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 heard what people were saying, but I ignored them. Being rushed at Blockbuster I grabbed copy of this movie and ran out.
45 minutes into I was fighting to stay awake. There is some attempt to keep the film interesting, but it was just bad. A chase of some sort takes place, but it was long and drawn out - the perfect time to make a snack. By the time this movie was over I didn't care how ended, I just wanted it to end. Walking in and out of my room checking to see if it was over.
The entire movie is a cliche', the characters and their relationships. The plot twists are predictable, as well as the ending. The actors made the best out of really terrible roles. All can say is: their clothes were nice, but the movie, it was just bad.


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 actually looking forward to this movie. The commercials made it look real cool and action packed. And I heard that Claire Daines' character was arrested for assault so I thought that maybe she would kick a lot of ass and that would be cool. BUT NOOOOOOOO!!. Their was hardly any action at all and the character were all kinda bland. The only saving grace was Omar Epps and even he didn't help this movie much.


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


user
There is nothing at all redeeming about this film. It is very bad and not in such a way that it is even remotely funny. Horrible plot, acting, and writing and incredibly cheap production values to boot. This film makes "The Jackal" look like a work of art.


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


user
The DVD sleeve explains the premise: "Three problem teens are headed for jail," and are "set to do time until Captain Greer offers them a deal to work for him - undercover." The film opens with definitions of the words "Mod" and "Squad", so you won't have to look them up in the dictionary. For a visual definition of "Cool", search for photographs of the original threesome: Michael Cole (as Pete Cochran), Clarence Williams III (as Linc Hayes), and Peggy Lipton (as Julie Barnes).
One black. One white. One blonde. Once they defined cool.
The three who make up Scott Silver's version of Aaron Spelling's "The Mod Squad" are twentysomethings: Claire Danes (as Julie Barnes), Giovanni Ribisi (as Pete Cochran), and Omar Epps (as Linc Hayes). They aren't able to do much with the material given. Mr. Ribisi's portrayal is the most "far out", meaning he digresses most from the original characterization. Ms. Danes romances Josh Brolin (as Billy Waites), who looks like he could be in a re-make of "Marcus Welby, MD". You won't believe hefty Michael Lerner dancing with Mr. Epps' "Linc". He explains, "I'm not a fairy, I just like to dance!" and requests, "Spin me!"
*** The Mod Squad (1999) Scott Silver ~ Claire Danes, Giovanni Ribisi, Omar Epps


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


user
I watched this movie for the first time the other day and was bored to tears. I guess I just was looking for some flashback to the wonderful series that I remembered. I watched The Mod Squad television show religiously back in the day and it was fantastic. It was action packed and the relationship the 3 had with Greer was endearing. There wasn't any of that here. When Greer was murdered you get the idea that these 3 could have cared less. The actor who portrayed Pete is a really good actor but they wrote his part like he was mentally challenged. Pete in the television series was quiet and serious but had a funny side also. They had this guy acting like he was either on drugs on the time, drunk or just plain ignorant. I wouldn't recommend this movie at all. Especially if you were a fan of the TV series. It will be a complete letdown.


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


user
The movie was slow, the dialogue between actors/actresses felt "flat" and basically there was no development of the characters in the story.
Omar Epps skulks around with a mad look on his face the entire time, pouting and basically looking annoyed with everybody. Danes has no on-screen magic, and Ribisi's character is a goober that nobody would want to hang out with even if they were paid to do so.
Throw in the weird scene where Epps has to dance with an old man, and you have what quite possibly COULD BE the worst movie in cinema history.
I watched it on satellite (thank goodness I didn't pay for it), and wished I hadn't.
Do yourself a favor and go sort your underwear and socks drawer if you need something to do but are tempted to watch this movie when/if it comes on your TV. Awful movie if you ask me, and I generally have something good to say about just about any movie out there.


