empathielabs/imbd_dataset_v0 huggingface dataset:
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I am not even willing to vote a single star for this crap but IMDb does't have zero as rating option... worst movie i have ever watched.. Story of the movie 1. Predator ship crashes on earth 2. One alien and some face huggers are released and they start killing humans. 3. One predator arrives on earth and he starts killing aliens and humans. 4. Then one human jet drops a bomb and kills human, aliens and predator. 5. Some humans find the shoulder canon of the predator. 6. The End Directors should consider refunding money back to the viewers. If still you want to watch this movie, download from some torrent site and say thanks to me for saving you money.. all the movie has been filmed in some dark corner of the earth, you see just dark shadows even in action scenes.. too much violence.. I didn't expect it from a fox movie


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
When I first became a father about 5.5 years ago, I was prepared for many of the sacrifices I'd have to make. I knew I'd have to change diapers and take them to swimming lessons and attend many a freezing Santa Claus parade, but I wasn't ready for the kind of sacrifice I made last night. This, in my humble opinion, is cruel and unusual punishment.
Underdog is bad. It's not quite Karate Dog bad, but it makes The Shaggy Dog feel like Pulp Fiction. If Underdog were a television show, I'd recommend flipping on by. Not even the presence of Puddy and the voice of Banky Edwards can save it. Bow. Wow.
It was also just about the best 80 minutes I've ever enjoyed. James was seated to the right of me and Michelle to the left, and I spent more time watching their reaction to this talking, flying mutt than watching the screen. At 5 and 3 years old, they were the target audience, and this movie nailed the target. There's a scene where Underdog belches loudly in another dogs face and Michelle thought it was the funniest scene ever captured on film. When Underdog was flying into outer space, James was literally at the edge of his seat, mesmerized. The kids absolutely loved Underdog, and that's why I was there. That's what last night was all about.
Unless you're accompanying someone under the age of ten, you have no business wasting a second of your life watching this brutal film. But if you are looking to kill 80 minutes with your four year old, I won't judge. I had a blast.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
They did it again: ripped off an old show's title, then destroyed the nostalgia with boring "re-imagined" stuff. The '60's cartoon was one of the funniest of its time, a good-natured satire of super hero comic books. The character was drawn as 1/2 way between animal and human, the way Mickey Mouse is. Here they use a real beagle; that's about the same as making a Mickey Mouse watch with a real rat.
Most of the clever schtick that made the original show funny is missing from this film. Instead, we get a clumsy ex-police dog who's even dumber than Cad. And some pet owners who add nothing to the story. Cheesy effects (the dog-talking animation is embarrassing). Poor scripting. A stereotyped dwarf playing Simon Bar Sinister. The gravelly noise box guy they hired to voice Underdog is painful. You'd think they'd at least gotten a voice impressionist to approximate Wally Cox's humorously distinctive voice for Underdog. But no. There are, at least, a few affectionate references to the source material (such as the rhyming lines), which lift it to a 4.
Only small children that love dogs may enjoy this. Everybody else should get a DVD of the original cartoon series. Watch this only in desperation.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Let me start of by saying that I never wanted to see this movie in the first place; I had to watch it one day, and I figured that I guess I can lighten up and enjoy it for what it is, and it might turn out to be entertaining. What I got going in with that expectation was one of the worst movies I have ever seen, bar none. First of all, there was nothing humorous in the least bit. The creators expected humor to be laughable/passable if they include sarcasm in every line that comes out of Underdog's mouth and use scene after scene of bland, played out aspects to "charm" the audiences light-hearted side, while still making them "ooh" and "ah" for more with boring action scenes and insipid, lackluster performances that made me want to yell at everyone in the audience that was enjoying it. The acting was dull, the humor was tedious and the characters/plot felt like they spent about 10 minutes creating their entire personalities which gave the uninspiring actors/actresses no range on how to portray their characters with the least bit of depth. This movie is plain and simply awful in every field and really only kids under the age of 10 will be able to enjoy it, which even though that's what age range it was aimed at, that does not excuse it for being so poorly daft and causing me to feel so penitent. Parents, spend your money on Up, Wall-E, The Spiderwick Chronicles, The Water Horse or Hotel for Dogs for the best, recent family/kids flicks, or even Alvin and the Chipmunks is better than this filth!


