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
In my opinion, this movie is not good. I hardly find a good thing to say about it, but still I would like to explain, before I conclude it is just another bad movie.
I decided to watch it because Costas Mandylor is starring in it, and that was the main reason I watched it till the end. I like action movies, and I understand that such movies are built on the action rather than the story. I know they don't go into details when it comes to the credibility of the story and the events, but even that does not explain why some scenes, just because they lack the sense of reality, look ridiculous.
At the beginning, the movie looks quite promising: a tough, good looking specialist and his not so tough but smart and funny partner must do a job, which turns out a bit different than they expected. The story takes place on a cruise ship. A disaster happens, the ship is turned over, and only a few are left alive. During their struggle to survive they have to escape a shark, a professional killer and the rising water.
Furthermore, the movie is quite violent. The main weapon (beside the disaster which already took out most of the passengers) is the gun, which is successfully used in many cases. I personally missed a good man to man (or woman to woman if you prefer) fight. Family fun? I don't think so.
All in all, I think this movie was shot in a hurry, without a real vision what it is trying to say. Made of the usual action movie tricks, with a bit of something called love, and without a real meaning, it just results in a bad movie.


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


user
Shirley Temple's films for Twentieth Century Fox aren't negligible because they're poorly-made (Darryl F. Zanuck supervised most of them, after all); they don't retain much of a "classic" stature among cinema aficionados mainly because they're weighed down with the syrupy optimism of Depression-era Hollywood. 1930s audiences were placated by the delight of seeing a dimply, often orphaned sunshine girl making the grown-ups look foolish by comparison (they fretted and wrung their hands while she danced her troubles away). Seen these many years later, Temple's vehicles barely get by on story (aided always by musical sequences to bolster the content), and her timing (always too-perfect) and exaggerated reactions might leave most modern viewers rolling their eyes. No one could possibly be blamed for their exasperation over Temple's performance here (shouting lines at the top of her lungs) or the perverseness of her dance steps, sashaying with a crowd of sailors to "At the Codfish Ball". Still, the fantasy aspect of this particular story, previously filmed in 1924 from the book by Laura E. Richard, is enough to captivate those in the proper saccharine spirit. Seems Shirl was pulled from a shipwreck by a government-appointed lighthouse keeper, but when a truant officer from the State Board finds out the tyke isn't in school, she threatens to take the kid away. It doesn't really matter if the prune-faced officer has a point that Temple isn't being raised properly (the woman is turned into the proverbial villainess almost immediately); one can see right away that Temple can hold her own, taking care of herself and her elderly guardian in the bargain (as well as the local widow who has her hooks in for the Captain). Temple isn't the only one overly-rehearsed; Guy Kibbee's January is cued for wide-eyed reactions so often you wonder if maybe if he didn't film them all in one day. The dialogue is steeped in waterfront metaphors ("You can't rush a trout!" ... "Well, don't give up the ship!), and something about the whole enterprise seems strangely pixilated. ** from ****


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 a still photographer working in Europe the summer that Jim Salter shot the movie Three.
I did some swell pictures for him, one of which I was told became the poster for the movie. I didn't see the film until years later. I thought it was bad. A pity, because the elements that went into it were compelling. Robie Porter's girlfriend was almast as beautiful as Rampling herself. Salter asked if I would stick around and be an extra cameraman so they wouldn't have to shoot everything twice. I said sure, but I had to return to NY, promising I'd be back. Alas, I never did get back. One of life's unsung melodies.
I wish I could post the pictures I made somewhere.
Rowland Scherman


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


user
No doubt about it, Rampling is gorgeous -- a classic beauty, here very young. She manages to appear simultaneously sophisticated and poignant. Her two male foils act well too. But seen in 2003, the flic is all
American-trying-to-be-artsy-and-not-be-Hollywood-while-shooting-beautiful-sh ots-of-the-French-Riviera-and-three-pretty-young-people-in-their-cute-old-ca r. I enjoyed the view (both the actors and the nature) but the movie is boring and pretentious while trying to be the opposite.


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


user
If you haven't read Tolkien's masterpiece; prepare yourself for maybe the best movie experience ever! If you have however... After having read the books several times, over many years, I have come to love the characters and story, and feel I Know it intimately. I have my own personal vision of The Shire, Hobbiton and the character-gallery. Thus for me the movie was a disappointment. Why? It dictates the appearance of the characters (unavoidably), it changes events, it removes important storyline, it removes not-so-important storyline. Great chunks of what makes The Lord Of The Rings what it is, is simply ignored. Even 2001 special effects can't do Tolkien's (and your own) imagination justice. Peter Jackson has made an honest attempt at the impossible, and I don't think anyone else could have done it better! But the fact remains, I regret seeing the movie. The next time I read The Lord Of The Rings, Peter Jackson's limited vision will leap forward, not my own.


