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


user
I can find no redeeming value to this movie. It appears to be loosely based on the Lion King school of thought. Father gets killed, son can't fill the shoes and tries to run away, etc, etc, etc. The only difference (other than being in a barnyard instead of a jungle) is that Barnyard tries to "liven things up" with club-type music. They go way over the top in trying to be cool. The problem is that it really isn't cool. It's like "that guy". Everybody knows at least one of "those guys" who are older and still hang out with the younger crowd in a futile attempt to cling onto their youth. They try to be cool to fit in but they really aren't. That's this movie.
But hey, if you have money to burn and you feel like paying someone to suck 90 minutes of you life away, by all means don't let me stop you.


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


user
I went to see this by myself first to make sure it was suitable for my little boy to see.
Thank goodness I did because I certainly would not allow any young child to see this. Why? The violence, death, the funeral. If you are not ready to explain these concepts to your kids then keep them away.
Why on earth are these topics covered in a kids movie - especially one that has a tag line of "The original party animals". Might as well put a gangland execution in a Hello Kitty cartoon.
As for laughs there were very few and far between. Speaking for myself there were none. The cows looked remarkably similar to the cows in the The Far Side comics. I guess there isn't anything original about this movie apart from the addition of ridiculous violence and antisocial activities for all the young kids to enjoy.


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


user
When my six-year-old fell asleep at the theater during this movie, that was all the confirmation I needed that this film is a stinker. It was boring. The scary parts were boring. The maudlin parts were boring. Even the funny parts -- with two minor exceptions -- were boring. And predictable. And did I mention predictable? Examples: 1) The gruff but loving Dad indulging his brat of a kid. 2) The gruff but loving Dad buying the farm (while singing a song?!). 3) The brat of a kid deciding to cut and run, but, thanks to his friends, sticking things out because they need him. 4) The brat of a kid winning against incredible odds. 5) And a sassy character voiced by an African-American actress. Gotta credit these filmmakers for that bit of originality and for perpetuating that stereotype. I did mention two funny bits. In both cases, contributed by minor characters. The mouse bouncing on the farmer's pulse was funny. The farm dog falling victim to his doggy weaknesses while vying for leadership was funny. But the rest? Painful. Someone tried to make a Hipness-Thru-Committee movie and make it even hipper by making it a computer-animated film, and this was the result. And why make the coyotes Batman-villain dumb by monologuing with their victims, rather than just eating them? Oh yeah. No blood needed in this film for kids, already concentrating on mock alcohol consumption, destructive behavior and potty humor. And the fuzzy thing-in-a-box? Just what exactly was it? A porcupine? Tasmanian Devil? What, besides a really stupid plot device to help Otis the Cow win the Mother of All Battles? Barnyard is a bomb. And I didn't even need to mention the udders.


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 seemed like it was put together very quickly in both plot and graphics. My two daughters were ready to go 30 minutes before the end of the movie which rarely happens when we go to the theaters. This was a Nickelodeon Production and it would have been better if they had released it on the t.v. station. The animation itself in some parts was o.k. but the plot was horrible. A classic tale of a son trying to fulfill a fathers expectations is used in a lot of kids movies, but the animation or graphics need to be really good to keep a childs attention. This was not the case with this film. There were also awkward elements between the lead male character and the lead female character that the plot could have done without.


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


user
BARNYARD sucked! I saw this movie last week and it is horrible. What bull has udders? My 2 year old was asking me if all cows have udders and trying to explain to her that this is simply not true and seeing the movie only confused her more!
In addition, the violent theme scared my 2 year old. They made the coyotes ferocious looking and this has instilled a fear of coyotes into my daughter. I know coyotes for a fact are not ferocious and are natural predators. The mother and son who were sitting in front of us were shouting, "Kill him, Kill him, yea" in a particular scene in the movie where good vs evil per say
It is a Lion King rip off and they should stop using big name actors for a lame movie. Steve Oederek who has also done Thumb movies, such as Thumb Wars, Thumbelina and many others are so so Bad!
If a good Steve Oederek movie ever comes out in my lifetime, I will roll over naked and swallow my diarrhea and post it on Youtube.com ...Enough Said!


