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
See Dick work.
See Jane work.
Dick and Jane are married.
They are successful.
They have a son.
They have a nice house.
They have a Latino housekeeper.
The housekeeper teaches Spanish to the son.
The son speaks Spanish.
Ha-ha.
See Dick get promoted.
The pompous CEO is a crook.
See Dick take the fall for the pompous CEO.
Jane quits her job.
Oops.
See Dick and Jane out of work.
Dick & Jane turn to crime.
As a plot device, they decide to rob the CEO.
See the robbery get botched.
See Dick & Jane fund the company's pension plan with the money from the robbery.
Yay. See the end credits.
Okay, so you've got the plot. Beyond that, Dick and Jane careens from one scene to the next. One barely connecting with the last one or the next one. The whole thing is terribly episodic in nature.
Jim Carrey didn't bother to bring his "A" material, he just seems bored and slightly ashamed of the whole thing. But heck, when you're getting paid $20 million plus, why bother. Tea Leoni is frantic. I guess I would be frantic not to get blamed for this flop.
There's just something sort of off about Dick & Jane. Carrey and Leoni aren't funny and have little chemistry. The script isn't funny. And it's not well-plotted.
But it may be bigger than that. The reality of Dick and Jane is, perhaps, a little too real. Maybe it's just not funny for people to lose their jobs in an Enron-like situation, when real-life still lacks a happy ending.


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


user
Jim Carrey is a particular brand of humour and I personally think he's a great actor (Eternal Sunshine, for example).
However, this movie is presumably intended to be nothing more than a Jim Carrey vehicle, so be aware straight off that if you don't think his style of comedy is funny, you will sit stony-faced throughout this film, as it has NOTHING else to recommend it.
Even if you do like Carrey's comedy, I am not sure you will find this film amusing. I went to see it on a Saturday night at 10:30pm and the audience was definitely ready to laugh. They giggled throughout the trailers, which weren't particularly funny, but when it came to the film, stony silence. I think it raised about five genuine laughs.
The problem with the movie is it doesn't know what it wants to be. It can't make up its mind whether it's going for slapstick or serious. If it were stupid throughout it could be forgiven but (I'm guessing) it's also trying to make a point about the relationship between the two central characters.
The strong point of the film is the hold-ups, and there was plenty of potential here. But these didn't start until about halfway through and remained largely undeveloped. Meanwhile, you have to sit through the first excruciating 40 minutes as the couple's life deteriorates.
Four separate groups walked out of this film while I was there, and if my flatmate hadn't asked me to keep away from the house (his girlfriend having just returned from a month-long vacation!), I would have done the same. And in my entire 25 years of movie going, I have done that just once before.


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


user
Oh my lord, what were they thinking about with this one. It not only is frantically unfunny, but worse, a very good original was trashed in the bargain. Jane Fonda, believe it or not, actually turned in the performance of her life in that one. Even better than where she plays the whore in the other so called performance of her life. Maybe she is just flat good as a crook. Any other time, wow, what a waste of time. But she and Segal team up beautifully, so if you even remotely got a glimpse of anything funny in this baby, catch the anvil upon which it got beaten into a pulp from.
Because very very very little of that one remains, to this ones horror. Nothing in this baby is remotely funny except for maybe a couple of moments when Dick and Jane are bulging lipped up as lepers and cant kiss..... and uhh........oh my lord, that's it? Well, looks like it.
It truly is that bad a film.


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


user
A satire about greed and money, what? There is more greed in the intentions behind this fiasco than in any of the themes they pathetically try to make fun of. Jim Carrey's reign was certainly short lived. He is an unbearable presence on the screen. The insincerity of his portrayal is nothing short of creepy. He produced this, this "masterpiece" as well, so he can't blame anyone here. "The number one comedy in America" shout the desperate TV adds. Of course, Jim Carrey was suppose to guarantee full houses but the game is over. If I sound angry is because I am. I spent a sunny afternoon in California, plus, between tickets, parking, flat Cokes etc, almost 45 bucks on this thing, starring and produced by Mr Carry. Not anymore, do you hear? Not anymore.


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 terrible misfire. Not only the title but the idea is the same as that Jane Fonda, George Segal vehicle of a few decades ago. Why? I wonder, someone with the clout of Jim Carrey will, not only star, but also produce this tired, ugly, pointless excuse for a comedy. He could be taking comedy to a whole new level, instead, he goes for what he may assume is safe territory. Money, money, grosses, Christmas. But I'm sure this uncomfortable mess will have very short legs. I call it uncomfortable because that's how I felt. Aware as I was of the desperate attempts tried out on the screen to be funny. And failing, miserably. It could have been an outrageous, politically incorrect, mirror comedy of the post Enron days but no, that would be pointing too high, too risky. What a shame!