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


user
First off, I am a huge fan of Tolkien, and as one I will base most of my critic on his books.
The movie is a standard adventure movie, well made with nifty special effects, nice sound track and fine acting. Now if this movie was called something else than lord of the rings the reviews wouldn't be half this good as they are here.
The problem of the movie is that it takes the basic story line from Tolkiens books but then it goes and "hollywoods" everything it can, numerous scenes from the book are eighter missing or changed quite a lot, the characters are changed from the book also, a thing that I think should be punishable ! What the movie lacks is deep insight of the characters in it, I know that it is almost impossible to make a good film out of a good book, and it didn't work here eighter, mostly the motivation of the characters is left hazy at best.
As a adventure movie it would rate 7+ / 10 As a adaptation of Tolkien it rates 2 / 10
I mean honestly, what on earth was Arwen doing at rivendell ford ? And as for the comments that this movie "is the best ever" I can only say that eighter you are very young, or you havent seen good movies...
Peter Jackson should have called this movie an adventure movie based on the lord of the rings.


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


user
Debbie Boone had a monster hit with her recording of the pop song "You Light Up My Life;" the Didi Conn film of the same name, however, was a horrifically embarrassing flop. Conn plays the stereotypically goofy-homely-vulnerable girl who is in love with Michael Zaslow, who plays the stereotypical yuppie-wannabe guy. They are engaged, but every one knows that Zaslow isn't going to marry any one that isn't blonde and built, so only Didi is surprised when he dumps her. Needless to say, Didi is quite embarrassed.
Fortunately, she has been doing a little songwriting in her spare time, and she's come up with a tune she thinks is pretty nifty. She calls it--can you guess?--"You Light Up My Life." She hops in the car and drives off to the big city to sell her song and make a new life. Now, I recall sitting in the theatre and watching her hop in the car to drive off to the big city, and thinking "Well thank heavens, we've finally got all the exposition out of the way. Now maybe something interesting will happen." And something interesting did happen. The credits rolled.
Yep, that was it. Not only was the movie badly acted, badly written, and badly filmed, it also ended in the middle. This movie is a really, profoundly bad movie, and we're not talking cult-movie-bad here. We're talking unmitigated flop, a real yawner from start to finish. If you liked the Debbie Boone song by all means buy a copy of it. But don't waste your time or money on this flick. This is one movie you'll be glad you missed.
Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer


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


user
I remember this movie with feelings of sheer . . . agony. More than half of the film is commercials (no, really!). The slight excuse for a story could easily have been told in 25 minutes (and almost is!) The end result is a prefab love story of predictable schlock, all obviously thrown together in a crassly commercial attempt to wring a few more bucks from the contemporary Debbie Boone hit. Yep, that's how fast it was produced... the song that "inspired" it was still big on the charts when the film was released!
Despite decades of seeing bad movies, this one still impresses me for its extravagant, no-holds-barred, headlong jump into the most tedious, absurd, and indelible cinematic badness. It truly deserves to be on the IMDb list of the 100 worst of all time, and has never left the top 3 on my personal "worst" list.
Enjoy it for the sheer masochistic thrill!


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


user
I enjoy gay-themed movies where the characters aren't stereotypically gay and that's what attracted me to this movie, that and the principal actor, which is the only reason I'm giving this movie one more star than it deserves (although not because of his acting in the film, let me tell you). A lot of people complain about the cinematography, but the camcorder feel of the movie added a certain "underground" quality to it for me and there are a couple of scenes, usually around sunset or sunrise and among trains that would make any movie screen blush.
But the acting is cardboard, the music is repetitive (I got through the latter half of the movie listening to a soundtrack from another film), you have to wait almost twenty minutes for any dialog and then it is awkward and amateur. The subject of graffiti could have made this movie great had it been gracefully exploited and had the art itself been more intriguing, but it isn't.
Worst of all, there is no climax; there wasn't really a plot to begin with. The movie just crawls back into its shell of silence and dies. A forgettable movie.