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


user
I took my family to see Barnyard this past weekend. We had so looked forward to it but had my kids not been there, my husband and I would have left. Coming from a farming community we found the fact that all of the male bovine in the film having udders drawn on them was a little disturbing. We felt like we were watching cross dressing cows or something. It was just odd to hear a male voice come from a female body. After checking some of the production notes on a different website, I felt like the animators might have slipped up on this fact. I know this is just an animated, humorous show but by putting female body parts on a male, I had to suspend my disbelief so much that I just couldn't enjoy the movie like I might have. I know udders can be found funny but they were definitely over used. None of the other animals in the movie seemed to have gender specific body parts drawn on them and I would have preferred the bulls in this show to at least have the correct ones if they had to be drawn on at all. The kids however still enjoyed the movie though we took the time afterward to make sure they knew the difference between bulls and cows.


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


user
Around 1980, the name Godfrey Ho was attached to a series of low-comedy action films starring an actor with the unlikely name Elton Chong". Although no masterworks of the genre, they remain surprisingly entertaining films for those with a high tolerance for silliness.
It is altogether unclear why Ho (or whomever) would want to make a film that would attack Jackie Chan's Drunken MAster, the film that legitimated the making of comedy-action films in Hong Kong. But that's what this is, a savage attack on the Chan film (the imitation Chan who stars in this movie learns to cause his opponents to laugh themselves to death - a pointless gimmick in any genre).
Along with all the flaws one expects from a Godfrey Ho film of this period - no continuity, no motivation, incomprehensible plot line, irrelevant and unbelievable characters - the film suffers from two unforgivable faults that effectively make it unwatchable: the fight scenes stink, and the comedy isn't funny.
Pointless.


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 great! I watched it with some friends and we thought it was proof that a film doesn't have to see commercial success to be a hit!" ...is what I would love to be able to say about this film. In the words of the film itself "you are very very bad!" I went to see an unlicensed acupuncturist once so generally agree with the moral of the film though.
i'd include a spoiler, but the lack of plot makes this very tricky. overall, a cinematic disaster.
quotes; 'you're not a leper at all!' 'you're beautiful, and i bet you're nice too' 'have you ever seen a naked man's body?' 'you couldn't break a piece of straw.'
cameos in dubbing; Micheal cane x3, harold bishop, steve erwine, benjamin netinyahoo, yoda.


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 below average martial arts films which is worth watching for the comedy value due to the part where a pair of symbols are used as weapons. Thats it really there is much to say about this film it lacks in every department because the martial arts are not that great either and with all movies of this type the dubbing as BAD


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


user
I have to admit, that out of the many many thriller movies i have seen, this has to be one of the worst. I was shocked to discover that this piece of work had a 1.5 mil budget. When it started, i thought that the opening sequence was pretty good, fairly standard for this kind of film, but pretty good anyway. But as the film progressed i began to feel distinctly uncomfortable with the lack of pace that i was seeing, each sequence seemed to take hours. The reason for this could have been that by now the film had already bored me to tears, nothing was happening other than endless accusations peppered with confusing flashbacks and the occasional fit of bad temper. Well ... after wading through what felt like a lifetime of these scenes we finally reached the big finale...an all singing, all dancing demonstration of how lack of imagination can completely ruin what could have been a good film.
Overall i found this movie predictable and tedious and I would not recommend this film to anyone other than those people i personally dislike, but if you have a couple of hours to waste and you want to watch a thriller that is not even remotely scary, this is the movie for you.


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 so predictable and poorly acted. I really can't recommend it to anyone, not even for unintentional laughs. It is just plain bad. It is pure TV movie hell, the cast doesn't seem all that bad, but they act terribly. Just stay far away from this movie and rent something more intellectual, like porn.


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


user
Skeletons In The Closet takes the father-teenage son genre to new levels of low. This is a movie that serves no purpose. The plot is layed out in the first few minutes, there is no suspense, the characters are cliché and despite plot twists that try to confuse and obfuscate, everything plays out exactly as you think it will. Halfway through the movie I could no longer stand the snail pace and started fast forwarding. The movie ended exactly as I expected. Linda Hamilton is great as always and the other actors are above average considering there seems to be a complete lack of direction. If you really believe you need to see this uninspired lackluster wannabe whodunit, watch it on fast forward.


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


user
The video case for this film reads "a story of beauty, passion, and forbidden fruit". Are they talking about the same movie I just saw?! They can't be, as the film I just saw was beautiful, but there was no passion and as for the fruit, this is all hogwash meant to entice the potential viewer to see this movie. If only it did have some passion or some life to it, I would have greatly enjoyed this film. Instead, it was an agonizingly slow paced and not particularly interesting film that I would definitely not want to see again. It isn't that it's a bad film (after all it IS very beautifully filmed), but it is dull beyond belief. I kept waiting for something exciting or interesting to happen, but then the movie just ended. There was no great sense of excitement, mystery or anything--just a rather unexciting story about a young girl who becomes a servant and spends the next 10 years of her life working as a maid.