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
When Underdog the cartoon debuted in 1964, at the age of 7 I was hooked immediately. He was Top Dog (pun intended) in my book-(that is, until Batman premiered on ABC a year or so later). Even when it was clear that Disney was going to make a live-action version of the once popular Saturday morning cartoon, it was equally clear to me that it was going to be a piece of crap. Even reading the reviews in the papers seemed to confirm this. However, I made it a point to: a) never attempt to write a review unless I have seen the movie from start to finish; and b) never to spend one red cent on a movie that I'm almost certain I will hate.
Thanks to YouTube I: a) am fully qualified to write this review; and b) it only cost me 84 minutes of my hard earned time.
It also proves my point, namely, that this movie is not merely a piece of crap. It's a steaming pile of dog droppings. It resembles the TV series in name only, even though they almost got it right with Simon and Cad.
All in all, Underdog is a huge waste of time- and money, which thankfully, I didn't have to spend.
Rating: 1/2* out of *****


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Story of the creation of Underdog and adventures battling Simon Bar Sinister in a live action format. First we have Showshine picked up off the street and brought to a science experiment lab where Simon Bar Sinister works. He fights back when Sinister tries to inject him with a chemical and accident occurs, he gets superpowers and the lab blows up wounding Sinister. On the street Shoeshine runs afoul of Riff Raff, another dog and gets picked up by Jim Belushi who was a guard at the lab. Belushi's son discovers that Shoeshine has all these powers and eventually Shoeshine becomes Underdog, who will once again battle Sinister.
Once you decided that under dog was going to be a real dog you've sort of limited yourself as to whether the film was going to work or not. For me the film half works and half doesn't. The part that doesn't is all of the stuff where you see Shoeshine, the dog, as a dog with his master. Some of the repartee is funny, but it just drags on and on as we get introduced to Sweet Polly and her mistress and we go through all the typical lets see what you can do stuff. Its a deadly 20 or 25 minutes and effectively kills the film. Its painfully dull and feels like it takes forever to get through it, which considering the film is say 75 minutes sans credits, is something you don't want to do.
The parts that are good are anything with Simon Bar Sinister (Peter Dinklage is a blast) and anything where Underdog goes into action. Some how somewhere they managed to find a way to be both twistedly true to the spirit of the cartoon and to update it. Of course I could be wrong since the middle section is so dull, but I think not, since I do look forward to catching the end of this again on cable.
As a whole its probably as awful as some people have said, but if you can wait for cable where you can stumble on the good parts, this is an okay cartoon to film adaption. (But wait for cable-really)


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I didn't like Underdog!I mean it was really unnecessary and needed a big face lift and then it would have been maybe passable but for the main part i didn't like it.This wasn't like any other kid movie its one of those movies that wanted parents(who grew up watching the cartoon)to come with there kids to come see this,i am neither of them so the film didn't appeal to me in the slightest.I had some problems with it like i don't think Jason Lee was the right voice for Underdog it made it him sound sloppy and really unintelligent.Then it was really predictable which makes you feel tired and mad.The humor was really what made me mad it was just to unfunny and somewhat pathetic.The one thing that bothered me the most thought was how almost everything out of Underdog's mouth was sarcastic or rude.The acting was passable but needed a little improvement.If you have kids they might enjoy it, but if your not a kid by all means see it you might like it unlike me. 3.4 stars out of 10


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Jason Lee does well to give this doggy movie fleeting promise, but it's not enough to distinguish it from any other bland family comedy
This live-action, CG-enhanced adventure sees a shamed police dog (Jason Lee) transformed into a super-dog via an accident in the lab of scheming scientist Dr. Simon Barsinister (Peter Dinklage). Underdog sets about saving the city while attempting to keep his identity secret - a challenge given that he can both talk and fly.
The odd gag raises a smile, but Underdog's human sidekicks (James Belushi and Alex Neuberger as father and son) are as dull as the predictable storyline. One for kids too young to have seen Superman. Or Spider-Man. Or even Shaggy Dog