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 not old enough to really appreciate the original Mod Squad, but I knew everyone thought it was cool. I have some of the "books" that were written based on the series in my screen-to-print collection, and they're pretty light duty, so I didn't expect much from the movie. That's a good thing, because this movie was bad on a long leash.
I admire the risk in creating a movie that is so completely true to the 1960's hit. The movie audience, though, has gained sophistication in 30 years. At least, I think so. I certainly expect something more than an hour and a half of the original Mod Squad concept, with (now old) car chases, (now considered poor) camera work, (tinny sounding) soundtrack and (poor) script and all, on the big screen. In the 1960s, we didn't care as much because we had minimal expectations. An integrated police team of young people wearing something besides suits was enough. It was that, another thrilling episode of "Ironsides" or "Password."
Rating this "episode" against usual theatre releases, the story was...well, I'm not sure I should even say because I'm not sure there was one. Drugs are bad? Whatever. The script was silly. When the characters are exchanging dialog and advancing the plot with lines like "I overheard him say so on the phone," and "I think I got a plan," we really are in trouble. No wonder the acting was dreadful: no one knew how to say such idiotic lines.
If I were Claire Danes, I'd be going after my agent with a flame-thrower right now. (Actually, I think everyone in and watching the film has a right to seek retribution.)
And where was the Mod in that Squad? I realize these kids just got out of juvenile hall, but no one had a velvet suit? "Mod" only meant young and integrated? What happened to white go-go boots? Perhaps the costume department was going for gritty, but all they got was dirty and dingy.
Since the movie was completely true to the original series, and required special behavior from the actors, cameramen, stunt men, etc., we should appreciate it more. Unfortunately, I still don't like it. If I wanted to watch 60's crime drama, I'd buy DVDs. No thanks.


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


user
The Mod Squad isn't a movie, it's a void. That's the most fascinating thing about it and the thing that kept me watching  I'd never seen a film that offered absolutely nothing before. It's a film without any reason to exist whatsoever, seemingly consciously designed to appeal to no-one as if made purely as a contractual obligation to someone the studio really dislike. There is no plot, there is no characterisation, there are no set piece action scenes, there aren't even any scenes as such, just a progression of increasingly empty shots projected at 24 frames per second. I'm not talking about empty as in dumb summer blockbuster but empty as in "We haven't got the pages yet so just point the camera at something and stop when you've got 90 minutes worth." It makes you appreciate the 'artistic achievements' of Charlie's Angels and S.W.A.T. that much more. What it does offer is far too much of Giovanni Ribisi at his most tediously execrable doing his bastard son of a thousand morons impersonating Marlon Brando method acting routine, Michael Lerner dancing with Omar Epps and no, that's it. Oh, Clare Danes has a nice smile in one shot. And Dennis Farina has the sense to get killed off early. Genuinely the most utterly pointless film ever made, it's like L'Humanite without the jokes but, you know, for kids.


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


user
I had the misfortune to watch this last night on the BBC, I expect I may have been the only viewer. From the beginning there was something quite wrong about the movie, after a few minutes of viewing i managed to work out what it was. THE MOVIE WAS BAD! Not bad in a good way like Wolfpack or a Seagal film just plain old shoddy bad.
Why was this made into a movie? I've seen a few episodes of the TV series and thought it was alright but I only saw repeats of that because they made this.
I spent most of the film trying to work out what the story was and by the end I was none the wiser. I seem to remember at some point a character, maybe Farina's mentions that the Mod Squad can get in to places regular cops can't. The 'place' turns out to be a 'club', one of the toughest places to get into, maybe it was student night? I lost track of the plot at this point or maybe there was no plot and the movie was just chopped together from various leftovers from other TV series remakes.
Was it an action comedy? I don't remember any laughs.
Overall this movie lacked the real scene stealing power of someone like Seymour Hoffman as the bad guy. With him Ribisi would have had somebody to bounce off.


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 one of the most boring films I've ever seen. The three main cast members just didn't seem to click well. Giovanni Ribisi's character was quite annoying. For some reason, he seems to like repeating what he says. If he was the "Rain Man", it would've been fine, but he's not.
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
This one is a poor attempt at spinning the old "cons turn good" yarn, which we have seen so many times before. It actually reminded me of the American series 'The Players', although nowhere near as good. Omar Epps is totally unconvincing as the hard man of the bunch, as is Ribisi, who's attempt at being the funny guy gets lost along the way. Danes performance was decent though, and you can see from this performance, why she was cast in Terminator 4.
The MOD Squad is a film which lies in a kind of grey area between serious thriller and comedy. At times it takes itself serious but other times it tries to be humorous but fails miserably. The film has a kind of half-finished feel about - as if it was stretched to the 90 minute mark.
You'l be disappointed.


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


user
one day someone said lets redo the mod squad we can make it hip cool and all that YO!it'll make a mint then they actually made it and as you are watching it you can hear your spleen cringe in agony as it twists and binds into a knot from the pure horror of it all any movie ever made has something on this id rather meet wayne newton and sing karaoke with him in a gay bar in idaho and drink a virgin bloody mary than ever watch this again may god have mercy on my soul


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


user
i expected this movie to be absolutely god awful. Like "What Dreams May Come" or "The Truman Show" or something. Well they were selling it off for £3.99 in my local HMV and it had Giovanni Ribisi on the cover, you know you cant help but love him, and so my friends dared me to buy it. and i was sure it was going to be trash. maybe thats the only reason i could sit through this movie, because my standards were never that high.