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


user
I checked out this video expecting to like it. Wanting to like it. I like foreign films, I like beautiful cinematography, I know the critics liked this film (including my favorite, Roger Ebert), and I don't mind "slow" films.
Well, it's beautiful. That's about the best I can say for it. The plot is very thin, the shots are very long, the glances are very meaningful, the actors are very sincere, and it seems like a very long movie. I fell asleep half way though it, woke up, rewound the tape, tried again. It was a trial, but I made it to the end. I didn't like it any better for that.


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


user
I guess when people say this is beautifully filmed they are talking about the close ups of frogs and the cooking of meals. It certainly doesn't refer to the set which seems to be composed of about 3 rooms with no outside shots at all. Also all of it is filmed too close up.
I got sick of the little boy who keeps farting at Miu or pouring hot wax over ants...also do Vietnamese spend all their time sitting on their haunches? Kind of gross looking at least the way this movie depicts it--one close up of it would have been plenty not a dozen or more.
Then finally comes part two... a chick flick for Vietnamese girls with the perfect handsome rich man who spends all day playing the piano (He is cultured). The pretty maid steals him like the forbidden green mango fruit. Deep.
Except for a few nice close ups this film is a dud. It is sort of a soap opera with out dialog. It is cloyed. How is it beautiful?? The set looks completely fake.
No don't make the mistake I did and rent it because someone recommended it. I was expecting beautiful shots of the coastal mountains of Vietnam or something when I heard it was a visual gem.
I wanted to like this movie. I like foreign movies even prefer them. But this movie is dumb and dull. It will leave you irritated that something like this won a bunch of prizes.


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 could have been summed up in about 10 minutes. I don't know what everyone else was smoking calling this a beatiful film. I feel that a couple hours of my life were stolen from me and I want them back. I would put this in the category of a Battlefield Earth. Yes folks it is that bad. You would do just as well to watch a two minute clip of this movie over and over it would have the same effect. DO NOT WASTE 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
This episode has just aired in the UK.
What a disappointment. The heavy-handed touches of humour were ill-judged, childish and detracted from what could have been a pretty good storyline. I cannot believe that Jerry Bruckheimer allowed this episode to take place. I have seen every previous episode of this show, and even the episode where Jack played his own older self was way ahead of this episode. The lesbian kiss was pathetic sensationalism.
There was also no continuity from the previous episode. There was nothing in the storyline investigating Martin's dangerous behaviour or possible drug addiction. There was similarly nothing explicitly written about Jack's burgeoning relationship with Ann. Usually Without A Trace is pretty good at this sort of continuity.
The next episode needs to be a considerable improvement.


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 watched this movie (movie?) casually and i've never stop watching because is so ridiculous any dog can play this act and will be better then the actors (actors?)of this bad remake of the Fatal Attraction there is no directing, no playing, only an unlucky copy of the Adrian Lyne movie if you have doubt to suicide watch this and you can choose...for "yes"
i can't imagine people that went to cinema to see this rubbish; maybe someone that had an empty afternoon and choose the first cinema near house to stay 2 hours with some others to forget problems but it's hard to go back home relaxed


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 to comment on this movie. It's one of the few movies Dimension actually has not shelved (it's hard to come up with a reason why) and it was rushed into a an unimpressive 500 theaters it's opening day. Maybe Dimension was afraid of how people would respond to a swamp creature using his tow truck to pull a house apart piece by piece.
Ray Sawyer is just a tow truck driver, until he rescues a Voodoo priestess from a bad car accident, and in return, he gets attacked by a bag full of snakes and drowns. At the morgue, Ray comes back to life, and stalks a group of teenagers who witnessed the awful crash occur.
What brings this movie down is it's paper thin characters. I didn't care for one moment about any of them. Also, the dialog was less than ho-hum. Also, it was very predictable. Characters did the typical stupid horror movie character things, like check creaky noises, call out people's names, and trip on a rock while being chased. I also could immediately pick out who the final girl would be. And why did the camera have those quick white flashes whenever somebody died or whenever the killer was shown?
What's good? Well, there is an impressive suspense scene where the killer walks underneath swamp waters to get to his victims and a tense sequence where the final girl must camouflage herself with bunch of other dead bodies while the killer looks on.
But other than that, It's another August/September disappointment. I was looking forward to it, but I did not get what was expected.