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Starring: James Belushi; Peter Dinklage; Alex Neuberger and Jason Lee Underdog is a true hero's tale. Here is the story of Shoeshine, a regular, playful little beagle. When he is dog napped by a megalomaniac midget hell-bent on destruction, something freaky happens.
Our quirky little neighborhood pooch gains extraordinary powers. He can run as fast a cheetah; fly as fast a superhero and has the power of thunder. He is no longer Shoeshine; he is Underdog  the best crime-fighter in the animal kingdom. The city cannot sleep until Underdog rids it of the evil midget Dr. Simon Barsinister and his cronies.
If you fancy some really light-hearted entertainment with all the clichés of superhero action flicks, then this one is for you. As for quality entertainment, this one is strictly for the juniors. Those of you hoping to enjoy the comedy of the fast-fading star -James Belushi - a word of caution: this is not one of his finer works.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
God, I never felt so insulted in my whole life than with this crap. There are so many ways to describe this piece of crap, that I think that if I said everything that came to mind, I would get banned by this site.
How do I begin? Well, for one, it doesn't take knowledge of the original series to know that this movie is a slap to the face of people who've seen it. The biggest butchering of a theme song ever made is here, from a metal version, to a freaking RAP VERSION, what were they thinking? How does Underdog and a electronic-heavy musical style match? The story is so basic, that I will do something I don't usually do and not even give a summary. Just think this: A dog gets superpowers, fill in the rest. That's how predictable this movie is. And then comes the jokes....please kill me now. This style of humor that might not even get the kids laughing, it's that bad, well, expect that punch line after the sneezing. That was slightly funny.
But what surprises me the most is why Jason Lee(Ny Name Is Earl), Patrick Warburton(Emperor's New Groove), and Jim Belushi(According to Jim) are all here. In the shows/movies I mentioned, the actors, in my opinion, do a good job, and, excluding Lee, are the best actors in this movie, but that says very little. The rest deserve Golden Rasberry nominations for this crap. I am very sad to see such good actors buried by this disaster.
All in all, this is just as bad as Doogal, which I reviewed as well, and again, my head would explode if I saw anything worse than this.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Good things out of the way first:
Underdog's voice acting was FINE. But Jason Lee being awesome himself, that really is no surprise.
Peter Dinklage (Barsinister) also did fine, for what trash was given to him. He acted the part shockingly well. And so did Patrick Warburton, the moronic assistant. Now, it was idiotic character but he acted so extremely well, I actually liked the character better than the protagonists. The lines given to him were childish but witty.
However. Alex Neuberger did awful and hope he never acts again. His "Scream" was so disgustingly fake. Silence. Silence. "aaahhhhhhh". In the scene where he hears the dog talk, an "oh no, impossible!" would have sufficed in place of the pathetic fake scream.
And then there was the girl and her female dog that chased Patrick's character Cad on the roof. At first this makes sense, she's a "Reporter." A school reporter but still an inquiring mind regardless. But why, WHY the HELL did she carry her dog around? That was worthless and the damn dog didn't even say anything other than a heartless "oh, underdog!" Her presence was extremely unnecessary.
Overall, the script was pathetic. The only reason I give this movie a 3 is Barsinister, his assistance, and underdog's voice.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I was browsing through the movies on demand and saw Underdog for free and it was only 82 minutes long so I decided to watch it. I wasn't expecting much but it exceeded my expectations of being awful. Everything about the movie was cringe worthy. The dialogue was atrocious including many terrible puns. The jokes were also terrible. I found myself yelling and flipping off my television screen while I was suffering through this trash. It hit its target audience very well but I don't see how anyone else could enjoy this film. It made me very angry and nearly cry because of everything terrible this film had going for it.
The only enjoyable thing about this movie was being able to give it a 1/10 after viewing it. I beg you to avoid it at all costs. I understand the fact that its made for kids but there is nothing likable about it at all.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Only three words are really required for this review: Piece of crap.
If you enjoyed watching the cartoon as a child, you will find this movie to be a complete waste of your time and money. The best thing about your two hours in the auditorium will be your feet sticking to the floor.
Yes, they do use all of the names and catch phrases. The even name the dog "Shoeshine" (in reference to the dog being "Shoeshine Boy" in the cartoon). They name the love interest Polly, but she isn't Miss Sweet Polly Purebred.
My wife and son drug me to see this. They should have drugged me to see it.
The original Underdog was voiced by Wally Cox, the ultimate nerd. This one is voiced by someone with a "smart alleck teenager that knows more than all the adults" attitude.
As a stand alone movie, it is awful. As an homage to Underdog, it is even worse. It is not an homage. It is not a retelling of the story. It is not an updating of the story. It is purely an attempt to cash in on a known title and create merchandising. The next time I go to the store, I fear that I will see Underdog toys, pajamas, towels, sheets, clothing, etc. McDonalds and Burger King probably fought over the kid's meal rights for this.
The worst part of this movie, however, is the soundtrack. THEY DO THE UNDERDOG THEME SONG TO RAP (read that with a silent "C" at the beginning)! Great, now that we are going to destroy something, let's go all the way.
I knew that it would probably be bad before I went. My fears were confirmed when I arrived at my local 12 plex and found that they opened it for the first day and first showing in their smallest auditorium (and one of only four without stadium seating). Even the theatre people knew it was going to be garbage! Save your money on the tickets and invest it better by going out and buying the original series on DVD. It will be more entertaining and have better production values.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
When I heard Disney had the rights to "Underdog",I figured at the very least it would be a cool Pixar partnership affair,and we'd get a great Adults & Kids film like "The Incredibles". Alas...I forgot how Disney must dumb down classic material for today's dumbed down youth. What were they thinking? "Underdog" was a product of the 60's,your Prime Fanbase is in their 40's and 50's,why would you refocus it to 5 year olds? It should have been done ala "Roger Rabbit",half animated half real. Instead we get characters like Riff Raff ( a WOLF!! ) dumbed into another dog."Underdog" can't have an "energy pill",as we're now so "enlightened" it would obviously be a steroid or drugs reference.The only good casting was Patrick Warburton as "Cad" because he actually sorta resembles the cartoon version. Otherwise,old school "Underdog" fans should avoid this like the plague it is. What next? A live action version of "The Go-Go Gophers" disguised as a re-visionist history lesson? ( My advanced apologies if Disney jumps on this! )


