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
This movie really is that bad, and I'm normally a sucker for bad movies, but this was too much. Seeing this is like OD'ing on pure SUCK. Now, you may think you've seen the bottom of the barrel. You may have waded through every title from Full Moon and Troma, all the movies of Edward D. Wood Jr, Uwe Boll, Albert Pyun and direct to DVD-flicks from faded men-of-action. You may even have seen Death Tunnel, Ghost Lake and a vast array of the movies that MST3K covered, but in their original form. But you do not know truly awful film-making until you have seen Darkhunters. And if you haven't, you shouldn't. Don't bother. Not only is this movie amazingly poorly written, directed, shot, edited, acted and splattered in crude, cheap aftereffects. First of all, it's a pretentious mess. But not good, Greenaway or Lynch-style pretentious or hilariously messy in an Ittenbach or early Waters sort of fashion. It's the kind of pretentiousness that comes when someone incredibly stupid thinks they've come up with something incredibly smart. Sort of like M. Night Shaymalan (sp?), only that man seems like a freakin' messiah when compared to this trainwreck (and this coming from a rampant Shaymalan hater). It's also boring. Not heavy going-type boring, which is okay, if the movie awards your patience. Darkhunters does no such thing. It's boring in a "Oh my fu(king God, if I see another shot of a cat set to an obnoxious audio cue I am going to fu(king kill myself!"-kind of way.
Btw. anyone who claims to like this film is a boldfaced liar and anyone who claims this film is complex or deep knows what their mother is like in bed.


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


user
First of all, I really can't understand how some people "enjoyed" this movie. It's the worst thing I have ever seen. Even the actors seem to be bored...and I think that says it all!
However, I have to give my applause to the opening credits creators - that team seems to have a really good future. That's why I recommend the big studios to watch ONLY the opening credits, and one or two special effects sequences (if they're watched outside this movie, it almost looks like a good movie).
Better luck (or judgment) next time for the producers of this, this... this "thing!".


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


user
Hm. Where do I start? I usually ignore whatever rating IMDb has when looking up a movie because I think I might like it anyway or whatever and I should at least give it a chance, but this time I wish I'd paid attention.
I know some people liked it, and I'm not trying to say that they shouldn't. It was semi-amusing at some parts. But if you're like me and you don't like watching cats prancing around in the undergrowth for 20 minutes, random fast motion cloud scenes, dogs barking in cages for another 20 minutes set to 'thrilling' music, and close-ups of faces while people are speaking, then you might want to avoid this movie. The actors were either positively wooden or way over the top, and the film quality was awful, fuzzy and grainy and bland and not in an artistic way at all. And I know that we were supposed to think that Carol was not just a crazy maniac with a gun shooting innocent people with this weird religious psychosis going on, but... well, she doesn't really convince me otherwise. In fact, I ended up really disliking her crazy character. And what was up with the souls in space? I understand this is a fantasy movie, but come on.
I will say, the angel at the end was freaking creepy. It was the creepiest thing in the whole movie, WAY more creepy than the Darth Maul lava-face demon. I give them props for that scene, it was good. But not good enough to actually see the movie. And the opening credits were great, but don't be fooled! I would've rather they used whatever money went into those credits to make the movie better.
Bah. I wish I hadn't bought this for even the $2 that I paid for it, I could have bought a candy bar instead. :/


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 truly one of the most awful movies of all time. It's dull, ponderous, badly acted, and teeth crawlingly pretentious.
I watched for about an hour waiting for some kind of drama to unfold, before realising there wasn't any. The shot on a shoe string budget was particularly painful. These have to be the worst day for night shots since Plan Nine from Outer Space.
The only barely redeeming feature is the ludicrous 'demons' wandering around the countryside with a plastic cat basket. How scary is that? And I did like the moggys used as extras, I suppose they are least cheap. Though it did seem a bit obvious that they had been enticed into camera by the careful placement of some tuna.
This film is so dreadful, it should have a public health warning. There was a queue at my local video store when I took it back, of people demanding their money back. I kid you not!


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 hard and I didn't expect it... But it's really the worst film, me and my wife saw. Awful dialogs that extend incomprehensibly through time without any apparent reason except to fill time. The storytelling doesn't follow a comprehensive intelligibly way everything is a mess. The action and the dialogs appear at jumps. The thing that disappointed me most was to see Dominique Pinon one of my French favorite actors involved in this uh I don't even know how to describe it without being polite The rest of the actors where at the most poor. Susan Paterno made a terrible interpretation of her character, making a flat inexpressive performance. Poor special effects. I don't think that it was a complete waste of film but it's close to If I'm to say I would advise everyone not to see this movie. I think it would be a complete waste of time. Sincerely I never though I would say something like that about a movie but there's always a first time.