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


user
I gotta admit it, I love horror films...especially 80s slasher films. Hell, I even love cheese like Sleepaway Camp and Night of the Demons. But, I didn't think much of this movie. The death scenes weren't very well done, the CGI was terrible, and the acting was ho-hum. Worst of all was the story which didn't make sense at all. I'd say save your money but chances are, if you want to see this movie...you're going to anyway. I didn't hate it...it's just not very good. Overall, it's just another bland, lifeless horror film that lacks life (it's no surprise that this one was on the shelf at Dimension for over a year after it was completed).


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


user
Overall it was a watchable movie. I didn't pause it or stop it to come back to it--a clear sign of a boring movie--so it passed the first test. Best of all, it got into the story fast, no boring unneeded back story for the characters.
It will never go down as a great movie. Nor as a great B movie. I would recommend this movie to slasher/horror fans who don't mind straight to video releases.
Unlike some movies of it's ilk, there is no nudity, only moderate language and rather subdued gore. There is violence though. The deaths were rather dry and unimaginative sadly. The computer special effects were actually pretty good. The way the 'creature' wielded his chains in some scenes reminded me of 'Spawn' and the 'Ghost Rider' comic books.
A little pet peeve...It's set in Lousinia, but no one seems to talk with any accent. I had to watch the credits to even realize it was filmed in Lousinia.
Like most low budget movies, there are small goofs in the filming. Lack of time and money would be the main factors for the goofs. For example in one scene it went from mid afternoon to pitch black in seconds...during a short car ride. The other instance was the stunt double for the 'creature' didn't have on the 'creature' makeup when falling out of the tow truck...it also looks like he's wearing a shirt in the scene.
In summary, I didn't hate this movie but I also didn't love it. I probably will never rent it again, but if a buddy owned it, I may watch it again in a few years.


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


user
I wouldn't exactly call this a good movie, in fact it might even be a bad one.
BUT there are at least 2 good reasons to keep watching this movie, those are the performances from AGNES BRUCKNER (Eden) and JONATHAN JACKSON (Eric) whom both deliver solid performances.
They are much better then the rest of the cast whom are pretty bad, especially MEAGAN GOODE (Cousin Skeeter).
BIJOU PHILIPS was excellent in the "Suburban kids goes to the hood"-drama HAVOC, but here she's far from good on the edge to being annoying.
THE STORY is decent enough although nothing special, BUT it would have been much better since it takes place in LOUSIANNA that any of the kids actually incorporated a down south-accent, but they don't (!).
Especially in a movie where "the monster" is actually bounded so deeply into the Lousianna folk-lore, with voodoo and such it's just plain stupidity not to include that accent into the characters.
The only one who does this is rapper METHOD MAN, he plays Deputy Turner and puts down a pretty good accent in his few scenes, and I mean if a rapper is able to do this then why shouldn't the "proffesional" actors be able to do the same? Mister Tical aka Meth is highly enjoyable in his very VERY small role, Who know the Ticallion Stallion would ever be a cop? Even if only on the big screen.
Anyways besides that it's a pretty stupid but fairly enjoyable Slasher-movie, but if BRUCKNER and JACKSON was as bad as the rest of the young cast this could have been really bad, thankfully they are good as usual.
4.5 out of 10, decent BUT there are hundreds of better slasher-movies out-there.


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


user
I never intended to see Venom, but I caught it on cable. It does have good elements. The Louisiana swamp atmosphere for one, something we will unfortunately not see so much of in movies because of Hurricane Katrina. It is based on an interesting concept, a regular man imbued with the spirits of evil. His confrontation with his son could have been interesting, as could much of the movie. But as tends to happen in Hollywood, an interesting idea goes down a familiar direction:
Kill off all the characters save the good girl, starting with the Black guys. I'm a fan of Agnes Bruckner, but the other characters, the villain's afore-mentioned son, CeCe who must become a voodoo priestess, are more interesting. And for the love of God, just once I would like to see the virgin get killed. We all like the easy girl, why can't she live? In this case it was Bijou Phillips, and we love her.
The ending made no sense considering what had been established about the villain's invincibility. All the carnage and atmosphere, and it leads to nothing.