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
And now for another point of view: I didn't like it. I didn't finish it in fact. I know that "Unforgiven" is ranked by some as one of the greatest Westerns ever made. I know that it stars and was directed by Clint Eastwood, one of the icons of American cinema. I know that it won a bunch of Oscars. Still, I didn't like it. I don't like Westerns, and that's clearly a matter of taste, but I also don't admire Eastwood's acting. He is not and never has been a leading man. He is no Burt Lancaster, no Paul Newman, no John Wayne. In this film alone he is dwarfed by Richard Harris and Gene Hackman; they are both actors. No, Eastwood is a tall guy with a reedy voice who usually plays tough guys. Here he plays a retired tough guy. When I see him on screen, I see a man laboring at his acting. Then there's the anti-Western Western plot. It is too obviously intended to inject contemporary values -- a respect for the role of women, blacks, native Americans, and single parents; a disrespect for violence and drinking; the wholesomeness that comes with marriage, including interracial marriage, and small adorable children -- into a century in which those values weren't necessarily accepted, at least in these ways. By promoting those values, the movie comes across as mannered, if not preachy. Then there are the hoary movie stereotypes -- prostitutes with hearts of gold, the kid who can't shoot straight, the city slicker new to the wild West, the sage brush shimmering on a summer afternoon with a musical accompaniment in major chords. Finally there is the pacing of Eastwood's direction. I gave up after an hour. Eastwood was still riding north, chatting with Morgan Freeman and the kid who couldn't shoot straight, sixty minutes after the plot driven by the slashing of a prostitute was set in motion. It was way too slow. Somebody had to find these elements uncompelling. I am afraid it was me.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Unforgiven is Clint Eastwoods last tribute to the once great west. But whilst i thought this was going to be good and raise the bar for future westerns to come i was sadly mistaken. Unforgiven, though simple in plot it falls flat on characters and emotions and i would certainly say that Unforgiven is Eastwoods worst film to date. Eastwoods himself seems too old to play the part of acting and directing which also adds a downfall to the overall look of the film.
All the characters seem rushed and ragged around the edges especially Eastwoods character. The acting doesn't seem to flow and contribute to what the characters are feeling. The direction is poorly misled by quirky shots. So overall Unforgiven is not Eastwoods best and by far one of the worst westerns around.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This movie was an all around uninspiring film. It was a non-moving story that definitely does not get you thinking anything other then where is all the strong moving material the other critics say about the film The 3 main actors are good, and there is a few laughs but once again it becomes another movie that you keep watching in hopes of it getting better and it just doesn't. I watched this movie last night and wished that we hadn't wasted our precious time (while baby is sleeping) watching this film.
I plan not to recommend this to my family and friends, as well as obviously anyone looking to rent it. I was pretty much non-impressed with everything about this film.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I started watching this because I was looking for a nice 'background' comedy for my Sunday morning. Then I noticed that this was going to be a road-movie and I decided to actually watch this.
First 15 minutes were awful, but I wanted to give this a chance, because I never judge a movie without watching it throughly. Then things started to get little better. This seemed like a nice road-movie about friendship.. But then the movie started to get horrible predictable cliché-twists and when the movie was over it left you feeling like you had wasted your time. Did this have anything to say? Why did they even make a movie like this? And I wasn't expecting a modern Citizen Kane, but still, I have several ideas how this movie could have been improved.
So take my piece of advice; leave this alone and go watch a real road-movie. There are many of those. I won't make the directors of those movies seem bad by putting their names on this review.
1/10