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


user
I give this movie 2 stars purely because of its slightly liberal plot line. Without going into too much detail.
The acting in this movie is terrible. Really terrible - wooden, shallow.
The graffiti on show is weak, so bloody weak that I can only wonder why they bothered to use graffiti artists at all. IT was obvious in the spraying scenes that they'd gotten other people in to do the 'work'. They might as well have let the actors do the painting and saved themselves a few cents.
I would avoid this film at all costs.
The kid loco soundtrack used to be something I listened to on my iPod, its going to be a while before I can go back there for fear of this movie coming back into my mind.
Avoid at all costs. Unless you are thinking to yourself "Wow, its been a while since I've seen a really sh*t movie...."


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


user
I wasn't impressed with the Graffiti Artist, despite it's artsy (aka. low budget improvisation) appeal. There is little dialog and at least for me, I was disappointed that it didn't give more credit or promote the work of guerrilla artists such as these. Instead, it was a story that covers familiar territory. Two guys who basically do little more than tag buildings become friends, tagging partners, and eventually experiment with a relationship. They seem like opposites, rather uncomfortable together. Little is explained about their backgrounds and the things between the two young men happen at rapid speed (although, this I can understand because it's only 70 minutes or so). There's been countless numbers of similar plots and productions in recent years to the point that the sphere of independent film is starting to become just as saturated with this particular storytelling just as the mainstream has become saturated with this and more.
Much of the film may bore the viewer who needs immediate dialog and purpose. The primary figure of this story (at least extensively), performs his routines with nearly no dialog, no insight, and nothing else to carry the viewer. And, for a short film, I wished they could've gotten to the point a lot faster. That, aside from the typical plot annoyed me. Yet, there was something about a momentary glimpse into the daily habits of at least two graffiti artists, even if most of it was rather unoccupied time.
Recommended if you're tired of the mainstream crap and don't mind an indie picture and have some interested into this underground, urban art form. But, you really have to watch it for yourself, because this seems to be one with a more acquired taste. For more recent indie films centering on graffiti artists, check out Transit.


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


user
Other reviewers seem to have held this film in high regard. For something made by an eighteen year old film student, I would say bravo, but that is not the case. If you want to watch a good movie about graffitti stick to the documentaries. It is filmed with the same quality as a digital home video. The two main characters are dismal actors and once again that would be okay if this were a student film. The plot follows a lonely artist who skateboards around Portland writing graffitti. He is joined by another and they skate around together creating art. Then comes the unnecessary gay love scene. Then comes the dispute between them that is never actually discussed because this film has about as much dialogue as a charlie chaplin picture. This movie does show the gravity street artists give to their form well, and the music is nice, but overall I wouldn't really call it a film.


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


user
How did this film get into the Berlin Film Festival? I understand it got into the Panorama section, but still.
This film featured:
1. No plot. 2. Horrible acting. 3. Atrocious videography. 4. Some of the worst graffiti ever captured on video.
The one clincher that accounts for most of its festival acceptances is the presence of that old standby: homosexuality. That's right, about the only thing that does happen in this film is that one graff artist makes out with another one and jerks him off. Then he feels weird about it and they have a boring old "breaking up" conversation that you might expect to hear from your first crush in middle school (featuring lines like "You kissed me first, dude."). Oh, and by the way, this is no Crying Game...you see the gay angle coming in the first ten minutes of the film. Aside from that it's mostly just bad tags, badly costumed "undercover" cops, some skateboarding, and a train ride.
If the subject matter is of interest to anyone I recommend looking around the web for some underground graff videos taken by real graffiti artists. There's plenty out there...and they are a hell of a lot more entertaining than this crap.


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 understand the people who rated it over 5. I think it's a horrible film from any point of view. Plots, acting, art, dialog, music, whatsoever! I don't mind a low budget..However you have to get some point. Wandering, wondering..pointless..then two boys started kissing in bed. awful,,just awful. I love indie films, don't mind it is slow. However this movie disappointed me from any perspectives. Even the Graffito, not artistic.
I was wondering what kind of people would like it. I am a female in my 30's. Is it for teens who have some kind of the loneliness about life, or I just don't get it? What I gained then? Wasting time! Please go for some others.