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 the movie was sub-par. The acting was good but not great, the story was funny but did not come out that way. The director dropped the ball on this movie. It was not James (jim) or Tea. IMHO it was the music that killed it. There is a scene where things go down hill and Jonny Cash music is playing - man was that depressing (not funny) killed my mood. After that the movie could not recover. The deportation scene had potential funny situation, good acting good set up - I even smirked but the music again was unsuited to the scene. The music kept me from being pulled in to the movie.
I say it had potential but was poorly done, i would even say rushed into final production. Kind of reminiscent of the prequel to the exorcist: the beginning. The theater release was good, I though so after watching it, but the movie release exorcist:dominion was a helluva lot better. Same story just different director. Same should be done here.


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


user
Part of the movie's low rating is the emphasis on unemployment and the suffering we have to endure. While this is good for drama, in comedy, we know the pains it need not be emphasized. As a result Fun with Dick and Jane is not an appropriate title and I was just plain disappointed failing to see any fun with Dick and Jane. It is true that this is a copy from the movie of the same name, but it fails on the execution and the title was not appropriate for the story line.
However, if the movie was retitled to be "The Art of the Steal" and the emphasis on bungling slapstick comedy more takes on the robbery and the plans to steal (stupidly of course) would have given the movie a major boost. While, at the same time the movie should show the CEO at least in the beginning to be a crook, so it will be easier to project the pains to someone responsible early on and just leave it at that. The movie suffers a viewpoint issue and with that in mind, a comedy cannot work if the viewpoint is not done properly. A scheming husband character who is that of a Wile E. Coyote on the Road Runner would be more funny, including the slapstick comedy. But in this case, a steal instead of the capture of the bird with complicate contraptions would be extremely funny here. I mean you can make many of these and put them in the movie. But since the viewpoint was done wrongly, the robbery part had to be limited.
You will enjoy the movie the first 15 minutes (during Jim Carrey's great rise), but to make the problems they had to faced to be more comical since it is a comedy, that is the part that needs a major overhaul. It can be funnier, if problems were faced more like John Travolta's Civil Action during the downfall. That movie was a serious one but the problems they faced were somewhat comical.


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 big Jim Carey fan I took my seat in the cinema with optimism. After all, Fun With Dick And Jane appeared to have all the raw materials to make this another Carey success. After the opening five minutes of good humour it seemed that this film would provide but it went wrong as soon as the plot kicked in. The idea that a charming, charismatic, top V.I.P employee could suddenly find himself turning up to work in his nearest supermarket is just so hard to believe and then to get your head round the fact that this guy has also become a master criminal is virtually impossible. The actors seem confused with the situation as well. Of course, the stereotypical, rich, uncaring head of the operation doesn't struggle one bit to pull off his one dimensional character but for Carey and others around him the job is a whole lot harder. One minute Dick is seen as a cocky office pro, obsessed with possessions, the next minute he's a bumbling mess who can barely string two words together, and ultimately he becomes a petty thief who is able, quite happily, to put a gun to another man's head. Jane is equally confused with her role and her character never really gets going.
The idea behind the story is such a good one and it is a shame that this film has not managed to make it work. The odd moment of laugh out loud comedy can be found but it is usually more physical humour than anything witty or clever. Carey tries his best in parts to save a sinking ship but his comic talent can never flourish in a character that has so many gaping holes to his personality. Carey shines when he is presented with a strong, daring character (Man on the Moon, The Truman Show, Ace Ventura) which this film never presented him with, despite its best efforts.


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


user
Unfortunately this is not as good as any of the other films that Jim Carrey (producing and starring) and Brian Grazer have worked on together, but bits of it are definitely worth a look for laughs. Basically Dick Harper (Carrey) thinks he is being promoted to a better job. That's until the company of Dynocorpe sinks and closes down. Now Dick and his wife Jane (Téa Leoni), and their son of course, are in trouble with money. No matter what they try, they can't raise the kind of money they really want. So they start robbing a few places. And then they decide to rob the guy that set Dick up, his ex-boss Jack McAllister (Alec Baldwin). I think the most laughable bits are when Carrey's in the elevator singing "I Believe I Can Fly" and the bit when he ties up someone in a robbery, and is speaking with a voice changer (he sounds like a crap robot). Okay!