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Now that's it's 2008, who really has a care in the world about a guy like DB Sweeney, even back then he wasn't a big deal.
Two Tickets to Paradise is an outlined story that's well and true where three friends hit the road under each of their personal circumstances. Again, a proved plot. The problem with this film, other than it's 'so bad it's compelling' title, is the script.
Cliché after cliché three guys do the same things you've seen in every other road movie... and blow up vanna white's house.
John C. McGinley's acting job is superb, especially compared to that of the late DB Sweeney's. (His career is dead, hence the late. though i hear he's moving to TV, good for him). Also, John C likely has the least awful character in the film.
The score is so generic it actually feels like you're watching a third rate film from 1993, or Jeff Anderson's movie Now You Know (also set me back a few years, but at least that was more entertaining.) I mean, yah, i guess i enjoyed parts of it. But, the nerdy guy is annoying, DB tries to be this cool failed guitar player (with some rough influences, like some of the worst of classic rock) who has some strange relationship with a stripper, and John C is a gambler who's wife and kid leave him after the death of his father as well as a visit from one of his bookie's henchmen.
I keep thinking up ways to make this movie better. But i think burning the script would have been a healthy start.
But, as i've hinted this whole time, it's not the worst movie ever. And any chance i have to see McGinley in a starring role, i'll take it. Hopefully he starts getting some better projects.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I love the Jurassic Park movies, they are three of my all time favorite movies.
And I hate this game, if there was one game I wish I never own for the Super Nintendo was this one.
How can a game based on a classic movie be just too awful? And to make it worst, I was scare of this game when I was a kid.
How dumb was that but then again I was a kid when this game was first out.
The game play in this game is just odd. One minute it's a action game and then it's a shooter. What in the world is wrong with making up your mind when making a video game.
The Sound in the game is just terrible to listen.
The music is just too sick to listen to.
The Controllers in the game don't work most of the time.
Jurassic Park the game is just a waste of time and money and won't be a classic.
Avoid at all cost


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Back in 1993 Sega released a dull, lackluster video game of one of the biggest films of all time. Quickly realizing their mistake they hashed out a different version of the game, claiming it would be bigger, tougher and better.
Neither were. Both were slow, boring games.
You can choose to be either Dr. Alan Grant or...a Raptor. Both have their problems. Why would Dr. Grant go around killing all those army guys (just what are they doing in the game)? And why a Raptor be killing other Raptors? Weird.
Obviously not learning from their first mistake Sega really dropped the ball on the original release and the so-called Rampage Edition. One of the slowest, sluggish and dullest platformers I have ever played.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I saw the trailers of this movie and found the cinematography and what was presented interesting. I saw the IMDb rating and 6.8 confirmed it to be an above average movie. Thus went to see it.
The story is about Mandy Lane (Amber Heard)  a beautiful girl in high school who is a subject of male sexual desire. Mandy's friend Emmet's (Michael Welch) provocation to another fellow student to show his love for Mandy, leaves the fellow student drunk and jump down to death. Nine months pass and Mandy is invited for a summer weekend to a secluded ranch by her teenager friends  three girls and three boys go there! There is a security guard Garth (Anson Mount) who works at the ranch. During the first night itself the killings take place  one by one the members of the group are killed. Who is behind the killings? I wont tell here to spoil sports Did I like the movie? NO. After usual interesting opening  the movie takes a downward turn with every unfolding of event. By half-time when the killer is revealed, one looses all interest in the remaining proceedings. There is a last twist in the tale to shock viewers, but rather it made me shake the head in dis-belief and laugh! All this for suspense? Huh! Amber Heard acts and plays her role well as a shy and conscious girl  who is aware of her beauty and men's desire for her. The remaining cast are usual  nothing to say about. There are so many movies made of teenager boys and girls going to a secluded place and slowly someone killing them one by one  that it does not interest me anymore.
Director Jonathan Levine tries hard to make the movie interesting by using contemporary chat talks of teenagers, loaded with sexual overtones, but does not allow the movie to rise above the mundane.
The only and the most appealing saving grace of the movie is its cinematography by Darren Genet  who captures beautiful picture perfect images! (Stars 3 out of 10)