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


user
Here he is. A new horror icon for the new millennium. Better than Freddy. More dangerous than Jason Vorhees. More evil than Michael Myers. Hard to believe, I know. But his time is here....
Ray The Prick.
Yep, the antagonist, Ray is a complete Prick. This is partly because of the naughty things he does. Also because he has a scar (oh, scary) on his face. But mainly because Ray The Prick has been milked.
Yep, Ray doesn't channel evil. He doesn't even become cursed, not even by a voodoo spell. Nope, Ray The Prick has been milked. As DeNiro once said, "You can milk anything with nipples". And Ray has been milked. Of evil.
How do you milk evil you ask? Snake nipples, I reply. Snake nipples.
Why Ray you ask? Because he's a Prick, I reply. Capital P.
Watch out for the New Line Pictures extravaganza entitled "Freddy Vs. Ray The Prick".
Thought your new horror saviour was Jeeper The Creeper? Well not any more, cause Ray The Prick is here. And I'm frightened.
Pity about the atmosphere-less, PG-13, unoriginal workmanlike quality of the film though, because Ray's a star.


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


user
In this movie everything possible was wrong and I don't know why I bothered watching it until the end. It would have been more fun watching paint dry. For crying out loud I even liked D-Tox and it was much better than this. Here is the basic plot for you: A redneck gets bitten by snakes that hold the evil of 13 murderers and becomes an undead killing machine murdering teenagers that have zero personality. During the movie I lost hope when it didn't scare me at all, when the kills were bad and there was BAD CGI blood and CGI snakes. It got worse with the cardboard thin characters killing their friend by holding her from her legs and not letting go so she got impaled by a tree and when the bad guy moved under water like the shark in Jaws. I'm still upset why I even bothered with this. I guess because I'm a horror movie fan.


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 wasted my time. i saw only part of it and i was crying about the wasted time that i could of spent doing something productive and useful towards this earth. for everyone that has watched this movie more than once, i am blaming them for global warming as the the amount of black balloons that got entered into the earth from this piece of crap were not needed and if they came from a different movie, i would have forgiven them. robin Williams lowered his standards to actually participate for more than 10 seconds in this film and Tim Robbins, how he went from this film to the shawhsank redemption, i have no idea. please do not watch this movie for the safety of the earth. stop releasing black balloons into the earth from a film that they should have never funded or released. please burn all copies before anyone else has to watch this crap.


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


user
Here's yet another movie with dysfunctional lead characters who are totally amoral and, yet, we're supposed to root for them? Not me. No character in this film was worth a damn.
Robin Williams plays car salesman "Joey O'Brien." The man has no class, a loser in every moral sense and a guy who thinks he can talk his way out of anything. Knowing Williams' ability to talk, he was good for this role. The women in his life are driving him loony, too. Some of them aren't much better than him.
Tim Robbins plays a similar low-life who starts the take over the film when he, fully loaded with explosives, crashes into a car dealership showroom and holds people, including his wife, hostage. Robbins, as in normal for him, plays a disturbed and ridiculous character. I guess these nut-case roles come easily to these two actors. Gee, I wonder why.
There is so much yelling and screaming in this the movie that it will give you a headache. Combine those two screamers with the nasal voice of Fran Drescher and you really have an annoying over-the-top cast. This is like listening to chalk on a blackboard for an hour-and- a-half. This is comedy? No, this is lame.
In fact, for a Robin Williams film to only have a dozen reviews posted here tells you something. It's a far cry from his best movie.


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


user
Jealous husband holds car dealership hostage while Williams burdens the viewer with his worn out Mork shtick at every turn. Yawn.
Pay channel grist. An uncommonly bad script coupled with a less than convincing Robin Williams as a slick talking, philandering Queens car salesman caught up in a hostage workplace crisis. The laughs aren't there, the message(s) or morals are just all wrong, and the film cant ever decide on whether its a comedy or drama. Pretty good cast all acting pretty badly. When a movie ages so badly so quickly, you got yourself a stinker. Not much else to be said other than maybe, avoid at all costs. Textbook mediocre movies like this are actually more tedious, and less enjoyable than the over the top bombs.


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


user
And one only, in my opinion.
That reason is Margaret Leighton. She is a wonderful actress, on-stage as well as on the screen. We have few chances to see her, though. I think that's especially true in the United States.
Here she plays a sympathetic role. Not only that but she is also very pretty and meant to be something of a bombshell.
Walter Pigeon does not hold up the tradition of Drummond performers. He is always reliable but he's not much fun. He's not a rascal or a knave. Consequently, this seemed to me a talky endeavor with little action or suspense. But check it out for Leighton.