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 not unusual that Hollywood likes to pump out crappy films. Occasionally, a handful of good films come out of them while the majority just sucks major ass. It's also not surprising that those bad films are retreads of old TV series'. Occasionally a surprise pops up with "The Fugitive" (who saw that Best Picture oscar nom coming?), but for every "Fugitive", there's a McHale's Navy or some other wholly unoriginal film devoid of any plot or interest. The Mod Squad, in my opinion, goes into my top ten of truly lousy films, in which Hollywood should get it's sorry ass beaten for producing what could've been a good movie. We're shifted right dab smack in the middle of a story that just doesn't seem to make sense, it wastes the talent, and the dialogue is just bad. We don't actually know who the hell these characters are, and we could give a flying f**k about what they are. Instead, you're expected to automatically know who they are and what they're going to do. There's one particularly bad riff, about the "I'm too old for this s**t" line, that's just plain stupid. Something my friend verbally noted when we were clamoring for the movie to just end. It's just an insult to Hollywood cinema. Grade: F-


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


user
When a loser teen is bitten by an insect, he becomes the superhero Dragonfly...
Superhero Movie is the latest spoof movie to hit the screens. Sadly however, despite the presence of David Zucker (who was involved with Airplane!, Top Secret and The Naked Gun movies) it still suffers from the fault most recent spoofs have...mainly it's more dumb than fun! The fault mainly lies with the gags. It's simply not funny enough. Some of the jokes do work, such as the nail gun scene, but other parts simply fall flat. The X-men spoof for example, or the whole farting sequence. Blazing Saddles this isn't! One of the key things about the best spoof movies, like Airplane is that although the dialog is extremely funny, the cast for the most part play is completely straight. This makes it even funnier. Even when there is simple dialog in the foreground, there may well be funny things happening behind the cast. Again funny. The other key thing is that they all have a plot of sorts, to hang the gags on.
The recent trend seems to be to take scenes from various movies, THEN try and spoof them. As a result the so-called plot of these movies very rarely exist. Another flaw these movies have, is that some of the scenes were actually funny in the original versions, and in most cases even funnier than the spoof scene! The cast try to get into the spirit required, but with a lot of unfunny dialog and scenes, it's hard to get worked up about it.
As recent spoof movies go, it's not as bad as Epic Movie, Date Movie, or the awful Meet The Spartans, but considering that some people involved here have made good, funny movies in the past, it's nowhere near good enough.


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 not fair. I was really expecting this to be a hilarious, entertaining movie. I mean, I like Drake Bell from Drake and Josh, and Leslie Neilson is nothing to be sneezed at since his earliest classics, Airplane and the Naked Gun. However, After seeing Superhero movie, I'm glad I didn't even have to pay for it. It just wouldn't have been anywhere near the 9$ per ticket. More like a dollar and a few pennies. Because that would sum up for the hour and a few minutes. And as disappointing as this film was I'm glad the running time was that short, if not shorter. I just cant believe how incredibly vulgar, unnecessary, and above all, STUPID, some of the scenes were! And above that, I've seen better acting from a wooden dummy(without the ventriloquist). It's as if Craig Mazin purposefully wanted to make a film that deserves its 3.7, if not lower, and even try to be worse than "Meet the Spartans". Very disappointing indeed.


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


user
Superhero Movie (2008) is the most recent in the long line over "parody" movie movies which I despise so much. I wish this movie could be the death of the genre, but I know that it isn't awful enough to put the final nail in the coffin.
If Meet the Spartans is considered the bottom of the barrel as far as Hollywood movies go, than Superhero Movie is probably near the top. Unfortunately Meet the Spartans was actually miles below the barrel, and this movie just barely makes it in.
Superhero Movie has a decent cast of C-list celebs. It's got Drake Bell (the kid from Disney's Drake and Josh), Leslie Nielson (Airplane!), Tracy Morgan (SNL and 30 Rock), and a few others scattered throughout. Although it has the star power to light a 40-watt bulb, the movie fails to utilize any humor.
This movie is about 80 minutes long, most of which is dedicated to following the Spiderman plot, and not one single joke is funny. I didn't laugh or chuckle or smirk the entire time.
Don't see this movie. Don't even think about it. For the love of cinema, just skip it and maybe they wont come out with another one.
...oh, who am I kidding? They'll probably come out with another one by fall.