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I finished watching Mandy Lane about an hour ago, and felt the urge to come straight home and get up here to warn anyone that's about to spend money on the DVD - DON'T.
The supporting characters are shallow, the failure of acting is higher than that of Matthew McConaughey movies, and up until the end twist, the plot is everything but obvious. In nine out of ten, you can see the next scene coming 5 minutes before it starts. The whole movie is more or less without motive or message, and the half-way revealing of "the murderer" just plain out kills what little interest you might have left at that point. What could have saved this shallow, tedious movie is some decent splatter, or at least gore worthy of the genre "Slasher" - It fails there as well.
If you need a background movie to a party that you can jump in and out of without missing anything, I recommend buying All The Boys Love Mandy Lane.
If you're looking to sit down and actually concentrate your eyes on the screen for more than 15 seconds, I don't.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
How could this get a 6.0 rating? Are we as horror fans so used to horror films being so utterly bad these days, that when one comes along that has some, and i repeat 'only some', redeeming quality's, we get much too excited and give a rating that is just a wee bit too high? The director has a certain visual flair. No doubt about that. But in between some decent shots he forgot a good story, mood or scares. It had a very slow first act, lazy killing scene's, annoying and flat characters and a very stupid and very unbelievable twist. And what's with the portrayal of American teenagers in so many of these kinds of films? Do they always have to be this stupid, irritating and so godd#mn superficial. I don't remember teens being like this when i grew up here in Holland. All things considered, in can't give this film anything more that a 4 out of 10 rating.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
All the boys seem to be sexually aroused by Mandy Lane. All the girls seem to be jealous of Mandy Lane. But, nothing seems to become of it, and this viewer wonders why? Mandy is beautiful and a magnet to every boy she meets, but we never get to know Mandy or any of the characters in the film. Mandy accepts an invitation, from her student friends, to go to a secluded ranch. Three boys and three girls drink and drug. In the film, the teenagers drink booze like its water, and take drugs to experience a psychedelic trip. And, there is absolutely no sex. In the meantime, the teenagers disappear one by one. But, the others are all drunk and high. Nobody, including those watching the film, cares or is at all concerned. Nobody, including the audience, seems to give a damn. Emmet, a fellow student, is the instigator of the entire event. There is a security guard, Garth (dashingly and handsomely played by Anson Mount), who guards and protects the ranch. Midway through the film, the killer is revealed, the tension is suddenly released like air let out of a balloon. The events are completely predictable, and the film just completely fizzles out. Mandy meets her match, but we don't ever know why--and, at the end of the film, there is still no sex. Does Mandy hypnotize the boys, or does she simply bore all of the boys and girls to their deaths? This absolutely-confused viewer can only conclude that Mandy wishes to get rid of the female and male competition--by killing off the manipulative girls and the nasty boys.
Is Mandy worth all of the attention? The director (Jonathan Levine) seems to think so, but this viewer does not. The able cinematographer (Darren Genet) provides some stunning images but, in fact, his focus seems to be on Garth, who is quite the stud. Not all of the boys love Mandy, or do they? If you want to be bored enough to find out how this film winds up, my advice is to sleep midway through film, until you see the temptress Mandy and Garth's bulging crotch. But, don't wait for anything to happen. Yep, you guessed it. Mandy remains a virgin, and there's still no sex. I rank this film a 3 out of 10, but not because of Mandy. Why? Because all of the girls love Garth, and all voyeuristic eyes seem to be on Garth in a compromising position. But unfortunately, girls and boys, this film never seems to get beyond a disappointing and incomplete sexual fantasy. Mandy goes to a secluded ranch, and nothing sexual ever happens. The audience is led to horror on a ranch--and cannot help, but wonder why?


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I was only cautiously enthusiast when renting "All the boys love Mandy Lane", as I instantly remembered hearing & reading a wide variety of opinions  both positive and negative  in the short period of time between its brief cinematic release and the distribution towards videostore shelves. Supposedly this was the most ingenious and refreshing new horror film in years, with non-stereotypical teen characters and unpredictable plot twists for a change. Okay, the basic concept may perhaps sound reasonably innovative but inevitably the screenplay quickly reverts to the same old and irritating slasher clichés, and once passed that point even the nifty stylistic trademarks can't save the film from dreadful mediocrity. The opening sequences are indeed terrific and literally bath in a moodily melancholic ambiance, which actually makes it all the more painful to witness the film sink towards the "ordinary" level of rudimentary slasher flick. After the sublime intro, showcasing a drunk macho kid miscalculate his jump off a rooftop in order to impress the titular beauty, "All the Boys Love Mandy Lane" turns out to be just another textbook and uninspired horror movie about a bunch of idiotic kids getting stoned and horny on a secluded ranch before getting killed off by a not-so-unidentified maniac. The film's entire pretentious set-up collapses faster than a ramshackle house of cards: we never get a proper explanation why Mandy herself behaves so frigid and haughty towards all her admirers (because she grew up an orphan, perhaps? Oh, boo-hoo), the boys soon enough illustrate they'd settle for sex with any random bimbo and not exclusively with the "divine" Mandy and the final twist  albeit undeniably offbeat  is just plain senseless. The middle section of is rather boring and doesn't even offer any genuinely horrific excitement (shotgun killings? Please!) or authentic rancid sleaze. My generous rating 4 out of 10 entirely goes to the grainy and unsettling 70's filming style (with faded colors, bizarre but beautiful photographic images) and the surprisingly marvelous soundtrack. Director Jonathan Levine opted for the classic Bobby Vinton song "Sealed with a Kiss" to play during the trailer and end-credits, whereas I initially was convinced the film would inevitably feature Barry Manilow's cheesy love-song "Mandy".