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


user
At what point does a film become so bad it's good? Compelling in it's awfulness, Darkhunters stands out as a shining example of c**p cinematography and for that alone, probably deserves some kind of award.
The plot revolves around the age old battle of Heaven and Hell for the unclaimed souls of the recently dead. In the case of Darkhunters, the representatives of good and evil manifest themselves variously as a herd of cats, a hooded Grim Reaper figure with a face of flickering flames similar to a coal effect electric fire, a Philip Marlowe-a-like with a seriously bad manicure and a female psychologist who appears to be on day-release from Kwik-Save.
The protagonists are competing for the soul of a newly dead teacher who spends most of the film running around a foggy field and bizarrely, a boarding kennels in an attempt to evade his pursuers.
The plot is spread thinner than a dieter's sandwich with no character development or attempt to build suspense. The acting is laughable, comparable to a school play - although that would be an insult to many educational establishments. And the dialogue .......... oh, how my sides ached! With the unclaimed souls of the dead being described as "life's unwanted gherkins" by the flame-glow demon, you wonder whether Hell really is a McDonalds.
But is is bizarrely compelling, you find yourself watching just to see how bad it can get - at just over 80 minutes, it's worth the time spent for the unintentional giggles.


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 a shame. There's an interesting idea here, but it gets completely lost in a confusion of Commodore 64 style computer effects and bad storytelling. The plot, such as it is, concerns a bounty hunter of souls. It should be a fairly straightforward hunter/hunted kind of story, but the director and/or the writer seem like they forgot what the movie was supposed to be when they were about three days into shooting. Things aren't helped by the fact that the main baddie looks like he's wearing a cheap Darth Maul mask, which they tried to disguise with flowing CG colors. Not much to recommend here, even the title seems to propel it into obscurity.


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


user
I don't even understand what they tried to accomplish with this movie, i mean really. You got this guy running from a bunch of cats, because he's dead, but in order to be really dead this girl has to shoot them? And they leave a corpse even though normal people can't see them because their dead? The script already has a hole in it the size of Nebraska, then you have the main character played by Susan Paterno who just drones up her lines in a monotone, boring voice and with so little emotion on her face she might as well have starred as a female terminator robot. It's absolutely horrendous and I don't even understand how I managed to see it all the way to the end of the movie. The end being just as stupid as the entire movie mind you, and with absolutely no reward in it for the viewer what so ever. They might as well have called this movie "the little movie that could choo-choo ka-choo."


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


user
Hey guys and girls! Don't ever rent, or may God forbid, buy this piece of garbage. I have rarely seen a film in any genre as bad as this one. The acting is actually worse than me and my friends did when we were 7 and in the 1.grade had to act in front of all parents and siblings. In fact, we would have been taken up to evaluation for the Oscars, if we were to be compared to the actors in Darkhunters. The story is terrible, the makeup is terrible, the filming is terrible, the set is terrible, the directing is terrible, etc. I can't actually find ANYTHING worth the money spent to see this film.. Maybe except all the cats, which my girlfriend thought were kind of cute. Please, use your money on other things than on this film.... I couldn't even see the last 15-20 minutes of the film, it was that terrible.. If anyone really liked this film, I would REALLY like to hear from you, and I will try to see if I can get you some counseling at a psychiatrist's office near you..
0 out of 10, actually below if possible.. Not worth the DVD or tape it is on..


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 and the one prior "Toulon's Revenge" and the next one seem to be completely different from the first two movies where the puppets were not so nice. It is basically choose your series, the first two go together and paint the puppets as killers, while the next three are a series of them being the good guys. This one plays out to much like some cheesy television series episode to be as good as part three was and I never really had the urge to try and watch part five of the series. Basically, a kid gets the puppets while some strange dark lord or something sends his evil puppets out to kill, this dark lord looks like some sort of enemy from one of those live action Japanese shows like Ultraman. The movie is over before you know it though so it has to get credit for not inflicting you with a very painful to watch movie. Just to many plot holes and things in it for it to be considered an okay movie. You do get to see the guy who played Toulon in the last movie though then you have a very anti-climatic battle and wham the movie is over before it really begins.