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, perhaps, one of the most unoriginal and unfunny films I've seen in a long, long while. To be fair, I was not expecting some revolutionary comic formula, but I was anticipating to at least be entertained. With such low expectations, how could I manage to be disappointed?
Jim Carrey, possibly my favorite actor (not sarcasm), did little more than tread water in this film. He seems to have temporarily returned to his funny-face-making roots and created a character no different from his Fletcher Reede from Liar Liar. This new character, Dick Harper (a.k.a. Fletcher 2.0) is a poorly rendered and miserably written whelp. If you find yourself smiling while watching this pitiful and essentially boring character, it is most likely because Carrey is trying so hard to bring a third dimension to him. Carrey's outlandish posing becomes humorously awkward--and, ultimately, sad.
Tea Leoni as Jane does little more than provide the Abbott to Carrey's Costello. I typically find Tea Leoni refreshing and underused, but not in this case. Jane Harper could have been easily played by any actress from age thirty to forty-five, and it is in that non-specificity that the character of Jane becomes uninteresting to watch. She simply has no defining trait other than her following of the movie's general theme, which seems to be that... Wait, no, this movie has no theme. Unless you count "Big Business Is Evil" as a theme. I thought that was more of a given.
Richard Jenkins and Alec Baldwin both deliver believable (though tired) supporting performances, but neither man seems truly invested in the role they're playing. It's very clear that Alec Baldwin was putting about as much effort into playing his role as the sinister C.E.O. as he puts into eating a sandwich (which he seems to be doing a lot of lately).
Slight tangent, but has Alec Baldwin played any roles in the past few years that hasn't required him to be a powerful jerk in a suit?
Anyway, take my advice if you haven't already witnessed the horror for yourself: save your money. This is the one to catch on HBO in a few months. Dick and Jane are present, but there's no fun to be had.


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


user
I would give this a zero if they had that rating. Fun was no fun at all. I grew tired of the movie about ten minutes into but endured to the end thinking it had to get better - it did not. The others I watched this movie with also agreed. The acting was annoying. I am tired of Jim Carey's over the top ham acting. The supporting cast was no better. While this movie was a statement of corporate greed and the plight of the worker who gets stepped on when a large company goes under, the vehicle for this would have been better served another way. I actually disliked the leading characters (Dick and Jane) so much that their antics were never funny but pathetic. I am trying to recall one scene where I or anyone I was with laughed and cannot. A worthless movie and a total waste of time.


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 looking forward to seeing this movie, unfortunately I should have listened to my daughters advice. This should have been a spoof, but it took on a realism that corporations had a lot to answer for.
Jim Carrey after all the work he has done is still Jim Carrey and his comedy does not get any better, his co star was not able to back him up. Their son in the movie was invisible.
The life of crime was a blink, and that was the missing link of the movie. The film showed 2 or 3 robberies and they were richer than before, that where it lost it for me.
I did laugh in some parts butthrough the whole not good enough, AlecBaldwin I felt was there to add some weight to the film. His character was not strong enough. There were just too many gaps to make this a smart and tight movie.


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


user
Can't liberals like Alec Baldwin get it through their heads that they lost the elections of 2000 and 2004? The ridiculous. lame swipes at WalMart, non-union workers, George W Bush and the stock market not to mention the intentional GWB accent that Balwin's character uses in the film just makes him look silly and bitter on screen. As the credits roll the sour grapes continue as "Special Thanks" are given to Ken Lay, and other CEOs from Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, and IMClone. Let me clue you in to something - if you put all your money into one company's stock YOU'RE AN IDIOT. We don't need this excuse for a movie to tell us that. What a waste of Jim Carrey's talent - from the trailer I expected a completely different movie - what I got was a 90 minute DNC commercial on how to scare people into not investing for their own future, keep them stupid, and keep them dependent on government. No wonder Hollywood is in trouble and can't make a decent movie anymore - maybe you guys could get an original idea and put it on screen for once...although I shouldn't be surprised since Jane Fonda was cast in the original.


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


user
Fun With Dick and Jane failed to entertain on so many levels. There were loose ends with the writing, for example, it seems as though one of the major conflicts was the indictment of Jim Carrey's character DIck Harper, but the writers never follow up that particular conflict. Basically the story is weak and mostly unfunny, but Carrey saves a few scenes with his physical humor, but honestly, Jim Carrey wasn't very funny in this movie, and Tea Leone might as well have been there just for her appearance because she wasn't funny either. This is just another example of Hollywood banking off franchise actors with a lousy unoriginal story.