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


user
I wouldn't have given this film such a low rating (2) if its average hadn't been ridiculously high, but someone had to bring it down to something more reasonable. I sat through most of this film, watching scene after scene of tagging and shoplifting. No dialog, just tagging and shoplifting. Finally the two taggers kissed. Something happened. But then back to tagging and shoplifting. I left the screening. I recommend this film only to those who are impressed by pretentious film-making. I disliked the directors previous film (a self-righteous defense of man-boy love) but at least that film had a story, interesting characters, dialog. The Graffiti Artist had only scene after scene of tagging and shoplifting. I want more from a film 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
This movie is a gay love story disguised as a tale of graffiti and friendship. Not ONE review described this movie as a gay romance film, and that's the weight of the plot. I don't know if this was to trick people that would otherwise be uninterested to sit through it, expecting the film to be as it was marketed... The film is out of touch with graffiti culture, abuses and defames graffiti culture, and the acting is abysmal. Oh yeah, the graffiti sucks too. This movie was a clever way to hide the agenda of portraying young boys getting gay. Just look at the rest of the movies the director's been involved with, all contain the same subject matter. Boring as hell, not what I expected.


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


user
This film has made e mad. I believe the original of this film ,'The Mask', was an awesome film, worth buying and watching a lot. I strongly believed that they should make a sequel, but when i saw this, i thought again.
This film has spoilt the whole idea of 'The Mask'. Mask mode? A baby flying around in a room? My little brother who is seven didn't even laugh, and he is into these childish movies, but this was worse. A load of crap!! I am telling you now, please do not watch this film, it is a waste of money and a waste of time. Instead you could actually be having fun! Watch 'The Mask', but do not, I repeat do NOT, watch this hunk of junk. Thank you.


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


user
Mr. Kennedy should stop ExPeRiMeNtIng with bad movie scripts. What WAS he thinking? This is a movie that should not have passed the "hey, I've got an idea, let's make a sequel" stage of inception. If there was a ZERO rating, I'd give it, but I guess I'll settle for a generous 1. It seems these days that if there is a buck to be made, movie execs will dig up an old hit and run it by a set of writers and see what turns up. (Hey, I said "hit and run"! Kinda describes how I felt when this movie ended!) How THIS piece of trash ever saw the light of day is beyond me. It is filled with unpleasant humor, strange animation and jokes that don't quite take you anywhere besides a state of confusion. If you are being dragged to this movie, and someone is paying for you....fine.... but its still going to be more painful than a brick in the forehead. However, if you're planning on paying your own hard-earned money, search out a better alternative.


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


user
This is without a doubt the worst movie I have ever seen. I say this without hyperbole, and believe me, I've seen a lot of bad movies. It's embarrassing and annoying that millions of dollars went into this film and that hundreds (thousands?) of craftspeople spent so much time working on what the writers and producers MUST have known would be a colossal failure.
When a 90 minute film feels this long, drawn out, boring, and incomprehensible, you know that something went wrong somewhere. Also, Jamie Kennedy (whose work I've enjoyed elsewhere) is simply terrible in this role; he was obviously never given a screen test, because no producer in their right mind would consider him entertaining in any way, especially in the guise of The Mask. Simply awful.
Personally, I can't wait to see the reviews by the major film critics, because I know they're do a better job than me at tearing this train wreck to shreds.
The producers of this film should be embarrassed, and more importantly, NEVER be allowed to make theatrical films again.


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


user
What the hell is this movie about? Well, if I didn't know that "son of the Mask" is categorized as comedy, I would never have a clue! A comedy? A tragedy, that's the right genre for this yet-another-so-called-sequel.
Yes I've watched "Dumb and Dumber" but I never believed somebody will ever make it's title real in Hollywood. Yes, You watch "Son of the Mask" and You think.. 5 minutes - Dumb... 10 minutes - Dumber... 15 - minutes Dumbest... And then, after 16 minutes there is only one thing to say :/ I'm out of here...
Sorry, my nominee for Comedy Crap of The Year 2005.


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


user
I can just picture how this movie came to be:
"So how else can we screw up our careers?"
"I know! Let's take a film that was wildly successful and make a sequel out of it!
"Perfect! We'll get B-grade actors who have half the charisma and want only 10% of Carrey's original salary. We'll save millions and rake in a massive profit, never mind the fact nobody wants to see a second rate sequel with none of the original actors that made it popular in the first place! We as executives still honestly believe a movie was popular based on the name and story, not the actors who made it so in the first place!"
"Brilliant! Let's put a massive budget and get the cheapest actors we can find!"
And really, that's what Son Of The Mask can be described as. Just a simple B-grade movie that attempts to suck the life out of it's original classic.
Nevertheless, if the movie didn't contain the words the mask, or anything to do with the mask, it would be a nice kids movie. For all it's massive flaws and horrible acting, this really will appeal to kids. It's a good natured flick that really wants to scream out "like me!" but only those 8 and younger will truly enjoy it.
Jamie Kennedy is the only worthwhile mention in this movie. He clearly is trying to make the material work, playing the desperate dad but the script is so poor, the only thing that spews out that is worthwhile was my drink after seeing this. The character of Loki also deserves a mention, as he was the most enjoyable character and really one of the only reasons for older adults to see this film. It's too bad the character is wasted on this film, I would have really liked to have seen the character take on the true mask. Instead, we are reduced to fart jokes and toilet humor near the end.
The plot is so much by the books, I won't bother to mention it here. It's all so clearly obvious that even a Disney exec would be green with envy.
Save your money, this one is heading to DVD in three months from the looks of it. Shame on the studios for once again smearing a decent film with a horrible sequel. Didn't dumb and dumberer teach them anything?