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


user
Here's a spoof that's guaranteed to entertain folks in the IQ range of Homer Simpson. It's a cheap shot at every great Superhero, notably Spiderman and Batman. But it doesn't end there; it gets progressively worse until it disintegrates into a pathetic ensemble of slapstick trollop by the truckload.
For those interested in the plot, you've only to watch Spiderman while under the influence of some heavy narcotic. What you get is Dragonfly Man  a boy wonder, who loves the girl next door, suddenly inheriting some stupendous super-powers.
The rest of the script is as predictable as waking up in the morning and brushing your teeth, but don't' take my word for it! For kids, this is somewhat amusing; for adults it's a great film to drop the kids off for.


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


user
I happened to rent this movie with my sister in hopes of watching a great entertaining movie, that was humorous, however my expectations were let down. This movie was beyond disgusting and revolting for a PG-13 movie, this should have been rated R for the many mature references that went on in this movie. I wouldn't recommend allowing a 13 year old teen see this.
Even if no one under the age of 17 is watching this movie, beware of a truly stupid movie, there's no humor in the movie, just a bunch of disgusting sexual references including a small touch of pedophilia, something that shouldn't even be joked about.
I would like to know what happened to PG-13 movies, that were actually safe for actual a 13 year old? This is beyond a deplorable movie and should be re-rated.


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


user
Scary Movie 1-4, Epic Movie, Date Movie, Meet the Spartans, Not another Teen Movie and Another Gay Movie. Making "Superhero Movie" the eleventh in a series that single handily ruined the parody genre. Now I'll admit it I have a soft spot for classics such as Airplane and The Naked Gun but you know you've milked a franchise so bad when you can see the gags a mile off. In fact the only thing that might really temp you into going to see this disaster is the incredibly funny but massive sell-out Leslie Neilson.
You can tell he needs the money, wither that or he intends to go down with the ship like a good Capitan would. In no way is he bringing down this genre but hell he's not helping it. But if I feel sorry for anybody in this film its decent actor Drake Bell who is put through an immense amount of embarrassment. The people who are put through the largest amount of torture by far however is the audience forced to sit through 90 minutes of laughless bile no funnier than herpes.
After spoofing disaster films in Airplane!, police shows in The Naked Gun, and Hollywood horrors in Scary Movie 3 and 4, producer David Zucker sets his satirical sights on the superhero genre with this anarchic comedy lampooning everything from Spider-Man to X-Men and Superman Returns.
Shortly after being bitten by a genetically altered dragonfly, high-school outcast Rick Riker (Drake Bell) begins to experience a startling transformation. Now Rick's skin is as strong as steel, and he possesses the strength of ten men. Determined to use his newfound powers to fight crime, Rick creates a special costume and assumes the identity of The Dragonfly -- a fearless crime fighter dedicated to keeping the streets safe for law-abiding citizens.
But every superhero needs a nemesis, and after Lou Landers (Christopher McDonald) is caught in the middle of an experiment gone horribly awry, he develops the power to leech the life force out of anyone he meets and becomes the villainous Hourglass. Intent on achieving immortality, the Hourglass attempts to gather as much life force as possible as the noble Dragonfly sets out to take down his archenemy and realize his destiny as a true hero. Craig Mazin writes and directs this low-flying spoof.
featuring Tracy Morgan, Pamela Anderson, Leslie Nielsen, Marion Ross, Jeffrey Tambor, and Regina Hall.
Hell Superhero Movie may earn some merit in the fact that it's a hell of a lot better than Meet the Spartans and Epic Movie. But with great responsibility comes one of the worst outings of 2008 to date. Laughless but a little less irritating than Meet the Spartans. And in the same sense much more forgettable than meet the Spartans. But maybe that's a good reason. There are still some of us trying to scrape away the stain that was Meet the Spartans from our memory.
My final verdict? Avoid, unless you're one of thoses people who enjoy such car crash cinema. As bad as Date Movie and Scary Movie 2 but not quite as bad as Meet the Spartans or Epic Movie. Super Villain.