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 some flaws, and most of those flaws are a lack of anything happening. Possibly the greatest film to show the direness within Fly-Over Country, "Rolling Kansas" is a film in which nothing happens and you don't care about anybody. Like life, it starts, it moves, and then it ends. A few attempts at humor are made, but everything falls very flat. The occasional cameo just reminds the viewer that they could be wasting their life doing something besides watching this movie and the one rock song they bought and used at every single instance.
Do yourself a favor and go see a good movie. This is free and repeatedly frequently on Comedy Central because nobody went to see it, nobody wants to see it, and it's marginally better than dead air. Not to damn with faint praise, but the movie's one rock song is worth listening to. Too bad the movie isn't worth watching.


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 retarded a cheap movie that tries to be a stoner movie because the characters are looking for pot but none of them are smokers just a bunch of garbage Thomas Hayden church should not direct anymore especially this movie which is a waste of film. People who liked this movie gave good comments but from all the people on here some are just retarded and don't watch movies so they think that any bad movie is good the actors suck and the movie sucks balls.
I think that many people are going to be upset because this movie tries to make itself look like the ultimate weed movie when it is just the worst movie about weed that I have ever seen I hope that people will stop the director from directing crap like this even weed cannot make this movie funny or entertaining .


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


user
Every time I see a film like this I get sick to my stomach. When I watch a movie I like to see what I see in everyday life. As I go through my day I see blacks, whites, Asians, Latinos etc...How do you cast a film and don't even think of the possibility that other ethnic groups will walk past you? I'm sure they didn't do it on purpose but pay attention. I don't care if it takes place in Kansas or South Central. All I saw was one token black. This was typical in the 80's. Hey! it's 2007, with all the rappers, singers and athletes working as actors Thomas Haden Church could have paid more attention to his cast. Aren't actors supposed to be more liberal?


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


user
...Or better yet, watch Fandango if you want to see a really intelligent and funny male college age road flick. Rolling Kansas sounded promising (in fact the program guide gave it 2.5 out of 4 stars which usually means it's fairly watchable) but I pretty much fast-forwarded through it. Usually road trip movies have great music, but I can't even recall whether there was music. The only high point was a small role with Rip Torn as a wise old hitchhiker/guru. Otherwise the jokes and timing missed all along the way. The four main characters are unknown actors and I don't remember seeing any of them in another movie. (Oh, yeah, I see that Thos. Hayden Church was in it, but he's in everything, good, bad or indifferent). This movie is about as funny as watching someone else stoned when you're not.


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


user
This movie was extremely disappointing, I thought it would be another 'marijuana comedy' but don't be mislead, it's not at all. There are barely any weed-related jokes that come to mind, I don't even think they smoke any weed in this movie. The marijuana field is merely a plot device.
My impression after seeing this film was that four friends were bored one summer and decided to write up a script full of (their idea of) witty dialog and make a movie. The product is bland dialog supported by mediocre acting, to say this movie has no 'hook' is a huge understatement. Don't waste your time or money.


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


user
I mean, nothing happens, 5 dumb kids go to Oklahoma to find a magical forest of marijuana... this could've been fun, if it hadn't been for the 5 worst actors in the world. And the dialogs weren't even half an inch of fun. The only thing that I almost showed my teeth of, was when the dumb cops stopped the teenagers in either Oklahoma or Kansas... The plot could have been fun, had it not been for abysmal interpretation. If you even think about watching this piece-of-crap movie, don't. How dumb is it, that the guy gets away from the cops by telling them he's gay, like his friend did (just that he wasn't pretending...) and there's that dumb hick joke about the several meanings to the word "gay". I'm laughing my hair off.......NOT....... Anyway... WORST MOVIE I'VE EVER SEEN!!


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


user
Yes, I admire the independent spirit of it all, but it's like Road Trip with a bad cast and no budget.
I chuckle when I watch American comedies, I don't laugh. This movie made me laugh, but only because of the abundantly obvious attempts to simulate high-budget American high school/pot-flicks.
If you want good independent American comedy with pot-references, go watch Kevin Smith or Richard Linklater flicks or something. Don't waste your time on this piece of sh't movie.
I mean, how can you take these comments seriously when most people are complaining about the characters not smoking pot!
And by the way: in Norway it's called "Dude, Where's My Pot"!


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


user
I've read the positive comments on this movie. I assume people who were in this movie must've come to this site to give it some good press because this was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I always watch the whole film despite the quality or lack there of which explains why I watched this whole movie, but I don't think I laughed even once during the duration of this film. The jokes were mostly very bad, but when the jokes had some promise, the delivery was off. If you liked it, maybe you should lay off the buds because you need to preserve the 5 or 6 brain cells you have left. This movie had a poor script, bad acting, poor directing, weak plot... nothing of virtue and was not entertaining. If you haven't seen this movie, don't.