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


user
My wife received tickets for our family to attend the premier of this movie from her employer for free. I only regret the price of the popcorn and the two hours of my life wasted on this garbage film.
I own the DVD of the original Mask, and quite enjoyed it. I expected a remake nowhere near the original in production values or writing.. but wasn't prepared for this vulgar pile of trash. Weak acting, poor plot, a bad CGI baby passing gas and urinating in hyper "mask mode".. a woman turned into a giant nose, spewing mucous.. Fun huh? My eight year old son loves movies like Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Star Wars. After this was over I asked him what he thought. His exact words; "I hated it. It's like the Scooby Doo movie. They take something good and have to put all that gross stuff in." My twelve year old daughter and wife hated it as well. My wife later told me that my son asker her twice during it if we could leave. He's never done that before. I'm proud of him. Lest you think I'm some kind of puritan, from the groans, and lack of laughter I heard in the theater, I think most of the patrons agreed with me.
This film represents everything bad about children's entertainment today, and any positive reviews MUST be from people financially connected with the film.


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


user
IS there any reason to revive characters 10 years after the fact when the only reason they worked the first time was due to the actors playing them.
Who can replace Jim Carrey or Cameron Diaz -- or better yet, who can replace them at cut-rate prices since most studios know that sequels don't bring in the same amount of revenue as the originals so they cut corners from the get-go.
Where are the good movies going to play if powerful Hollywood studios can clog up 3,000 theaters opening weekend with whatever turds they feel like the general public can be suckered into.
Enough's enough people, this sequel-itis has got to stop and the Hollywood people need to start getting their act together or start distributing the much-better foreign product that's floating in limbo.
Wake up Hollywood, cause the people HAVE woken up and they aren't buying it just cause it's new and shiny. Give us the good stuff and send the rest to the DVD shelves, cause we are taking back the theaters once and for all!!!


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


user
I sort of liked this movie, not a good one, but not the worst ever made. Though, everyone else says it is one o the worst movies ever created, I thought it was okay. There are a lot of immature jokes. It wants to be funny sometimes, but fails.
The story is OKAY. It may be a little hard to follow for the younger audiences, though.
The acting is pretty bad. Jamie Kennedy is a horrible actor at most times. At some times, it is even laughable. Alan Cumming is probably the best actor in here. He is funny when he is supposed to be, but some of his lines are god awful.
Oh, and the main bad thing about this movie that I hated was Tim Avery's voice when he is possessed by the mask. The voice is HORRIBLE. Also, the scenes that he is in are so unfunny, that they are almost unbearable. I am sure they could have cut him out, and it wouldn't affect the movie at all.
Overall, you can live without seeing this. It is a nice movie to watch if you have nothing else to watch, though. They definitely could have gone without making the sequel, but it is a decent effort. 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
Actually, Son of the Mask did make me laugh a few times...mostly due to the cartoonish jokes that made Bugs Bunny and Roadrunner so funny. The CGI is very impressive and is used extensively in this movie. Garfield, for example, is no where on par for CGI, but I would give it the same vote.
Everyone knows the story...which wasn't that bad for a KIDS movie. Yes, it is a KIDS movie...and therefore should be treated as such. Jamie Kennedy is not very good in his role. His attempts to act "crazy" are not very good and overall acting is poor.
Everyone else is not too bad.
Basically, my 2 and 5 year old watched the whole thing without complaining. At least I was able to sit through this.
There is no way this movie is worst than **shudder** Class of 1999
4/10 for the CGI and a few laughs.


