to know whether it wanted to be serious or farcical. It tried to pay homage whilst satirising and it just generally fell flat on its face. 3/10 (2 for the machines, 1 for Lady P)
\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 (b. 1965) watching and loving the Thunderbirds. All my mates at school watched. We played \"Thunderbirds\" before school, during lunch and after school. We all wanted to be Virgil or Scott. No one wanted to be Alan. Counting down from 5 became an art form. I took my children to see the movie hoping they would get a glimpse of what I loved as a child. How bitterly disappointing. The only high point was the snappy theme tune. Not that it could compare with the original score of the Thunderbirds. Thankfully early Saturday mornings one television channel still plays reruns of the series Gerry Anderson and his wife created. Jonatha Frakes should hand in his directors chair, his version was completely hopeless. A waste of film. Utter rubbish. A CGI remake may be acceptable but replacing marionettes with Homo sapiens subsp. sapiens was a huge error of judgment.
\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 most embarrassing moment in this film is when Brady Corbet says 'You've blossomed', near the end the film. I practically died. I'm still not really sure why the screenwriters put that line in there. Was it supposed to create romance? Because it nearly made me sick.
The rest of the script was almost as bad.
I've never liked the original Thunderbirds, but a Thunderbirds movie had the potential to do so much. This movie doesn't. If it didn't have the big draw card of the Thunderbirds brand, it would have been shafted straight to TV, or canned in the post-production. Maybe even before.
Like I said, the best thing about the movie is when the credits roll up and they play Busted's song 'Thunderbirds are go'. I can't believe I wasted $7 watching this through pay-per-view.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nba ba ba boring...... this is next to battlefield earth in science fiction slumberness. genie francis (aka general hospital's laura) has a small role as a reporter and that in itself should tell you that this movie must be bad.... there is ben kingsley (an academy award winning actor) in this stinker and a few others decent actors. You have to wonder what possessed them to decide to do this awful movie. The music dramatically goes up and down like it's a major dramatic story. Even if you pay attention the plot is impossible to follow. The effects are mediocre as well and seem really dated. All of the actors speak in a monotone voice and have no realism to their dialogue. I could go on and on on how this is a bad movie. At least with Battlefield Earth it's so bad it's funny but this is just b o r i n g. Avoid unless you want to be lulled to sleep.
\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 haven't gotten to see all of this; it's running on cable right now, and I seem to keep coming in on the middle of it. My main reason for being interested in it is that I'm a Bill Paxton fan; he's a pretty good actor, and has turned in consistently good work over the course of his career.
The other thing is that, while never really a fan of the old series, I kinda liked Thunderbirds for the ships and effect work. Derek Meddings was quite possibly the best in the business during the sixties and seventies, and his designs for the International Rescue craft are wonderful. The current team has done a fine job of translating his work to the big screen.
BUT...
This is one lame story. The kids are asked to drive it, and while they do an okay job, it's hard to suspend your disbelief, especially when you have Brains' eight-year-old son flying T2, an enormous multi-ton transport with all the aerodynamics of a Buick. Everywhere you look, you see a Ford logo. Product placement is way over the top here, and it's annoying. Ben Kingsley does an good job as The Hood, but he can only do so much with a one-dimensional role. If you can accept the film on its very slim merits, Thunderbirds is a fun, enjoyable ride. Just don't look too closely at the machinery that drives it.
ADDENDUM: I finally got to see all of this, and it's worse than I thought. The acting is fairly uniformly poor, and while the effects are fairly good, the story on multiple viewings has gotten cheesier. The overdone product placement for Ford is annoying, and the kids as central characters grate on my remaining nerves. As with The Avengers, if you ignore the source material, it's bearable. But not very. Watch the original show, and you'll see what I mean.
And a word of advice to Jon Frakes. Take a refresher course at the Director's Guild. You can do better than this, old friend.
Another footnote...
I saw this again. Last night. On Telemundo. Dubbed in Spanish, with cheesy comedy sound effects. And yes, I came in roughly in the middle, with Ben, Ron and Sophia in their fight scene on Tracy Island.
I didn't think it was possible for an already lame movie to be worse, but it was. It was embarrassingly bad.
If this had been done straight, no kids-to-the-rescue, no tongue-in-cheek jokes, it might have worked. As it is, it's just another beloved childhood joy that's been ruined.
\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 payed £3.50 to go see this movie at the cinema. Cant believe i wasted my time. The acting is cringe worthy at best and the special effects are crude. Probarly the worst script in history some extremely embarrassing quotes i have ever heard in my life. I swear to god 'swept away' is better than this. Madonna should of won and Oscar compared to these guys. An hour and a half of my life i want back. Honestly people don't see this, even toddler would find this movie an insult to their intelligence. i found this movie very strange in the fact that it was hard to tell who is more wooden, theses guys here of the actual puppets. pleas guys don't waste your time on this movie you will live to regret it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe original Thunderbirds earned a place in TV history. It was, and still is, much beloved - indeed, the entire first 10 minutes of the Wallace and Gromit movie (the Wererabbit) is a direct lift of Thunderbirds, down to a direct replay of the original Thunderbird 2 launching sequence (if you don't believe me, get the movie, and then get a copy of the original episode where Thunderbird 2 is launched).