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


user
Cruddy, innocent..no smoking, drinking or bikers, but Jeremy Slate (good actor) and Jocelyn Lane (good actress) make this moronically feasible for a bad biker flick, post-biker (exploit) time. They knew it, we knew it...Adam Roarke and Slate are wasted..but they lived on.
A 3 out of 10. Best performance = Jocelyn Lane. Lane is the ONLY really to catch the final exploit biker film after RUN, ANGEL, RUN (which also has good actors - like Don Stroud, etc.). It was over. They knew it. They were trying to make a living. But, Jocelyn Lane (from two Elvis bad flicks, TICKLE ME and something bad one) in yellow and leather is the modern hot chick with J. Slate fighting for honor. It's worth seeing, but it sucks. But check it out. Well worth non-biker, non-smoker, non-boozing, "biker" types with hot chicks.


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


user
Some people say this show was good in it's early years! I disagree with all of 'em. The show is just plain stupid and pathetic. My mum hates it, I hate it, my dad hates it, I don't know about my sister but oh well. Here some reasons why:
1. THE CHARACTERS: Babies being used as grown up style characters are stupid. The babies are just precocious and annoying. The grown ups and adults are dumb and unappealing. The worst character is that Angelica Pickles (she really does it in for your ear drums when you had a long, hard and miserable day at the office) and also that Kimi Finster who appears later on; she is too over optimistic and a pain in the butt. She can't decided whither she is French or Japanese: it doesn't matter know; you are a American Citizen know and that's that! Oh, what am I talking about, all the characters from this show suck!
2. THE STORIES: The stories are unoriginal and dumb. The make it like the babies go off on a great adventure, yeah to the back yard shed. In one episode, that little goofy brat, Tommy Pickles the Leader broke in to a television's control room and literally almost destroyed it. Don't give kids any idea to smash up normal T.V Station's control rooms (they pay a awful lot of money for them in real life). I can imagine what the broadcasters must of felt like airing this episode, they will probably start staring at their machines throughout the day scared that a baby will brake in. Sad!
3. OVER RATED!: The show has been dragging on for years now and people are still making up stories and new series and spin-offs for this. Get off! The Simpsons have been going for nearly the same amount of time as this but they are much better and funnier than babies. The show is just plain over rated! People, where is your common sense!
Anyway, I surprised T.V Stations across the world want to air this series even off today. The show is utter junk and should have never been produced. The two movies for this cartoons sucked just the same! 2/10


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


user
I'm a fan of this generally excellent though sometimes rather dull show but Season 3 has taken some terrible plot directions. The episode HERO is an example of what I mean.
The story as it eventually unravels is that the Cylons deliberately allow Bulldog - a pilot captured several years earlier during a black ops mission - to escape, steal a Cylon ship and get back to Galactica. The plan is that when Bulldog gets back he will figure out that Adama left him to his fate and be so enraged that he will kill Adama, which he very nearly does.
Now the problem is this - the Cylons set it up so that Bulldog thinks he has escaped by himself. This means that Bulldog gets off the Cylon ship with no assistance. So he kills a Cylon and walks out of his holding cell - that much we see. Then, we must suppose that he walks to the flight hangar, manages to get into a Cylon fighter ship and learn how to operate it, takes off and flies back to Galactica. Just like that.
Now Starbuck managed to get one of them working in Season One, which was barely believable in itself, but she only had to fly it visually out of orbit before making contact with Galactica. Bulldog has to programme his ship so that it makes several jumps through hyperspace and manages to catch up with Galactica somewhere thousands of light years away, in an unknown direction. How does he manage to programme a ship that contains completely alien technology? Cylons connect to their computers by touch, there are no visual consoles or keyboards. And having managed that miraculous feat, how does he then know where Galactica is, bearing in mind that Galactica took off some 3 years before and is trying ever since to evade the Cylons - it does not leave beacons behind? Even allowing for the suspension of disbelief that must apply to any sci-fi show, this episode still absolutely no sense whatsoever.


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 something about this show that keeps me watching and hoping for the future of it. In the writing, the jokes are few and far between, and the story lines are a bore, so I figure it must be the physical comedy and the visuals.
I do enjoy the camera movement, set dressing, and wardrobe. It's amusingly highly contrasted against the dullness that reigns. And I'm pretty sure every time I have laughed it was because of John or Molly's physical comedy. The two of them make a sickeningly cute couple that make me laugh and want to puke at the same time.
So here I go ready to sit down to Kath & Kim one more time tonight to see what path this production will go down (or up as the case may be, looking forward positively).