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


user
Well I had the chance to view this film the other day. I didn't know what to expect as I never saw the trailer and such... but what I did discover simply by watching the first 10 minutes is that this film is the worst I have ever had the misfortune to see.
I wish I could give it this film a 0 rating. The first 10 minutes were bad but as soon as it goto the party scene I wanted to just enter a coma it was really poorly done. The actors didn't have any direction, there was no real story, I read some reviews that state its good if you have a little child to entertain for 90 minutes etc... but really why should we expose children to this type of film? Its got poor humor, rude and crude comedy at best and focuses on poor special effects to fill 80% of its time. I am sure a few people in Hollywood will be out on the streets after this film bombs.
Also How can 39 people give this movie a 10. I mean get real anyone that gives this movie a 10 either has some mental issue and or works for the film company. This movie should average at 1.5/10 instead of its current 2.3/10 due to the people that ranked it 10. Truly sad.


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 is a real shame, not just for the plot,the empty performance of the characters, it is for the lack of creativity from the director and all the crew, this is maybe one of the worst movies of all times,and it is hard to believe that is the sequel of one of the most famous movies of the 90's.
I am a great fan of The Mask, when I went to see this movie I was expecting to a movie with a good sense of humor, a movie with a acceptable plot, instead I saw a really bad copy of Chuck Jones and Tex Avery cartoons, the movie was not funny even for my 7 years old sister, so I wonder:What was wrong New Line Cinema???.Was it trying to repeat the success of the first movie, or was it trying to create another masterpiece like The Lord of the Rings???.Because if they did, they were completely out of their minds.


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


user
I cant believe it! I thought this is a good sequel when Jim carry in the film has a baby but instead its a film with crappy actors, stupid plot and stupid scenes. This should be in 'crappest films of sh*t in earth'. Thank god the same director did not make this because this is so stupid with some cartoonish parts like the fart was not funny, not the pee and not the dancing! I laughed at this because of how stupid the person made this like homer Simpson making a movie about a doughnut! I wish someone makes a remake of son of the mask with a plot like this! The mask guy (Jim carry) and his wife have a son which is a normal baby. When the baby finds another mask he became the mask, too and the mask guy tries to get his mask back! This is very crap so i'll give it a 1 out of 10. Fu*king sh*t!


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


user
SPOILERS
I love movies. I've seen a lot of movies. I didn't think I'd ever see a film that I actually hated. Son of the Mask ruined it. Son of the Mask is so bad I'm not even going to do a detailed comment like I usually do. In fact, I'm not even going to write a lot. I think all of you should know that this movie is horribly awful. And poor Jamie Kennedy. He was awesome in Scream, but now this film! Also, this film takes a SMO-CAN film and turns it into this goofy kids film that not even kids will like. This film also consists of very rude humor. Like the nose woman. She has a nose for a head and when she sneezes white stuff spews out of her nose. There is also an Exorcist parody. Yes, a kid film has an adult parody. Maybe they thought the adults would like it. Quite frankly, it made the film even more cheesier and crude.
Here's the basic, stupid plot. Tim Avery's dog gets the amazing Loki mask and turns into a cartoon dog thing. When Tim is paying more attention to the baby with special powers, cartoon dog becomes a Wiley Coyote ripoff. Then Loki takes the baby with amazing powers and Tim and Loki have a really cheesy animated fight. Tim's wearing the mask. It all ends happy. Too bad this movie is horrible.
Overall, the original the Mask was a fantastic Jim Carrey movie. This, basically is not. Please, please, don't rent, buy, or download this movie. I made a terrible mistake renting this. I don't want you guys to make that same exact mistake. I feel horrible that I couldn't write a detailed comment, but really, what's there to comment on?
2/10 I'd give it a one, but come on, it's basically a kid film.
Recommended Films: The Mask.


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


user
Loki, Norse god of mischief, creates a mask that endows the wearer with cartoon-like powers. At the command of his father, Odin, he spends the rest of the movie looking for the mask so that it can cause no further grief to mankind. In the meantime, the possessor of the mask conceives a child who inherits the powers of the mask. Etc. etc. If this sounds like a pretty thin plot line, it is. Add to this the fact that the movie is handled ineptly from start to finish, and the result is very, very bad. You can find worse movies, but you'll have to actively search for them.
For the most part, Son of the Mask is presented at the intellectual level of a pre-schooler, but in light of scenes such as the mask-baby urinating copiously in six different directions, including on his father, this premise seems unlikely. I asked my son who he thought might have been the target audience for the movie, and he responded "Convicted felons," apparently forgetting for the moment that the Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.
But just making a bad movie is not a sin, or Hell would be overflowing. What makes it a sin is that $72 million was spent on this piece of garbage. To put things in perspective, the day after we watched Son of the Mask, my son and I watched "Good Night, and Good Luck," a movie that garnered six academy award nominations (including best picture), and was brought in for $7 million. That's right. Just one-tenth of the amount of money spent on Son of the Mask. This, then is the sin -- to flush good money down the sewer, when it could have been better used in making watchable movies, or feeding starving children, or for that matter, almost any other purpose. The producers should truly be ashamed of themselves.