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I read about this film on-line and after seeing the generally positive reviews it has received, and viewing the trailer, I decided to check it out for myself. What a disappointment! It starts out well enough. the opening scene was actually pretty tense, but from there it's all downhill. I can see that the filmmakers were trying to do something different with this movie, but by doing so, they took all the enjoyment out of watching it. Those choices combined with the "C.S.I" editing, use of music and montage, lack of suspense, scares, or humor really drag this film down. There's too much foreshadowing and to many "subtle" clues, so when the first twist arrives early on, you already know how the movie is going to end. I gave the movie three stars because I think the cast did a good job, other than that I can't recommend this movie.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Looking at these reviews and seeing all these high ratings leave me to believe that large amounts of red corn syrup will please just about any brain dead idiot. This movie is beyond useless. All the cliché's of a slasher film without any substance. I am sure I could go in to details about the movie but why bother when you can sum it up? Obviously everyone wants Mandy Lane and she apparently wants none of the guys. Throughout the movie you will see this.
When she stops being friends to the typical boy trapped in friend-zone loser, he goes ballistic and when she goes on a road trip to the middle of no where (of course) he begins to hunt them one by one. Sounds decent so far right? But what made this movie suck beyond belief is when you find out that not only is her loser friend the killer but she is as well.. The plan was beyond ridiculous. Lets together kill all our friends and then kill each other. They give no reason why they wanted to do this and given Mandy Lane's "Goody Too Shoes" demeanor it makes you scratch your head even more as to what is actually motivating these characters to do anything they are doing. It's sad.. this movie had lots of potential but the director or writer apparently can't relate to the audience in anyway.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Think of this film as fan service, a wet dream for the slasher genre admirer. We start off with a gory prologue which is pretty much unrelated to the rest of the film. Flash forward nine months and the real meat of the plot begins: The virginal Mandy Lane is coveted by every jock and nerd in her school, and gets invited to spend a weekend at a ranch by three guys who think they can get lucky, and two bimbos obsessed with their weight and boob size. So.. you have a bunch of young students in a house in the middle of nowhere on a dark night, who want to do nothing but have sex, do drugs and drink booze. The only other company is a hunky ranch-hand who may or may not be suffering from Gulf War Syndrome. Hmm... potential future suspect maybe?
So as you're probably ascertained by now, all the house-guests end up being slaughtered in a variety of bloody ways, and for a change the black man ISN'T the first to die. There are some conventions that still hold up though, like the scantily clad babe being chased by a car in a field. Or the lights going out mysteriously in the evening as our 'heroes' unwisely separate to tackle the problem. Even down to the so-called shocking twist at the end, the movie is like an old 80's horror updated for the noughties, and on this score it succeeds.
Unfortunately, it also inherits a lot of the problems of the films of that era too, namely the paper-thin characters and the predictability of the whole enterprise. People get cut up, shot, bludgeoned etc but because of their innate hatefulness to the audience and stupidity in getting themselves in these situations, it's hard to care as the bodies stack up. Someone gets murdered, one of their friends goes out to look for them alone, BANG they're brown bread. Rinse, then repeat. Maybe one day we'll get a screenplay with plausible, intelligent, likable characters who make rational decisions but still end up being outwitted by a genius killer. Until then, we have to tolerate teenagers with the I.Q of pond-life being picked off by a deranged hoodie. Oh well.. 4/10


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I am a German student so sorry for eventually mistakes (I'm working on it ;) )
The stylistic very interesting converted and with effective sound effects accentuated platitudinous action of the drama deflect in no way from the horrible bad actors (insincere and unnatural moves and expressions of feelings) and makes so the relatively weird and senseless story less better. Just the typical slasher-genre with in this case very odd action. Many by-plays destroy partly the main story and let the viewers up to the end into the dark, create weirdness and let surmise the senses of actions and the point mere hazily. For sure its an hit for slasher-fans but not for me. But although the interesting style of cinematography and adeptly use of light is turned out well.
So not the best one...