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


user
Me being from Australia and loving the series, I wasn't expecting much from the American version of Kath and Kim but I thought I'd watch the first episode to see if it was really that bad.
Well,whats there to say. Its nothing special.Selma Blair is OK as Kim and actually had a few good lines, Molly Shannon is not a good Kath though. The good thing about Jane Turner's Kath is that when she speaks with all her funny accents (such as when she says Yumor or Noice) it sounds like its just the natural way that she speaks, but when Shannon has a go at the accent, its clear that she is acting and trying to be the same as Turner. And the show really misses Sharon or some one else to give us something to laugh about, because the Kal and Craig characters in this version are really not funny.
So far only the first episode has aired and it is clearly not up to the standards of the Aussie version, although if it was a stand alone television show with a different name, not being compared to the Aussie version it would perhaps be viewed as being a little bit better. But if there is nothing else to do on a Sunday night (or Thursday night in America) then you cant do much harm in watching it, or better put on some of the Aussie version if you've got it.


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 the first episode and I found it to be a very wooden performance.
I have watched the original from it's early days on Big Girls Blouse to the last series on Channel seven. Kath and Kim was a great Mocumentary and it's humor is something that most people get.
However in this American version I found it to be dull, Molly Shannon is to fashionable to be Kath Day, Kath's wardrobe is supposed to be stuck in the 80s with her frizzy perm. While Selma Blair's figure hugging clothes isn't as good as what the original Kimmy wore. I also found that Selma seemed to be puffing her belly out a lot, she is obviously a (Australian) size 12 where Kim should be (Australian) a size 16/18.
The exchanges from Molly and Selma is obviously so scripted and there is pauses where there shouldn't be pauses or the pauses are a bit long, as someone suggested there could be a laughter track in there during those pauses. It's like Molly and Shannon are not used to each other, there is no Mother/Daughter chemistry.
Phil was okay he had the eccentric air around him like Kel. However Craig was to handsome and not the sweet plain humble Brett from the Aussie version.
I found watching this was like watching a very bad stage play. The acting was pretty much wooden and the exaggeration of Selma's expressions wore the funny off after ten minutes. Especially her sulking scenes.
To sum up, I find this show to be a waste of time, the script obviously has been dumbed down for Americans which most on the board say they prefer the original. If NBC wanted to show Kath and Kim why not pay the producers the money to screen the original.
All I can add is Magda you are one smart cookie for not letting the producers use your character of Sharon.


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


user
The best thing I can say about the American version is that Jane Turner and Gina Reilly must be raking in the money for this crap. Yes, the American rip-off was shown for about two episodes in Australia but didn't rate; probably by curious viewers who were wondering how bad it would be. Answer: DEPLORABLE, a complete waste of time. The actors are relatively unknown and they don't take readily to the nuances of the Australian-written script. Bad luck for them as they are doomed to plummet with this turkey. My advice to USA viewers is DON'T.
Americans should be best advised to find DVD's of the ORIGINAL VERSION on eBay, but be aware that some DVDs are in a different 'zone format' to those issued in the USA. Otherwise, some DVD players will operate discs from both/all zones.


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


user
It isn't TOO bad, but ultimately it lacks the quality that the Australian series has.
The jokes are few and far between, the actors are attractive (they shouldn't be), the film makers think far too much about the cinematography (it's supposed to look like a home video) and it's just like a serious version of Kath and Kim... it's stupid.
It's too normal to be Kath and Kim. Kath and Kim are supposed to be two curvy, middle-aged women who think they are hot and wear ridiculous clothes. There are no "Look at me Kimmy!" jokes. The fat friend of Kim is not fat at all and she's not even slightly stupid. She's a stereotypical black/Latino chick.
It's just not as stupid or funny as the Australian series. It doesn't compare. Nothing is the same. I admit, this show is pretty funny at times, but it is NOT anything like the Aussie series. I was looking forward to an American take on a bogan family. They failed. It's supposed to be REALLY stupid and hilarious, but the actors don't act stupid! To me, this is just a typical American TV show. It's a let down if you want it to be anything like the Aussie show.
2 Stars because it is an OKAY show, just nothing like what it should be.