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


user
Maybe it's just that it was made in 1997, or maybe whoever managed to get this up to a 7 has a soft spot for kids with AIDS. But really people, the maniacal laughter & mayhem during the withdrawal scene? Did you not see that coming? I'm surprised there was no baby crawling across the ceiling and sickboy addressing the camera. The acting was fine, sure. But to me this is just one example of a movie from a time when situations and subject matter could pass for cinematic language. Things happen, but that's it. There's no glue or motive that can be detected on screen, allowing the subject matter to use pre-existing emotional connections to furthur the plot, without the script doing it like it's supposed to.


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


user
For three quarters of an hour, the story gradually develops towards a pivotal point of some sort. Although it is overburdened with scenes that just seem to be intended to dull the viewer and lure him away from the actual plot, there is something happening. It is not much and it certainly is not obvious. The combination of palace impressions and story-driving scenes do not add any depth or insight to the whole cast of characters. In fact, they keep them sterile as there is no character development at all. Everybody just remains spinning and centered around their own cliché and role - the cute, kinda headstrong girl; the fighting überwoman, the snobby aristocrat. The male lead does not seem to have any distinction at all, he is a shallow presence, which, actually, doesn't even matter as he is only there because the storyboard required him to - it seemed like he was on vacation and got caught up. When the point comes of turning the corner in terms of what happening, the movie first snaps completely blank for a couple of minutes and then becomes ridiculous. It solves - or better, dissolves - itself with a by-the-book Deus Ex Machina, more clichés and some of the most crude plot devices and choices I have ever seen. It's history, alright. First the movie's a drama though it's supposed to be comedic, and then it turns into a farce. The protagonists do what they are expected to do, and there are no surprises. The first set of somewhat serious antagonists however gets replaced by a couple that literally was just bored. Maybe that was some kind of nod towards the audience.
This movie does not get any bonus from me for underlying philosophical meaning (since there is none) nor for its technical realization. The animation and editing is fair and so's the sound mixing; but it is by no means outstanding or even above the average Japanese productions of the late 1980's. In fact, the visual treats seem static, un-inspired and un-original.
Worst of all - it totally fails to entertain, even if you don't bother with characters and all that stuff. There's too little going on here, and the rest is corny at best. Get a real Ghibli instead, have a feast with it and keep your fingers off this one.


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


user
This has to be one of the worst movies ever to come out of the Sci-Fi Channel. Here is how the movie starts, Women are the only humans on this planet due to the fact that in the not to distant future chemical warfare is A OK as long as it only targets soldiers (In case your wondering, Men) However the virus back fires (Big shock)and all the men on earth slowly die. Then all of male kind is condemned to die when the madam president is shot and killed by a man. now we are taken around 60 to 70 years from now, two female scientists are working on cloning a female baby and one of them says "Hey, why don't we bring men back?" The other one says no the world is not ready for that, but promptly ignores her and thus a man walks the Eath again.
First off, this movie assumes that all men who are not genetically altered are blood thirsty monsters. Secondly, the writer forgot to mention that present day soldiers are a good mix of Male and Female officers so there is no real reason to have a virus like that. This is the biggest waist of time you can find. This movie managed to insult my intellect not only by the bad story, but with the Lifetime style acting. Avoid this movie at all costs.
I give this a 1 out of 10 but only because I could go no lower.


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


user
The makers ask for a huge suspension of disbelief, you grant them it in the hope that given a little time they'll convince you it's possible. Alas, with TV movies it seems as though they specifically set out to make cheap Cosmo questionnaire films. With a small budget and big claims you should spend every penny on the details to convince the audience. Not here though. The film gets a few points for the good performance the two leading ladies give against the odds, but unfortunately it's not enough to save the day. oh, and the less said about the ending the better. Happy Film-Viewing Everyone !