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


user
OK, about 11 years ago the awesome, funny movie, "The Mask", came out and everyone loved it and now, 11 years later the mask is brought back in this awesome movie right? WRONG!!!!!!!!!! this movie was the stupidest movie that i have probably ever seen!! i mean when i rented it i thought that i would be laughing so hard that i would almost pee my pants like from the first one. but after i saw this "sequal" i barley even let out a chuckle. i mean no offense to the director or the cast of this movie, but what a waste of time and money. so, the plot of the whole story was about this little baby that has part of the mask in him and this evil person is after him for some thing, because that is all i really got, i would have least added some more things to it so it would be higher than a 2 out of 10 stars.


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


user
(Contains really bad Spoilers) So what can I say about this....It's a really HORRIBLE and AWFUL movie!!.Too much CGI and special effects....you could tell how fake the ridiculous baby is!!.PLEASE at least go watch "Dungeons and Dragons" which is another terrible pile of TRASH.Son of the Mask makes Dungeons and Dragons way better!!! Uggg!!!!!!!!!!!! Pure Crap!!!!!!!!!!!!I Hate this Trash!! I would also like to say that "Superbabies:BabyGeniuses 2" was also a really stupid movie.Probably just as stupid as "Son of the Mask"."BabyGeniuses 2 was just as fake as"Son of the Mask" and also contains way too much CGI!!
Anyway Yeah...this was a BAD BAD REALLY BAD movie....just please avoid it....Do NOT recommend this to no one...please its just way too ridiculous....makes no sense and really bad plot.The baby peing on his dad was just lame!


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


user
There was no need for this movie, plain and simple. The original, although hated by some, was something I found to be actually really entertaining, mainly because it was before Jim Carrey started to really lose his touch, and Cameron Diaz was, well, "Smoooooookin!" 'Nuff said. So why make a sequel/prequel thing? Honestly? Knowing that Jim Carrey wouldn't do it should've been clue enough that it didn't deserve to be created. But then they just make mistake after mistake. Jamie Kennedy. Why is this man still allowed to breathe? The writing and story: terrible. Why would I ever want to see a baby wearing the mask? Moreover why would I want to see it fly? Ever? HOW DID SOMEONE THINK THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA?! The acting is despicable, in fact nearly everything about this movie is. I'm trying to keep calm, or IMDb probably won't let me post this. Bottom line: don't watch this piece of trash. Pick up the original, see how good Cameron Diaz looked and how Jim Carrey used to have a career, and laugh. Don't waste even a second of your time 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
This movie isn't worth going to the theaters to watch, i did and i didn't like it, the effects on the movie are really well done, and you get a laugh here and there, but the story is really bad, it seemed like they had run out of ideas, and what is that of loki and odin getting along? that totally destroys norse mythology, and i guess they forgot that loki's powers only worked during the NIGHT!! If you really MUST see this movie rent it when it comes out, don't go to the movies for this!
They could have done a lot more with this than they did, it felt like they just wanted to do a movie to show off cool animation and effects