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


user
I went to see this movie with my boyfriend last night. I'm 20 years old and this movie was way too much for ME. I couldn't imagine taking a teenager, preteen, or (especially) a child to this movie. It was crude and offensive. I was totally misled by its PG-13 rating and the previews that I had seen for it. I had originally seen previews for it on Nickelodeon, and I thought that it looked pretty cute (maybe I just don't remember the preview correctly) . Plus, Drake Bell (the movie's main character) stars on a Nickelodeon television show that targets preteens and young teenagers. I really didn't think that the movie's content would be as risky as it was. I should have done more research about it before I went. However, I'm hoping that parents will read up on this movie before they take their kids to see it just because it has Drake Bell in it.
Seriously, do NOT take your kids or teenagers to see this movie. The rating should have been R. There are tons of sexual references, drug references, and disturbing events throughout the movie. Examples: Drake Bell gets attacked by sexually charged animals, several scenes that involve men grabbing women's breasts, lots of profanity, Drake Bell uses a bong to smoke vanilla frosting (or something like that), people get stabbed, hit, and hurt in the movie, and an elderly lady and her dog get shredded. There are tons of other offensive and disgusting scenes throughout the movie. It was really demeaning to women in general. The movie is by the people that made the Scary Movie series, so that should tell you something right there. Please remember that seeing movies like this can give kids and teenagers all kinds of wrong ideas about sex, drugs, and violence. Most children and teenagers can't decipher between spoofs or comedy and reality.
I do have a sense of humor. I also know that the humor that was in this film is typical of its genre. But I find the possibility of children and teenagers going to see this movie HORRIFYING.
As for the overall quality of the movie, I didn't think it was that original or funny. It dragged in parts and some of the humor was just forced and painful. The acting wasn't TOO bad, considering how bad the script was. If you're an adult or older teen looking for a funny movie, skip this one or rent it.


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 was the worst film I have ever seen. It was a complete waste of money. If I had not been in the cinema was my two young cousins (who also thought it was disappointing, but not as terrible as I thought), I would have left the cinema. There were two points in the film that I almost laughed, but the rest of it was either boring, ridiculous or painful. I thought it would be a spoof on all superhero movies (which I love), but in fact it was mainly based on Spiderman, with a few oblique references to other superhero movies such as Fantastic Four and Batman. I really cannot think of one good thing to say about this film. Do not waste your money with this film-there are many other better films out there!


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


user
I took my 14 year old to see this movie. We left after 15 or 20 minutes. It was absolutely awful! This movie should be rated R at the least. I am not that strict with movies but, this was just too much. It was a waste of money. I thought it would contain some comedy and I knew the comedy would probably be crude but, this was WAY beyond crude. I was sitting there watching and reading (a certain subtitle at the beginning of the movie was what really got me) and I could not believe how crudely sexual it was. I could not believe that it would be OK for a 13 year old to read and see this content. I don't understand how the rating system works.??


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


user
This was the stupidest movie I have ever seen in my life. It is a complete waste of money and time. I went to see this movie with my friends and when the movie was over not a single person in the movie theater- not that there was a lot of people there to see this terrible movie- said "wow what a good movie." Someone actually walked out! It was absolutely terrible! It was disgusting and I hated every minute of it. My friend was putting her head in my shoulder towards the end because after the scene with Rick on the ceiling peeing, she had had enough. It was not funny at all. Believe me I went with 11 other girls and not one of my friends liked it. It was ridiculous! I've seen many movies but this was absolutely the worst! I mean a scene in the movie is with an old man making out with a dead person in a coffin. I just can't make up these things.


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


user
And so it started with "Shreik" a send up of horror films, then we had Scary Movie, a genuinely good attempt at a new kind of genre, the illustrious send up. however....now we have: Scary Movie* Scary Movie 2 Scary Movie 3 Scary Movie 4* Date Movie Meet The Spartans Not Another Team movie* plus many more (genuinely funny movies marked with *)
and.....Super hero movie.... it seems the people that make these movies cannot yet grasp what makes the send-ups funny. using the rip-offs from other movies in a funny way is all well and good if done properly, but not many producers seem to know how to do that. Scary movie(1) did it well, the following sequels were then horrendous as the tried to over play the franchise, but it was redeemed by Scary Movie 4. Not another teen movie was good because it used the spoofs well...and to its credit i am sick of teen movies. however, this movie plays like a bad version of all of these. it relies on slap stick the would make even the 3 stooges cringe, violating the image of Stephen hawking, and then when people begin to get bored (and the producers knew when this would be) we are treated to Pamela Anderson in a skin tight suit. to conclude, spoofs should be about making a homage-like mock-up of an original movie with an original storyline, not plastering random take offs of legitimate film onto the storyline of a real film.
...i shudder at the thought of "SCI-FI MOVIE" and get my seppuku knife ready