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
With my two stars I will probably make it to the head of the IMDb hated it"-list for this apparently tremendously popular TV series.
Not least because of the enthusiastic comments on this website, I decided to purchase a DVD edition of the series. Because I usually find British humour suits me just fine. I gave up in the middle of the second instalment  and according to other comments the funniest" bits were already through.
So now I know, according to another comment, that I definitely lack a sense of humour. But then I had to laugh like crazy while watching (and re-watching) Fawlty Towers to which Black Books is  albeit faintly  thematically related. Why the different reactions? It might be a mere Generation Thing, and yet the differences can be pointed out.
Both Fawlty Towers and Black Books are set in businesses which are meant to sustain their owners financially. Both businesses are not successful but seem  by a miracle  to survive. Fawlty Towers is funny because the protagonists have to deal with situations they cannot cope with. The funniness lies in the fact that they make a serious effort to succeed and while laughing one also feels sorry for them. Black Books has no situations, it's just there and the owner passes his time feeling sorry for himself. If a situation threatens to arise, it is quickly shooed away. It is remarkable how fast and how often a subject is dropped and the protagonists turn to something entirely different to produce an additional joke. Telling jokes  and not very good ones - seems to be all Black Books is about. Why a bookstore? A hardware store would have done the job just as well.
No, stop, wait. It's a bookshop because below the veneer of rudeness, vulgarity and arrogance the protagonists are supposed to be delicate and CULTURED. They are not some lowbrow gorillas but bumbling semi-intellectual losers. Hey, they are like you and me. The manner in which the series makes that claim is the only way I can explain its success. There is nothing remarkable in the protagonist's actions, what's special about them is their economically unrealistic living conditions many viewers maybe envy them for. That protagonists that narcissistic and vapid convey a sense of belonging and companionship seems to be a trademark of the time the First World is presently living in.
Recently I watched Tittybangbang, also a fairly new British TV comedy show. I found it uproariously funny. It is often quite tasteless or xenophobic  but always with a purpose and hitting the bull's eye in its social criticism. The humour is mainly created by situations or by characters with a purpose. The low ratings in IMDb might indicate that this brand of humour is not in keeping with the times, but I am glad it's still alive and kicking and hope it will continue to do so.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
It's dreadful rubbish. I liked 'How Do You Want Me', 'Father Ted', 'Green Wing' and Bill Bailey's standup act but I file this with 'Hippies' and 'Planets Of The Apes' (the re-imagining) under 'Great Pedigree, went badly wrong'. My guess is that it appeals to the same people who like 'Withnail and I'. It's overwritten but to little end, a luvvie-ish air pervades it and Bernard Black is simply a less camp Withnail. And I thought it was self-indulgent even *before* Dylan Moran became the writer. But the set up raidiates such comic potential that for the first 2 episiodes I didn't even notice that it wasn't in the slightest bit chortle-worthy.
The things they are saying/doing *should* be funny but somehow they don't manage to register as more than mildly amusing or "I can see how someone writing this down might have thought that this would be funny". What I am trying to say is that the situations/remarks are mildly humorous and yet too mundane/gentle/self-consciously surreal to be worth creating for and depicting in a sitcom.
Life is too short. Avoid.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
From the point of budget 2.5m CAD isn't very much when you look at the animatronics, puppetry in this film, that alone being the reason for the 9 week shoot. I was really keen to see this film and had hoped to catch it when it came out, instead got it on DVD recently. My main problem is it's just not funny at all, it's better than Tenacious D which hasn't got a funny bone in it's body. But this was a truly disappointing film.
Trevor Matthews is a very strong physically performer, but his acting sucks! Rachel Skarsten gives what is possibly one of the most irritating and none funny performances I have ever seen. The only really BIG star in this is David Scott who's artwork for the monsters is fab! His special effects work is the main reason this film is worth watching, loved the Cyclops and Troll and and the Prof Monster was straight out of the Henson library.
If you watch this it won't be the biggest waste of time, but if you are looking to see this for a great Horror Comedy Romp... Don't bother.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I've seen many horror, splatter, monster movies in my life. And of course also a lot of monster movies from the 50's and 60's. When I first stumbled over this one I thought this is from the 60's until I recognized it's from 2007.
In fact the character of Jack Brook is interesting and the acting all in all is for a splatter movie quite good, but.... I expected a splatter movie and not a drama story about a aggressive plummer. The movie runs 80 Mminutes and I think the first kill is after 65 minutes. Although it takes hours to explain the story the reason where are the monsters come from takes at least 3 minutes... the we have another 20 minutes boring dialogue and finally a, in my opinion, not that well managed splatter sequence. Although we have Robert Englund starring here I only recommend this one to real hardcore horror fans.


assistant
0