This movie was a crass attempt at making a kids' movie - when the original was loved and enjoyed by kids and adults alike! In the original, the Thunderbirds spent all of their time rescuing people who were often trapped when Mother Nature or Technology went horrible wrong (yes, there was also the occasional criminal act). The Thunderbirds put their own lives and resources at risk for no reward - the very essence of heroism and selflessness. There was little physical violence. The Thunderbirds challenged the imagination to a degree - how many of us would dream of someday building a Thunderbird 2? And don't underestimate the power of entertainment to do this - many Japanese attribute their fascination with humanoid robots to the old Astroboy cartoon.
But this movie was a poor re-image of the original. This movie came across as a meld between Thunderbirds and Loony Tunes - I mean, we have Anthony Edwards as Brain imitating Porky Pig's stuttering????? Much of the action consists of Kung Fu/Power Rangers type fighting. Indeed, there were funny sound effects when someone got nailed on the head with a frying pan. The tech that fired our imagination was absent - instead we have these kids running around, using a plot device that was NEVER in the original series (having the entire team take off at once, leaving the base occupied by the kids and Brain). Then there was a dose of \"Use the Force Luke\" mysticism thrown in when TinTin would levitate something or another, coupled with the The Hood using aerodynamics that looked like they were lifted from \"Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon\". About the only thing missing was for The Hood to go \"TinTin, I am your Uncle\" with a breath mask voice. The heart that made Thunderbirds unique was GONE.
The only bright point was Ron Cook's portrayal of Parker - he caught it perfectly. But the actress playing Lady Penelope came across as a child - HUH????
And this is why we hate this movie. When someone puts out something that was popular to a fan base, and expects the fans to shell out money to watch, and then delivers something than wasn't even close to what the fans expect - well, I am sorry, that is just plain WRONG! OK, so if they were making a kids' movie - fine - next time distribute it straight to video, where many of these belong. But don't package something up in a familiar wrapper and change the innards.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI really didn't like this film. The plot was very predictable. Typical American plot, I'm sorry. Guy gets the girl kind of thing at the end. And London has a Monorail? Bank of London??? Bank of England is what it really is!! - I did however like the look of Tracy Island and the Thunderbirds themselves. And the Brits were baddies? (apart from Parker and Lady Penelope) What was up with that? Oh and they kept on saying stuff like \"Here come 'The Thunderbirds'\" - but it was never known as 'The Thunderbirds' in the series, why do that?? I'd like to see this re-made in 20 years with more British cast. I preferred the original series. Sorry!
\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 just a kids against evil genre. Thunderbirds is just the hook to get people to see it, but are almost incidental in use. The fact that the action takes place on Tracy Island is just a ploy to pull in the public. It was interesting to note what the film makers view of future London will be and how the World all fits together.
The best part of this film are some of the lines delivered by Lady Penelope which are highly comical. These provided some light relief for those expecting a rerun of the TV series.
Having said that it passes 90 or so minutes in a 'fun' way and so may just be worth watching.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was one of those \"few Americans\" that grew up with all of Gerry Andersen's marvelous creations. Thunderbirds was a great series for the time and would have made a great action/adventure movie if only the writers could have figured out where to target it.
I expected it to be a romp, but I did not expect it to aim at such a low age group. Like Lost in Space, this could have been both visually stunning and exciting. It should have focused on more action/adventure and the goal of the original series... saving people in trouble.
Instead, it focused on Alan saving the day instead of his brothers (who were cast too young anyway vs. the original). The breakout part was Lady Penelope and Parker. I didn't care too much for the characters in the original, but I was grateful for them in the movie. They stole the show!
I always enjoyed Thunderbirds more for the high-tech than the stories, and even that did not get enough screen time as far as I was concerned. I would have enjoyed seeing more of the cool gadgets.
But then, I'm just a big kid... ;)
\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 very sorry to say this but \"Thunderbirds\" does not even come up with a loud pop, never mind any thunder. At one stage I gave serious consideration to walking out of the cinema, I stayed in the forlorn hope that the film might improve. I was to be disappointed, it did not get any better, it got worse if that is at all possible. Had I gone to see the film with the thought that it was going to be a \"spoof\" I would still have been let down. They had an excellent opportunity to make a great franchise of films here, they have totally wasted that opportunity. Bill Paxton and Sir Ben Kingsley should be embarrassed to have there names attached to this film and Jonathan Frakes well what can I say, he should be embarrassed and ashamed would not be to far from the truth. I saw this film at a pre-release showing, I had been waiting to see it most eagerly, having grown up in the sixties with the original shows. To say I was disappointed would be something of an understatement. One final thing I will say about the film was the puppets in the TV shows were just a bit more wooden than where the actors in the film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI just saw this movie (mainly because Brady Corbet is in it), and I must say that I was not pleased.
Of course, the computer graphics were amazing, but the story line needed a little touch-up. Also, I think this movie would have done much better with more curses and blood, as well if it were rated PG-13.