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


user
I thought this would be funny. I did. I don't know what happened. But I think a lot of the problem unfortunately falls with the casting. I don't know who this kid is, he could be a very nice person but he wasn't right for this movie. And the supporting cast was great which only makes it more obvious. For example there would be a scene with him and his love interest and your mind just starts to wander off but then Keith David starts speaking, or Leslie Nielsen, or Marion Ross, and it's like someone turned a light on and suddenly you can pay attention again and you think it might not be that bad. But when they get back to the main characters the lights go out again.
The spoofing material available in the superhero genre is plentiful so the fact that most of the jokes were basically a fart, makes you wonder who wrote this thing. I mean it had a couple of funny bits, as I do remember laughing a couple of times, but right now I don't remember why and it was only a few days ago.
Really I'm giving it a take it or leave it rating but I think most people should just leave it.


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


user
Went with some friends and one of my friends mom, thinking it would be a good way to start off the spring break, but the movie turned out awful. We all agree it shouldn't have been PG-13. More like R material. Lots of sexual dialog, cussing and referring to boy and girl parts (below the waist). Not worth the time or money. Strongly urge you not to go, or rent it when it comes out. If you do end up going, don't take smaller children. Not the type of movie to see with the family! If curious about the content, check out the content advisory section on the Superhero Movie page on IMDb. Most of the content that was meant to be funny was extremely crude. Especially when they make fun of Steven Hawking.


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 funny if you're the gentleman who was sitting about three rows behind me (repeating every punchline, laughing when there were no gags on-screen, and issuing a gravelly "haaaa" at every scene involving a computer or mobile device).
For everyone else, it's a mean-spirited, bungled "comedy." The movie strictly follows the formula of the later "Scary Movie" films, as well as "Epic Movie" and "Meet the Spartans," though without the flood of heartless pop culture references that made the latter two so irritating. Still, the lampooning of intellectual and peacemaking figures the world over makes it clear that the film knows its audience: people who envy brainpower. "Superhero Movie" is particularly and consistently nasty to Stephen Hawking, introducing him as a sex-starved druggie and using his disability as a vehicle for slapstick.
The plot is based on "Spider-Man," with "Batman Begins" and "X-Men" thrown in just to deliver some physical comedy. Much of the movie is slapstick, but not in any invigorating or interesting way. The longest-running gag is a fart joke, and early on the scriptwriters seem to believe that having the main character get thrown in conspicuous piles of fake animal poo automatically enlivens an otherwise uninspired rehash of the spider bite scene from "Spider-Man." Perhaps the only redeeming feature of this feature is the energy in it, notably absent in other recent parodies. The filmmakers act as though they're doing something new, and the audience can feel the influence in the way the actors bounce around the screen. An extremely abbreviated length (about an hour and fifteen minutes) and the zest of the presentation makes "Superhero Movie" tolerable rather than horrifying.


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 somehow showing 6.2 stars, It seems inconceivable that the director has that many relations. I am at a loss to explain this.
Avoid this movie at all costs. You have only a certain number of hours on the Earth, don't waste 1&1/2 of them on this retarded steaming heap of Guano!!!
There is no story as apparently the director "wrote" (and I'm guessing with a blunt orange crayon) the next day's script at the completion of the day's shooting. The "story" has been called whimsical, no it is aimless, there is maybe enough "story" to fill a commercial. Don't you hate ads?
Now while both leads can act they obviously decided not to here. And similarly the writer/director can actually both write and direct as evidenced by his next work "Toy Love"
So to recap, even if you get this movie for free, even if you're paid to watch it avoid it.
To paraphrase Monty Python's Search for the holy Grail, "Run flee!"


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


user
It is terrible! It is like somebody gave a kid a faulty video camera and $30 and told them to make a film. Even then you'd get a better and more professional film than this. The story is so dumb you can say there isn't one. I don't think the guy who made this knew what to do at all -- watching foreign art movies all day long isn't enough to make somebody an instant director. The acting is very bad, really kindergarten level and the writing is just plain awful. The only scene I didn't hate was the one with the caravan accident but even that only means it was just slightly less horrible than the rest of the film. How do people get finance for this stuff? I don't mind alternative films but shouldn't they at least not be a big steaming pile of cow manure? I would call 'Price of Milk' amateurish if it wasn't an insult to amateurs. This would not even be a good film if you were drunk or drugged!


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 more entertained by watching my wife almost pull her hair out in frustration through most of this movie. I thought something that would tie it all together would be just around the corner of the dairy barn any minute. So I cheated, grabbed the remote, and was relieved to find out it was ending in merely 20 minutes. I should have turned the channel. Cute, it had potential, but yuck!