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


user
Warning: This could spoil your movie. Watch it, see if you agree.
To think that we as humans can not learn from the past. The futuristic society portrayed glamorized what Hitler believed, obliterate a race of people (in this case men) for the benefit of society. It made me sick to my stomach. Also the plausibility of a Y bomb is insane. Even in war our instinct for self-preservation will prevent the extinction of humanity. We made mistakes in the past ie: Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki in '45 but because of that we avoided a bigger mistake in '63 during the Cuban Missile Crisis


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 male bashing bonanza. I saw this on Sci-Fi a while ago, and the idea seemed interesting. It could have been a good movie, and the plot itself I don't see as male bashing, but certain specific references to men get really annoying. I might still watch the movie again though because it does at least try to redeem itself by hinting that maybe the women in the movie aren't really as non-violent as they claim, but it still doesn't compensate for the really tiring male-bashing. I mean, I can understand a little, it's part of the movie's plot, but come on, it gets really tiring after awhile. Not only that, but to assume that the majority of women in the world would accept becoming homosexual that easily and that the few remaining heterosexuals would be such a minority as to go "in the closet". It's just too unbelievable. There are far too many women out there with cultural or religious restrictions that would balk at this it is totally implausible. I mean I know its sci-fi, and I love sci-fi, but the best sci-fi has at least a hint of it being possible, and this is too implausible. The phrase "Truth is stranger than fiction" came about because fiction has to at least seem plausible to be welcomed, but truth isn't always. This movie is not that. Other than that, the movie does have some good acting and the eventual morals of the story, that something like what happened was wrong, do redeem it a little, but not enough.


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 awful beyond belief. It's a low-budget, badly written, piece of pointless garbage. But the Saturday afternoon I stumbled across it on TV still sticks in my mind as one of the most entertaining I've ever spent in front of the television. The badness of this movie is epic -- maybe not Ed Wood epic, but close. The premise is hysterical (men are banned for being too dangerous and imprisoned in -- haw! -- football stadiums), the pseudo-dyke culture is laughably bizarre (there's an underground sex trade with women who dress up like men to service "deviants") and the "last man" of the title is a pitiful reincarnation of Rocky from Rocky Horror Picture Show. I didn't get to see the end of it, which I have to assume was so dripping with syrupy "what have we all learned from this?" nonsense it would bring on an urge to brush the teeth, but everything in the first two-thirds was so memorably bad, even if the last third turned out to be a pale imitation of the rest, it's still worthwhile for anyone who gets a kick out of campy, stupid, brainless sci-fi B-flicks.


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


user
... but had to see just how bad it could get. The plotline was thin to begin with, but it just kept getting worse. A female genetic engineering grad student uses her research on accelerated mitosis to artificially create a male, because a biological weapon used in WW3 killed off 97% of the worldwide male population. The surviving men are either high prices gigolos in back alley clubs, or crazed lunatics in run down football stadiums plotting to overthrow the 'Lesbian Conspiracy'. The entire process resembled the microwaving of a large bowl of jello. Press a few buttons and ding you get a baby. Not only that, but he will age to mid 20's in a month, and then begin to age normally (how convenient). Eventually poor Adam gets bored with the secluded cabin in the woods where his creator had raised him and steals her car to 'see the city'.
This begins 90 minutes of unlikely chases, convenient plot twists, and several subplots that we never see resolved. As Adam quickly learns, what men did survive are treated as outcasts/criminals, because they are dangerous beasts that cannot help there genetic predisposition to violence. The propaganda machines have been in full swing, scaring women into believing all men are rapists and murderers. This has led to lesbianism being the norm, the fall of Christianity, female only reproduction via cloning, and oh yeah world peace among other implied results. All of which seem unlikely given that only ~30 years had elapsed since the war. Adam stumbles from one bad situation to the next, all the while being genetically programmed to be non-violent and unable to really do much on his own behalf. With the FBI on his trail, madams looking for fresh meat, and his creator trying to recapture him (for herself it seems), he learns that violence is not limited to the male species after all.
All in all, I would not recommend this movie.
I did however enjoy Veronica Cartwrights portrayal of the 'love to hate her' Director of the FBI, and Julie Bowen didn't do bad as Hope the 'closet hetero' geneticist either.