That would definitely attract more people to see it-->teens. What would also attract more teens (particularly teen girls), would be a large close up of Brady Corbet on the Thunderbirds poster!
Even though the movie had it's down points, I still saw it and thought it was okay!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere's a group of Fox TV executives sitting around a boardroom table wondering what new show to commission.
'How about aiming for something like 24 or The West Wing?' says one of them, but they all agree it would be too expensive, and cheap TV is less likely to harm the station if it flops.
'Well, how about getting together some great comedy writers and doing a quality sitcom?' offers another and is fired on the spot. 'Don't you know good writers cost lots of money!' the big chief barks. 'That's why we invented reality TV.'
'We could do yet another crime drama...' suggests a man in a bland suit. 'I'm listening...' the boss replies, suddenly interested. 'People like CSI, so let's do another copy of that,' Blandman adds.
'But there are already far too many CSI clones out there, what can we do to make ours stand out?' a naive junior enquires and is sacked instantly. 'Stand out! If we do that people may be confused! Let's give them more of what they already like!' the big chief screams.
'Let's just add more violence and make it really grisly, we are Fox after all,' another suit suggests to a hearty reply of 'now you're getting it', from the big chief. 'We could make them the Deviant Crimes Unit,' he goes on to add, clearly on a roll.
'By Jove, he's got it!' the big chief laughs, 'and the victims could be beautiful and vulnerable women who wear very little on screen.' 'Well that would certainly distract people from the average acting and poor scripts,' Blandman points out.
'Then it's settled, we just need a name,' the big chief announces. 'We could call it Sex Cops Violence?'
'Too literal, how about Killer Instinctit conveys violence, but sounds a bit like Basic Instinct which had lots of sex.'
'Puuurfect', the big chief replies and then they all slap each other on the back and go and cancel Arrested Development.
\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\nPokemon 3 is little more than three or four episodes of the TV series, strung together without the usual commercials. The story is typical of Pokemon (conflict, fighting, and a resolution where all are happy in the end), and there is nothing original or unusual in the animation. Some of the holes in the plot are filled in (over the closing credits!) without explanation, and everything is just a bit too sweet.
Why see it on the big screen? The only reason is to be a part of your child's world. Both of my sons enjoy Pokemon, and by my showing an interest in what they like, we are closer. Seeing a film in a theatre is still different than seeing it on the tube, and my sons enjoy the full movie-going experience. I gave the movie a 4, mostly from my children's point of view.

\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis third Pokemon movie is too abstract for younger kids to follow and too repetitious to entertain older kids. The message of the film-- about dealing with loss-- is subverted by the return of the young girl's father during the film's credits. Team Rocket provide some amusement, but they're not really part of the small plot, so they don't appear very often.
\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 don't even really remember that much about this movie, except that it stunk.
The plot's basically; a girl's parents neglect her, so this sicko PokeMon pretends to be her dad. Am I the only one disturbed by that? Then, this weirdo PokeMon kidnaps Ash's mom to pretend to be the girl's. I don't care if he was trying to make the girl happy, that's just gross.
There was no real plot. The girl was just a whiny brat who wanted things her own way. She played with Unowns, was the \"daughter\" of Entei and apparently could grow and shrink in age on a whim with the help of her \"dad\".
That's pretty much all I can remember, but I think you can take it as a hint, and not see it. (Or if you do see it, don't expect much.) 1 out of 10.
Seriously. If you want a PokeMon movie, rent \"PokeMon; the First 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\nThe rumor is true: girls like COYOTE UGLY more than guys. And the reasons are obvious as soon as the plot is given. Jersey girl goes to New York to become a song writer. And after initial frustration of having no luck, overhears some girls partying about the $300 each they made last night. She gets an audition at the bar they work at and surprise! The place is completely full of \"two year old toddlers\" bursting at the sight of babes dancing.
The story is not bad and some characters are likeable, especially Cammie (the \"fashion coordinator\" part was cute) and the bouncer but let's face it, the drama was horrible and completely laughable from the beginning. Violet and her father looked far too ridiculous while they were relating throughout the movie. And check out Violet too jamming on that keyboard with the break dancer!
For the first time I could think of, how could the production be so terrible? For a brief moment with this movie, Hollywood could stand on its two feet and show a new low without any major public outcry without saying, \"You were warned!\" Instead, it seems COYOTE UGLY has a purposeful intent on trying to kiss every major rear in the world. Advertising babes in a bar, but showing a paper thin \"pursue your dream\" story disappointed every male teen you targeted!
And finally, the music. There was absolutely no break of music I found in this movie, especially when it was needed (the hospital scene). Every scene felt like some short music video you just wish would stop until the bar opened. But the climax was an ultimate laugher: an '80s like song you would expect Cyndi Lauper to jump on the stage and jam with Violet. Heck, I personally thought Bon Jovi was going to jump out with the long hair and jam too!
Other than some really smart camera work with the coyote girls when dancing (especially the wet scene), and a couple cute cliches, COYOTE UGLY is something to be purely embarrassed about. Whether you watched or made it, it looked like nothing but time killing. Or wasting depending on how you look at it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"