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


user
From hardly alien sounding lasers, to an elementary school style shuttle crash, "Nightbeast" is better classified as a farcical mix of fake blood and bare chest. The almost pornographic style of the film seems to be a failed attempt to recover from a lack of cohesive or effective story. The acting however is not nearly as beastly, many of the young, aspiring, actors admirably showcase a hidden talent. Particularly Don Leifert and Jamie Zemarel, who shed a well needed shard of light on this otherwise terrible film. Nightbeast would have never shown up on set had he known the terrible movie making talent of this small Maryland town.


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


user
An hulking alien beastie crash-lands on Earth and soon wrecks havoc upon the populace first using his laser ray gun to dissolve into dust almost every human he catches sight off (that is when his aim isn't terribly off) and later his bare claws with which he likes to rip out and eat human spleen!
All in all, it's pretty silly stuff. I do have to give it some points for being somewhat fun at times. I actually enjoyed the mindless ray gun battle at the beginning and some of the later over the top gore effects. However it doesn't help when the monster provides the movie's only truly entertaining moments and he isn't on screen for a large portion of the film's running time. The acting throughout this is just plain awful and amateurish and our lead hero Sheriff Cinder is much too unattractive to be bagging the film's hottest chick. I also have to take off points for blatantly copying THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD (1951) on several occasions. When the monster isn't on a rampage, NIGHTBEAST is far too dull and eventually his attacks become so repetitive and predictable even they become less fun. Watch this one back to back with the 1951 THING and see the difference characterization, attention to plot and detail and creating suspense makes to a monster on the loose movie.


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


user
OK, when I say "wow," I mean, "Jesus, please help me." I have an old VHS copy that was printed before Troma got a copy of the title. The movie is about an alien crash landing on Earth to terrorize us with a gun that blasts people into oblivion. WATCH OUT!!! And by that, I mean watch out for those special effects. There is an amazing number of mistakes. The acting is terrible, but I'd say the only one putting forth any effort would be the Sheriff. The film itself is really grainy and poorly lighted. In one particular scene, it is day outside and then the shot shows the Night Beast shooting his gun with night behind him. Then it shows day again. *Shakes head* I usually like low-budget horror films, but I had to force myself to finish it because I never watch a movie without finishing it. The only accomplishment this film achieved was an alien that wasn't stereotypical. So for that, and ONLY for that... I give it a 3 out of 10.
Don't watch this movie if you've had a bad day. You'll be even more depressed at the failed attempt this movie makes.


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 want to truly experience the magic (?) of Don Dohler, then check out "Alien Factor" or maybe "Fiend", but not this. Alien Factor is actually rather imaginative considering the low budget and it's fairly creepy, but "Nightbeast", which I guess is sort of an updating of Alien Factor, is just plain dumb. Actors sleepwalk through their roles, especially Mr. Monotone sheriff, and the monster is some dumb Halloween-mask kind of thing instead of the wildly imaginative (but kind of stupid) looking critters from Alien Factor. A spaceship crashes on Earth and there's a critter inside, of course, who runs around vaporizing people. And ripping off arms, etc. And he has a cool ray gun that he uses to vaporize people too, until it gets shot out of his hand. And that's really about it. "Alien Factor" beats this mess hands down, if you really want to see a good Don Dohler movie, check that out instead. And RIP Don Dohler, 12/2/06.


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


user
I have been an avid Jane Austen fan for many years. I had never seen this adaptation, so when I had heard of it, I came here and read all the excellent reviews. On that basis I eagerly ordered it from Netflix. What a cruel disappointment! They have taken one of the most subtle and bright comic novels and made it dull. Each character seems to have been dealt a single facial expression, a single tone upon which to base their flat characters. Although this adaptation seems to have used every word that Jane Austen wrote, they appear to have been passed around to characters in a random fashion. Even though it was done as a miniseries, this adaptation manages to confuse and feel as rushed as if it had been done as a movie of the week.
Mr. Bennett too harsh, Mrs. Bennet just a chattering chipmunk, Mr. Darcy as lifeless as a nutcracker, the Bennett girls almost indistinguishable and Mr. Wickham a man who no one would look twice at - hardly the appealing cad! I'm quite put out!