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


user
They used footage of some real protest spliced with some woman talking about a society with no men to make it seem like these people were cheering for the 'gendercide' of men. The funny thing is, you can see a man cheering on his own death in the background.
OK, the plot. Some lady says there should be a society with no men, and the crowd in front of her (which contains some men) think its a great idea. So then all the men are killed or something. So there are no more.
Then this blonde scientist creates a man, but removes some chromosomes so he can't be violent. The male grows very quickly and soon is a full grown man. Not long after, he takes the blonde's' Volkswagen beetle and drives into the city where he's discovered. Now you would think the lone man in a city full of lesbians would be the happiest guy ever but no way. The police chase him.
I didn't watch the rest but it probably ends up that they've got to race against the clock and some people, or something bad will probably happen. Somehow the man ends up in a stadium with some other men who want him to lead the rebellion. These brave warriors hiding in a stadium might have had some sort of plan which laid out the details of how they'd single handedly get rid of a planet full of women, but I didn't watch. And neither should you.
If you're up late and channel surfing and this happens to come on, don't watch. Watch anything but this. You'll find those ads for Bowflex or the ones with women in bathing suits asking you to 'pick up the phone to meet women just like these' in your area will be more satisfying entertainment.
(Oh yeah, there's this funny thing when they're pulling in with their cars. I don't know what they did, it looks like they drove in real slow and careful but then tried to speed up the film to compensate but it just looks really weird.)
The blonde girl was kind of cute and I'm feeling generous, so... 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
The plot - in the future when nearly all men have been killed by a Y-chromosome-targeting virus, a (hot) female genetic engineer 'creates' a man in a chem lab - is intriguing. Despite the somewhat promising premise, the movie falls flat in nearly every regard. The dialogue is laughable. The characters are paper thin. The exploration of a single-gender world is shallow. The worst part of the entire movie is the Asian detective who delivers lines so cheesy and contrived that you'll want to vomit.
I can't imagine how on earth this trash got produced. Most of the movie is male bashing. "All men are violent." "All men rape women." "Men are only animals." All of the women - even the 'closet hetero cases' - seem to display anger toward-, fear of-, and hatred for men. If you want to see a sci-fi film something along the lines of this movie's premise, you'd do best to look elsewhere.


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 think this can legally qualify as "film." The plot was so flimsy, the dialogue so shallow, and the lines so terrible that I couldn't believe that someone actually wrote the lines down, said, "Holy sh*t! This is a masterpiece" and then actually pitched it to a producer. I, for one, am still dumbfounded and will forever remember this film as the mark of the degeneracy of intelligence in America -- that, and "Crossroads," of course.


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


user
Pure schlock from beginning to end. The average 12 year old might find that it has an interesting take on discrimination. Otherwise, it's a pure camp-fest endurance test. Like one of those so-so episodes of Star Trek The Next Generation that thinks it has Something Important To Say.
You'll see every plot twist a mile off in this by-the-numbers romp. However, it's worth seeing for its portrayal of drag-king prostitutes, a brothel where young women pay old men to have sex with them (how's that for role reversal), and lesbian soap operas. The ghost of Valerie Solanis lives!


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


user
All I ever heard while being raised was equality of the sexes, and here we have a film that not only exemplifies imbalance, but continues through with a whole concept that one sex is better. All the while watching I was hoping for that redeeming quality to make the viewer feel as though there is hope for the future, and there wasn't. I'll admit to not finishing the film, I had to turn it off at the part where the old man whore told the genetic man Adam that it was ok to be a whore and get, and I quote, "More tail than any man in the past time." I know not finishing it is a bad review on myself, but it is the responsibility of the writer and crew to develope a story that will keep a viewer interested, and they failed. This film betrays all true female nature qualities of the mother figure and the need for balance. Instead it exemplifies what America ran by lesbian natzis would be like,and I'm not against lesbians. Thank you Mr. Director! Someone please give me a redeeming quality... wait I have it! There's no sequel!


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 stunk. There is not much more to it. The final fight looked like Walker taking on my grandmother, not some supernatural demon with the strength of ten men. I found the commercials more interesting. The plot twists and jokes could be seen coming a mile away. The only redeeming quality of this film was that it ended. Avoid this at all costs...unless you enjoy bad Chuck Norris movies.


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 a god awful Norris film, with one of the most annoying performances ever in Calvin Levels and a weak script. The characters were terrible, and it has hardly any action,plus even Chuck Norris stinks in this!. Christopher Neame is very weak as the main villain, and the story was not very interesting plus Norris seemed bored with the whole thing and i don't blame him as i was too!. Calvin levels gives one of the most annoying performances in a movie ever, i couldn't stand as i was tempted to rip the tape out of my VCR, plus Norris and Levels had no chemistry together!. If your looking for some great martial art moves from Norris don't go near this, however if you want a movie with an uninteresting story, hardly any action and bad acting look further!. This is a god awful Norris film, with one of the most annoying performances ever from Calvin levels, Avoid it like the plague!. The Direction is incredibly bad. Aaron Norris does an incredibly bad job here, with no suspense or thrills bland camera work, and keeping the film at a dull pace!. There is a little bit of blood and violence. We get 2 gory impaling's,ripped out heart, exploding body and a few gunshot wounds. The Acting is really bad. Chuck Norris is not AMAZING as he usually is here and seemed very bored here, his one liners are flat, and his acting wasn't that great and i am a huge Norris Fan, this is his absolute worst! (Norris still Rules!).Calvin Levels is INCREDIBLY annoying here, his whiny wimpy performance severely grated me, i was so hoping for him to get it good!, but sadly he didn't. Christopher Neame is pretty weak as the main villain, his voice was cool, but he over acted big time!. Sheree J. Wilson is beautiful and did okay with what she had to do. Rest of the cast are terrible. Overall Please avoid this it's not worth the torture, even if you are a huge Norris fan (like me). BOMB out of 5