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


user
The original Australian Kath & Kim is brilliant. Why do American producers need to remake & ruin yet another classic show? Remember the original version of "The Office" with Ricky Gervais, It was an absolute masterpiece, and there was no need to remake it. The producers said that the British humour from "The Office" and the Australian humour from "Kath & Kim" would not translate to an American audience......... WHAT??? So basically they are saying that Americans are too dumb and stupid to understand the jokes, so they need to remake the shows with over-the-top childish gags, so that the Americans can understand the humour. The original Australian version of Kath & Kim is fantastic and very funny. Avoid the American version like the plague!!


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


user
I've tried watching it twice, though I haven't been able to make through either episode. For me, it's basically just not funny. I can tell where I'm suppose to laugh, but I can't. I've never seen the original, so I'm not comparing. I also love comedies, including off-the-wall comedies like Married...With Children and Family Guy, but this show just doesn't' do it for me. The jokes are lame and flat, and the acting is mostly annoying. The commercials made it look interesting, but it isn't. They're trying too hard to be different, and tying to force the humor. That style usually doesn't work too well. I don't think this show finishes the season. Of course, I could be wrong.


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


user
Need I say more? The reason the GOOD Australian version of Kath and Kim was, as mentioned, good, was because of it's hilariously funny originality. The reason this new American-ised version is so terrible is because a lot of it is taken straight from the original. Not to mention the unfaithfulness to the characters. Kath is meant to be a dag. Kim is meant to be fat. Kel (or Phil as they have dubbed him) is meant to be pathetic. Brett (or Craig) is meant to be a loser, not a person who acts like he's on heroin and finishes every sentence with 'dude'. Thank God Szubanski didn't sell her rights to Sharon, she'd probably end up being a tall thin blonde who Kim likes.
Kath and Kim are MOTHER AND DAUGHTER. They are not meant to look 2 years apart. And they are not meant to giggle like school girls. This show is a disgrace to even share the same title as the Australian version. America: get your own television shows.


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


user
Hard to believe - but it is! I shouldn't be surprised. Commercials try to show how unique and "funny" a show can be. Yet not only didn't the commercials announcing this new show have the slightest iota of humor to me, I've not spoken with anyone who found the commercials amusing, either.
I don't recall ever seeing a pilot so devoid of cleverness, cuteness or humor. The characters were insufferable for the most part. Especially Selma Blair's (which is astonishing she would agree to be in a fecal sample of a show like this). The few moments where the characters were slightly redeemable were considerably hackneyed and trite.
Rare is the show with no redeemable qualities at all. And this is not one of them. Kath and Kim has exactly ONE redeeming quality - and that's Selma Blair. Despite wearing repugnant outfits and acting like a pitiful, whiny stupid excuse for a young woman who seems like a cross between Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian, Selma is still nice to look at.
But if you want to look at Selma, go rent Hellboy. You'll at least maintain a modicum of respect for her instead of searing this abominable character into your brain to associate with her.
All in all, Kath and Kim is a waste and truly epitomizes the worst that TV is or ever has been. It sets a new low.


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 film mistakenly thinking that it was that other radio station zombie flick. The shonky production values and low-rent cast soon gave away that this was another one of the those cheap sci-fi channel style knock offs.
The central performance from Bill Moseley is initially quite engaging as the dubious radio shock jock but as the film goes on becomes less and less convincing as he is actually required to act. The rest of the cast have little to do other than look concerned and have no depth whatsoever.
The cinematography is dull, flat and completely uninspired, like so many of these kind of films. It doesn't even manage a decent bit of convincing gore, the zombie make up is literally pathetic apart from one notable exception towards the end of the film.
The film tries to inject originality and a message into it's concoction of half baked and ripped off ideas by somehow equating this outbreak with intolerance towards Islam and the war on terror. This is woefully handled with all the intellectual clout of a 6 year old. As the characters and seemingly the writers are unable to distinguish the difference between race and religion - describing all people of a certain skin colour as "muslims." Most notably one character is revealed to be Muslim by skin colour alone. At the same time the "muslim" terrorists who cause the outbreak are the usual psychopathic stereotype.
Presumably the far far superior Pontypool had a similar budget as Dead Air yet shines everywhere where this film fails miserably.


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


user
The idea behind Dead Silence is great: zombie outbreak takes place during an edgy paranoia radio talk show. There was so much going for this film. Unfortunately, as soon as the zombies made their appearance, all was lost.
The film is ridiculous and only those with a passion for cheesy, b-flick horror will enjoy it. The zombies were soooo stupid! They ran around flailing their arms. They looked like a bunch of people putting on a haunted house for elementary students.
I know this is a brief review, but I just don't see the need to invest much into this. It's a dumb movie. You've been warned.