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


user
Perhaps if only to laugh at the way my favorite of Jane Austen's works has been portrayed. Perhaps I am too severe on this adaptation, but I'm afraid I am biased to the A&E version. I have a hard time imagining Mr. Darcy portrayed by anyone other than Colin Firth.
The characters seemed shallow, and often dialogue forced. Lizzy seemed to lack the real feeling that is so evident in the book. Her fancy for Wickham was overplayed, and then her sudden like for Darcy was not believable.
Darcy was portrayed tolerably well, I will grant him. He managed to maintain the aloofness that is required, but I felt he did not project the feeling and inner struggle that makes his character so delightful, especially in the proposal scene.
Mr. and Mrs. Bennet were also played well, but seemed lacking in many ways. The mean temper of Mrs. Bennet was not completely captured in her performance.
Mr. Collins' was a good portrayal. Very much in line with the book.
I will refrain from commenting on Lady Catherine except to say that she is possibly the worst portrayal in the entire film.
Other problems I saw were the few liberties they took with the order of events such as Darcy being present at the first meeting with Lady C., and also that Miss Lucas and Sir William did not join Lizzy on her visit to the Collins'.
The choreography was dreadful during the dancing scenes. The scene where Lizzy and Darcy dance loses much of its intensity because one cannot get past the feeling that they look akward on the ballroom floor. At least this BBC version left out the dialogue between Lizzy, Darcy and Sir William when he commends the two on their dancing, as they performed very ill indeed.
There were occasional moments that it kept me interested, but overall I find this version to be a disappointment. I would not advise this film unless you're like me, and you are excessively diverted by such follies.



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


user
As a professional poker dealer for over 25 years I found this movie very hard to watch. Too unreal. It seems the producers of this movie either had done little or no research or just didn't care. The card tricks are something you never would see performed in a real poker game. Common sense right? Plus it was full of film cuts and such during the tricks. Who couldn't do that? The cheating was amateur stuff. Palming, marked cards, etc. Would you sit in a high limit game where they use opened deck cards? Would you sit in a game where the players push their chips into the middle of a pot (constantly), mixing them in then just verbalizing how much they bet? C'MON ! I gave it a 4 because the twists and turns might be interesting to some people but for those who know how to play the game it will be pretty painful. Next time they should use real players and get some insight on how to do it right. OUCH!!!


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


user
What a cast...and what a waste of it. Seriously, when a movie has Gabriel Byrne, Jamie Foxx, Thandie Newton, Stuart Townsend, Hal Holbrook, Melanie Griffith and Sylvester Stallone in it you would expect some quality. The movie is however one big mess with a unlikely story that can't seem to stop putting twist and turns in it. Yeah, I think that they thought they were really being clever with all of it.
The story is not only messy and unlikely, it also isn't exactly terribly original. It uses elements from earlier and much better poker game based movies. But to me it were really the many pointless twist and turns in the movie that did it. It made the story such an unlikely one to watch. On top of that the script remains filled with a lot of holes silly poker game errors and things that just don't make an awful lot of sense. Why would any one above all things want to play against a card player that is known as the best cheater in the game. This is what the movie is about and builds up to but just didn't ever made a lot of sense to me.
Despite that the movie has a great cast, it still feels as if most actors were miscast in their roles. I don't know what it is about Stuart Townsend. He is a good actor but in most roles he plays he always feels out of place. Perhaps it are his looks, I don't known. This basically also was the reason why he got replaced in "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring". Also Thandie Newton isn't much good and actually quite annoying in her 'strong' female role. And what was the point of having Melanie Griffith in this? Oh, I guess I could go on about the movie its casting and could complaining even some more about the way too limited screen time the Jamie Foxx character gets but I guess you get my point by now.
Damian Nieman just isn't much of an original writer/director and on top of that he also doesn't handle his own material very well. Scenes often feel disjointed, it tries to put in way too many characters and everything about the movie is shallow and in a way predictable. On top of that the movie features some bad editing at times, which also doesn't help to make this movie look like one seamless whole. The movie was also one major box office bomb and no wonder that Damian Nieman hasn't made a movie ever since.
A too big mess to make you enjoy this movie.
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
How did so many talented or at least charismatic actors wind up in this baloney? Nothing is very good about this movie but the worst things probably are the screenplay and the directing.
Apparently this is director Damian Niemans heart-piece as he's both written and directed it (and acted in as well). He's a card magician himself and seems to have named characters in homage of other famous magicians. This was his first feature film as far as I know, and chances are it's his last.
It's hard to point to exactly what makes it so poor  but I'd say the story and character's are not believable (the screenplay) and the directing doesn't give it any boost (the director). Plus  the poker scenes are bad in the worst Hollywood manner (super-hands, Hollywood rules)! The supposed twists in the movie are either totally predictable or totally unbelievable. They just end up tying a knot to a story that at best can be described as "a few decent scenes"!


assistant
0