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


user
For the most part, I considered this movie unworthy of a comment, but the last 10 minutes prompted me to write one. You see, right then we learn (SPOILERS...if they can be called that) that the Devil's emissary has no chance of properly preparing the domination of the world by his master, because he is not skilled at martial arts! "Prosatanos" has been lying in a hole for centuries, waiting for "human greed" to release him, only to be defeated in a simple one-on-one match against 54-year-old former karate champion Chuck Norris! Imagine what would have happened to him if he had taken on Jackie Chan... (*1/2)


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


user
Norris plays a Chicago cop who stumbles upon a devil's apprentice? who wants to, well, create Armegeddon. He eventually kills the creature by, get this, throwing a solid gold 24 inch spike, not very sharp, about twenty feet, hard enough to penetrate the chest. Unlikely? So is the rest of the movie. Much of it consists of CN and his sidekick driving cars and talking nonsense. The Israeli (or Arab) kid is there ostensibly to humanize CN. OK. Doesn't work, makes no sense, and advances the plot, so-called, not one bit. Also, no cops ever every get invited out of the country to be interviewed by other cops. It is ridiculous as a premise. The whole thing is bad. Unfortunately, it's not so bad as to be entertainingly bad or campy. Just plain bad. But--one can see how Norris was trying to find his way to the successful Walker: Texas Ranger series.


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


user
This piece of Crap is actually the BOMB, as in Bottom of the Barrel. I can't figure out which is worst; Norris' dull portrayal of anonymity (not a great trait in an action protagonist) or Christopher Neame's hysterical overacting. This film doesn't deliver on any level what so ever. The action sequences are tame, the plot is paper thin, and the scenes that are supposed to be horrific look like a cliché from the fifties. You can't just fill a room with smoke and men in rubber suits, and expect the audience to scream in terror.
Visually the film does nothing for me. It actually looks like an unfortunate mix between a cheap porn flick and a Miami Vice rip-off with a little sprinkling of hell-spawn. No, wait. That should have been hell-yawn.


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


user
I concur with the other users comment. Hard to believe that this movie actually came out in 1994 because it screams mid 80's. I think it is dubbed because the sound and the picture don't always match up. If anyone can truly say this is a good movie, they need to be locked up. It is so sad how money has so much power over people that they will do anything to get it. I feel I lost intelligence from watching this. I used to have a little respect for Chuck Norris before I watched this but now I just feel bad. I bought this as part of a 3 movie pack for $9.99 and I can honestly say I would have been better off literally throwing the money away. Forgive me Jesus.


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 the worst film I have ever seen, so bad it is astonishing. I am glad that I have never seen that black sidekick in any other film: OK, it wasn't his fault that someone gave him those lines, but he could have refused the role, and tried to learn how to act instead. How did anyone get the money to put this film together. Is there some corporation in Hollywood that deals with trash for male college students with no brain? "Oh yeah, they will love this one: it's got no believable plot, some kungfu movements, Chuck Norris, a black sidekick with bad corny lines, a sweet little Israeli (or is he an Arab, or does anyone care?) boy pickpocket, and the devil." Brilliant, and many thanks to all concerned for enriching the human race.


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 is bad. Not so bad it is good. Just bad. It is however hilariously bad. I watched it out of some morbid curiosity and never intend to watch it nor any other Chuck Norris film ever again. If you have to choose between this film and death, you should happily choose this film, however, as it is is a masterclass in terrible film making (hence the hilarity).
It is a constant depression to me, as I grind away at my desk job, that some people get to be involved in movie-making and decided to produce things such as this.
1 out of 10. Still better than "Starship Troopers" however.