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


user
Corben Bernsen directed horror film about a chemical weapon being released in a sporting event and turning everyone in to insane monsters. We watch as the staff at a radio station takes reports.
Its has moments but mostly it plays like a Lifetime horror movie with breasts and blood. There are some really good ideas here, but they just don't work. Actually the film's ideas are better handled in a film called Pontypool which pretty much works all the way through and builds tension by not showing us anything. This shows us stuff and it just seems cheap. Given the choice I'd watch Pontypool again rather than watch this film again.


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


user
Far from combining the best bits of Pontypool and 28 days this managed to ignore them. Whilst shamelessly copying them. (if that makes sense?) Pontypool was different and got progressively tenser, this just stinks. The Radio DJ, "we must stay on air" spends effectively no time on air. He sits on his bottom and watches the TV for news. This is by far the worst excuse for a zombie movie ever. Is there a single person in the USA or indeed the world who doesn't know what a zombie is? Or ever heard of the word "zombie"? Well, by the 50th minute this bunch of misfits are still calling the zombies, "the infected ones" or the ones with "rabies'. The word "Zombie" might make a guest appearance later, I could care less. Maybe there's a copyright where you have to pay to use certain words? Like the Bluetooth earphone is called "the ear-thingy" I kid you not! To finish, no plot + no acting = no-one cares. A waste of time, a shameless, poorly executed rip-off.


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


user
I attended a screening of this movie. It was wrought with clichés and very unfunny jokes and set ups. I think the other comments were by people who must've worked on the movie or been family members of the cast. I'm amazed this movie cost $3-$4 million without any real stars. Where did the budget go? It obviously didn't go to writers for re-writes. Nice thought to bank on the success of Big Fat Greek Wedding, but a major miss. There was little or any spark between the main characters and the inciting incident was a bit flimsy at best. The direction was uninspired and looked like a student film.
I don't even know what it means Everybody Wants to Italian. Is that a real saying. I've never heard it.


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


user
I am currently 22 years old, and remember seeing this movie in the theatres when it first came out. You heard me right, I was 5 years old, and yet I can still distinctly remember what I saw that afternoon so many years ago. Was it a mystical trip through the fantastic world of Mark Twain's creativity?... No, on the other hand, it was a quite creepy film about Mark Twain's dark, depressed, and in fact suicidal side. One scene that still bothers me was a particularly strange scene in which Mark Twain is playing the organ at his own funeral.
Would an adult enjoy this film? Well, this movie quite possibly features some interesting viewpoints that a person with a working knowledge of Mark Twain's writing might enjoy; but trust me on this, "Adventures" is NOT the film you want to use to introduce your young children to Mark Twain.


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


user
Despite a small handful of nicely executed scenes, this entry (the fourth) feels tired. Toshiharu Ikeda, who directed the superb MERMAID LEGEND and the seminal Japanese splatter film, EVIL DEAD TRAP, shows little enthusiasm for the stale premise.
A miscreant becomes obsessed with an outwardly conservative woman who reluctantly appeared in a porno photo shoot. Predictable stalking, harassing, assault and rape ensues.
The staple of roman porno is sex. And sex mixed with violence. Both potentially exciting subjects, to be sure, but not when so little effort is made to make them fresh. A masturbation scene in which a woman forces pencils up her opening (via condom) is too little kink to late.
The series' rain motif continues and the film's final scene brings relief.


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


user
This forth film in the "Angel Guts" saga, which at only a few minutes above an hour (it just feels much longer) , is also the shortest, which is perhaps just as well as it's also the most uninvolving of the series.Nami, a department store clerk, is interested in another part time job. Her fellow worker at the department store introduces her to modeling for a porn mag called 'red porno'. But when her other employers found out about her naughty pictures they decide to fire her. And she gets some unwanted admirer. Oh yea and she likes to masturbate ..ALOT. Using various household items. The wall to wall sexcapades masks a lack of discernible plot and pushes this one far too much into exploitation territory, not unsurprising though given that the Director of this one is Toshiharu Ikeda ("Evil Dead Trap", "Beautiful Prey"). Perhaps his sensibilities just weren't suited for an Angel Guts film.
My Grade: D
DVD Extras: Commentary by Jasper Sharp; Bio/Filmographies; a 36 minute interview with Toshiharu Ikeda; Original Sleeve art; and Trailers for this and 4 other Angel Guts Films (High School Co Ed, Red Classroom, Red Vertigo, & Red Porno) all available in Artsmagik's Box-set, but for some reason the 6th film "Angel Guts: Red Flash" is not in the set