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


user
-So the weak excuse for a story in the generic waste of time involves a guy that wants to be an animator but can't get his career of the ground. His super hot wife is more successful and she doesn't seem to care that he's a loser but the man isn't satisfied with that and wants to make more out of his life. One day their dog brings them a magic mask that changes his life. Unfortunately for him, the god Loki is looking for his magic mask and once he finds the man with the mask he tries to get it back and that's the whole story. If that sounded exciting to you then someone needs to throw some water on you to wake you up
-This movie is terrible. There's really no other way for me to say it and I just can't stretch it enough. The only good thing about the whole thing was the woman that played Jamie Kennedy's wife who was hot but apart from her there's is nothing about this movie that is worth watching. I know it's meant for kids and that's why it's so idiotic but what about the adults that have to take their kids to watch this trash. Why do we have to suffer through this vile vomit sack of horrid crap. The original mask was a very good movie that had a great mix of comedy and great story telling. This one is a lame attempt by hack filmmakers to cash in on the franchise and judging by the laughable BO gross I'm guessing the franchise won't go on any longer.
-The cinematographer needs to be beaten severely because the sugary colors of the movie will make you feel like throwing up. If there was music, I didn't pay attention to it because I had already punctured my eardrums to prevent myself from hearing the horrid dialog. Then there's the acting or at least what passes for acting nowadays. you could watch an infomercial and see much better acting in that than the one in this movie but I can't really blame the actors since it's the director who deserves the blame for apparently not realizing that the actors needed to do another f**king take. If new line is looking to start a franchise with this then they need to up their game by hiring writers that can actually write and stop thinking that the audience will watch any crap that comes out
-Bottom line if you're a sadomasochistic and you love torturing yourself then please by all means check this out because it is painful to watch but if you're not and you actually like to watch movies that are good then 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
Son of the Mask is a terrible movie. I don't like the baby and I don't like the dog. Jamie Kennedy and his wife are a cute couple but that can't redeem sitting through this garbage. Even at only 88 minutes (or so it says), the movie could not end soon enough for me. The only real laughs come at the beginning with a brief appearance by Ben Stain. That's it. The rest is just a rehash of the first movie. Actually that is just an insult to rehashes. Why was this sequel made?? This movie cost millions of dollars to make. Why would I sit through a movie with a baby and a dog intentionally trying to drive the dad crazy? Jamie Kennedy is talented but he has nothing to do in this movie. I am not bothering to be nice to this movie. 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
"Son of the Mask" is a terrible excuse of a movie. I went to see this with my friend and I still wish we had seen "Because of Winn-Dixie" instead. I must say that it is partially my fault, as I agreed to go see it with him. Being a fan of the first "Mask" movie (Jim Carrey was hilarious) I had hoped it wasn't as bad as all of the critics said it was.
Ten minutes into the movie I knew it was headed for disaster. Disgusting and pointless attempts at being funny got little seven and eight year old children shrieking with laughter, but the rest of us were left staring at the screen in disbelief.
Finding the movie as repulsive and unfunny as I did is surprising to even me, as I loved "Scary Movie" and "Anchorman", two films which many people I know found crude and offensive. But the thing is, "Son of the Mask" is not funny unless you're under the age of ten.
The film features lots of CGI in it, but it cannot save this piece of rubbish. Whoever allowed this movie to make it to the big screen was probably thinking it had potential, considering the success of its original. Unfortunately, it has none of the laughs, fun, or excitement of the first, creating a mockery of the original movie. I recommend renting the original "Mask" to anyone who is thinking about seeing this one. 1 star out of 10 is generous to this awful mess.


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


user
This "film," and I use that term loosely, reminds me of the first joke my daughter wrote, at eighteen months: "P.U., stinky poopies!"
Like that joke, this movie can only appeal to the very young, the very immature, or the very stupid.
That said, there are a few bright spots.
The effects, where the majority of the reputed $100 million went, are kinetic and convincing -- I mean, as convincing as those kind of kinetic CGI effects can be. The CGI baby effects are not great, but I imagine those are very hard to do well... although for a hundred-million bucks, they could have been better!
Moose, the dog from "Frasier," phoned in his usual exemplary performance. Steven Wright did well with a small part. Alan Cummings was, well, Alan Cummings-as-villain, which we've seen before, and Bob Hoskins as Odin was unrecognizable, but enjoyable.
The actress playing Mrs. Avery was cute-as-a-button, as you'd expect, and Jamie Kennedy stunk, as you'd expect. His best role so far was in the Scream trilogy (not to be confused with the Lord of the Rings trilogy), and in Three Kings. He should stick, perhaps, to more subtle forms of comedy. Jim Carrey, he ain't.
The writing and direction were, if anything, worse than Kennedy's performance. I semi-remember one clever (though seven-year-old clever) line that I wish someone would quote accurately for the "Memorable Quotes" section. Something about Avery's proposed costume being the "crappiest crap in Craptown," it was a second-grade joke, but sort of funny in context.
Over all, since there's nothing lower than a "one," I give this film a "one."


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


user
I lasted almost ninety minutes through this dreadful movie waiting for some revelation about dance or spirit or inspiration or something and gave up! What possessed the filmmakers to do this? This is an old woman of limited talent who is obsessed with herself and nothing else. To fill in a story without a point we get some stuff about the other folks in her thrall, her aid to burros, and, of course, her ten cats! Do not see this film. And have nothing more to do with anybody who loved it - they do not have a clue. There are fascinating people in this world with wonderful stories to tell and insights to share - but Marta Becket is not one of them. The people I took to this movie say they have forgiven me - but that they will never, ever stop kidding me about it.


assistant
0