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 so looking forward to watching the documentary self-immolation of the mastermind behind Boondock Saints, one of the most aggravating and pointless movies I've ever seen. But the makers of "Overnight" - buddies (ex?) of the mastermind in question - also need to learn how to make a movie. Various unsavoury remarks, yelling obscenities into the phone, and enjoying his alcohol do indeed make Mr. Duffy look like a putz. But it doesn't shed any insight into why the guy got a contract in the first place, what his creative process or vision is - what's Boondock Saints even about? How hard is it to meet Patrick Swayze? What are these strange institutional machinations in which our disgusting heroes are caught? Because the film doesn't try to answer these questions in any coherent way, it doesn't end up having dippity-doo to say about Hollywood either. So who cares?


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


user
never before have i seen such a tale of such talentless hangers on been so ungrateful that their golden goose has failed to lay. these spunk monkeys are parasites and bad examples of friends. i felt sorry for troy as he tried to hook up all of his friends with Hollywood gigs, but as soon as things turned sour, they all left troy hanging. overnight was a contrived effort of self indulgent retribution on a man who was going up against the forces of Hollywood to retain story integrity. The simple premise of Overnight is to try an communicate the message, "look at this guy, he blew it all", when in fact he has a strong underground following, dealt with harsh blows from friends and executives all in the name of getting a project done in the way he envisioned it. Quite frankly the only productive par that any of these guys played in the overall execution of the Boondock Saints shoot culminated as nothing more than extra bodies in the first bar room scene, after that all they did was whine why they weren't a bigger deal based on the clambering of their rancid efforts on top of troys shoulders. (the 2nd half of this was written by Adam j farina)


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


user
my friends and i watched this movie last night. it was pretty incredible. by all means, this was probably the worst movie i have ever seen. at first, it was tolerable. it stunk of BAD IMPROV but it was pretty friggin hilarious, despite the scenes being too long & drawn out and the terrible quality (i read $400 budget above... sounds about right) of the film itself.
the biggest problem came from the lack of a script; with a background in improv, i know how hard it can be to keep scenes short & efficient. what happened in this film was that the actors were left to improvise the scenes and they didn't know when to stop, they just kept going for ages on stupid topics. at first i thought this was because the movie was short and they needed long, useless scenes to flesh it out. as the movie progressed, i realized it was just a really bad movie.
there were a lot of parts where i could see that the film maker had a really good idea for a shot but not the resources (or talent!?) to pull it off effectively. a lot of the scenes were taken from a single shot (cause, you know, improv) for what felt like a really long time. so boring! if you can stand to put up with and hour and a half of terrible improv, watch it. it's really funny at parts but also really stupid and annoying. the acting ranges from alright to absolutely terrible. it seemed like the only good parts were the parts that really had nothing to do with the main plot; the ballsy kid who swore lots, the barbershop, etc etc.
but yeah. painfully bad. like, i was literally hurting. after an hour or so, my friends and i just got bored and left.


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


user
Given the budget and the inexperience of everyone involved, Livin' tha Life could have been worse. Jamal wants to be Chris Tucker (whom I've always found very annoying), as a previous commentator has noted, but Peanut (Edward D. Smith), while some of his (over)reactions go on way too long (a director's problem), has some comparatively subtle and funny moments, such as when he is trying to instruct Jamal on the proper method of smoking a joint with a buddy. Throughout, he is usually more poised and self-possessed than Jamal, which could have been the germ of a nice exploration of the contrasts in the relationship but wasn't developed very far.
But the inexperience of the writer/director/cinematographer/etc. is no excuse for his inattention. Has he ever seen a movie? Faces are important! Has he ever heard of a closeup? Even Ed Wood could do a closeup. I don't think it's much of a budget issue. I could only give a general description of what any of the actors look like, and not just because of no closeups, but the lighting ...! Lights for outdoor shooting may cost too much, but you can make a reflector with pieces of paper! That would have required moving the camera closer to keep the reflector out of the shot, helping to solve the closeup problem at the same time. If that's too technical you can turn the actors around so they are not in shadow, or you can expose for the shadows, and if it hadn't been shot in L.A. I'd say take advantage of cloudy days. It goes without saying that the movies this one steals from are all, with the possible exception of Weekend at Bernie's, better than this one, but Livin' tha Life would have left a much better impression if it hadn't made the viewer squint all the way through just to catch a glimpse of whatever the human element might have been.
P.S. The scene in the barbershop is just stupid.


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 NEVER EVER seen such a bad movie before. The scene where they shoot some guy.. The pistol don`t even shoot. Damn that is baad. The scene with the boy is even not that good. no script, not any good sound, not anything good to say about this movie..


assistant
0