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


user
I hafta watch crap like this all the way through to see if there are any redeemable qualities whatsoever to justify including it in my clients' video libraries. Don't you watch this, not even a minute of it, unless someone has a gun to your head. You will, as I did, moan & groan at least 500 times, and pray that one of the one- dimensional characters, all played by really bad actors, would turn and shoot you dead.
Even if you are the biggest Sandra Bullock fan in the world, it is not worth even watching the two or three short scenes in which she appears.
I want to kick the asses of the sleazy marketing people who put Sandra's huge picture on the face of this DVD box and have them thrown in jail for mugging me or something like that. I really wish I had the chance to read a review of this film before I bought it.
Please, give me a call, and I will pay you $10 to remove this movie immediately from my inventory before it stinks up the whole place! (just kidding--please don't call)


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


user
I won't go into detail about why this movie deserves an awful rating, plenty of other people have already done that. Suffice it to say that out of the over 400 movies that I've owned on DVD, this is the ONLY one that I got rid of- it was so worthless that I couldn't see ever wanting to watch ANY of it again.
However, I do have a comment on the ridiculously high average rating of 2.9 (as of 3-15-06). While skimming through the 4 pages of reviews I saw no rating higher than 3 stars. Looking at the voting history, 78% of users rated the movie as 4 stars or less. It looks to me like a few people are stuffing the ballot box to keep this movie off of the IMDb "bottom 100" list. It would be interesting to see how many of the 30 users who rated this movie as 10 stars (none of who wrote a review of the movie) are actual active users.
Don't be fooled, this movie isn't worth your time.


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 have ever shopped at Wal-Mart, then you probably know about the $5 DVD bin that sits by the electronics department. Well, that is where I found this movie. However, I was tricked! You see, the cover of this particular DVD had a big picture of Sandy Bullock on it and even listed her name as a "headliner". I picked it up thinking, "Wow, I didn't know Sandra Bullock did this movie?!?!" So I was pumped to go home and watch a cool Sandra Bullock movie. Much to my surprise, Ms. Bullock had a small role.....very small role. She plays the girlfriend of the son of the CIA agent. Talk about supporting actress. She may have had no more than 2 lines in the movie. Besides being deceived of this being a Bullock flick, I looked past that and I continued to watch an "action-packed" film. Negative! At one point, for special effects, a gun was taped to the camera. You gotta watch it to laugh at what horrible really is.


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


user
But certainly a serious contender for one of the worst 10 of all time.
I got this DVD cheap, with Sandra Bullock as headliner on the case. This is false advertising - she's on-screen for almost 10 minutes of the movie.
On the other hand, there was no other selling point for this movie - the dialog was horrible, the editing was apparently done by someone who was strung out on Quaaludes, the directing was ... well, let's just say that my 14-yo daughter could do better, but I hope she never sees such faint praise from me. It's possible that the family cat could have done better.
Sandra does a creditable job for a first film, in the short time she's on-screen - and that's the only redeeming quality of this film. Stupid story, poorly written, and transferred to film as only a 7th-grade Media class should be able to do.
In short, this is dreck.


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 from the 80s, but it looks like it was made in the stone age. The effects are way too cheesy. My copy has Sandra Bullock on the cover, which was why I bought the movie. She was in the movie for about 5 minutes of total screentime. She would most likely deny all involvement.
In short, there is no part of this movie worth seeing, except to laugh at how bad it sucks. Rent this to see the worst film ever made, bar none.


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 a bad feeling when I saw the cheap title work. It only took a couple of scenes to confirm that this movie is a real stinker! The only enjoyment I got out of this was to laugh at the technical flaws (example - the background "car sounds" audio just disappears during the scene with Danny and Dog in Dog's car). Production shows a total lack of imagination (example - slow motion machine gun fire repeats many times). Sandra Bullock plays essentially a bit part, completely unnecessary to the plot. To say that this movie actually HAS a plot is doing more justice to the writing than it deserves. The antique computer hardware is kind of interesting. This film was released in 1982 (not 1987 as the IMDb database indicates) and then current "high tech" was an amber screen on a 4.8 MHz IBM PC with floppy drives. Maybe the PC was the real star of the movie... at least it was interesting.
We got this on DVD for a couple of bucks in the bargain bin at WalMart. As the other reviewer notes, we paid too much!


assistant
0