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


user
There really is very little positive that can be said about this film. Walter Pidgeon is a truly unconvincing hero and even moreso when he tries to go "undercover" as a villain who, we're meant to believe, drinks too much and knocks his wife about a bit. Margaret Leighton, as the wife/undercover sergeant is a little more convincing but it's still difficult to believe that any hood worth their salt would not have seen through their charade in less than a minute. The plot, about a bullion heist, is silly, and the action drags rather than grips. David Tomlinson, who plays Algy in the same way that David Tomlinson seems to play all his roles, is the only glimmer of light in a wholly dull affair.


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


user
Visitors is a hard, hard movie to enjoy. It's so slow and leaden in it's pacing that at times I was drifting off during the film. This was about 11AM on a hot, sunny day, I might add, not midnight on a cold winter evening, so you get an idea of just how slow this movie is.
Strange thing is, it's not long. At 100 minutes it's only ten minutes longer than the average straight to video, and it's only fifteen minutes longer than the superior Darkwolf that I'd quite happily watched the day before. It just drags an awful lot, enough for you to lose interest.
When it's not mistaking S-L-O-O-W development for atmosphere, Visitors is good enough at action to almost make it excusable how slowly things happen. While the flashbacks are both cheap and annoying as a way to round out Radha Mitchell's boats-woman, the hauntings/aliens/whatever are actually quite creepy and effective, especially when her suicidal mother turns up and starts groaning in the night. Full marks for not splurging make-up all over the shop too. The single person boat is a creepy place, and at times the movie uses the full power of the location and the deserted sea to scare the hell out of you.
Still though, I find it hard to recommend Visitors. I came out of it not only feeling like I'd just watched a 4 hour film, not a 100 minute one, but also feeling like I'd been cheated somehow, as while offering many explanations as to the hauntings (Mind games? Real ghosts? Space aliens?) Visitors doesn't pick one for definite. All that watching Radha Mitchell talk to her cat and Dominic Purcell smoulder for no obvious reason about some unexplained horrific event in the past, for nothing?. Say what you like about Shyamalan, but at least he tells you what happened, however crazy/stupid you might think it. If you don't watch a lot of these movies, your fresh perspective will probably improve matters somewhat, but I found this slow, boring and highly derivative. If you want to scare yourself silly there are much better places to do it, if you want a clever thriller there are many that are smarter.


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


user
i didn't like this movie.to me,it didn't make much sense.it was hard to figure out what was really happening.i also didn't think it was scary.i did however,think it was silly,even absurd,but not in a good way.Radha Mitchell is the main character in the movie,which cam out in 2003.She was also,coincidently in 2006's "Silent Hill"which i hated.it too i found confusing and pointless."Visitors" isn't as bad,but i think it is certainly below average.there is just nothing special about it.the script is just too muddled and there are things in the movie which don't need to be there,in my opinion.I think Radha Mitchell is probably a good actress,if she has more to work with.my vote for "Visitors" is 4/10


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


user
Idea is great, spoiled big time by the judges.
Why make fun of people? if what the inventors say is true, and as most of them say, they spent their life saving on the invention, the minimum is to reject the idea without making fun out of the people.
also, it shows when they want to accept an idea by the crier that they added to the judges.
The only one i respect out of the judges is the one who always sits on the right of the table, he is a respectable person
of course the English snob who claims to be a business man, wearing a suite doesn't make you one pal
last but not least, the big guy who sits between the English and the crier. wake up man, the is no job called and inventor for you to call yourself one. an inventor is an attribute not a job man.
i think they wanted to add someone like Simon from the American idol, they thought it worked there, it can work here as well. the context is different and the idea is totally different.
it is a good idea and they could have done a good show out of it if they just change the judges and remove their act and attitude.
just stop making fun of the people.


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


user
The concept is excellent. The execution typifies the overall quality of the ABC network.
Apart from Peter Jones it appears that the rest of the panel consist of marketing execs. rather than real entrepreneurs.
When I realised that Peter Jones was getting together with Simon Cowell my initial thoughts were wow he's gonna take America by the balls. But it appears that ABC have come along and destroyed the concept.
I was an absolute addict of the Dragons Den in the U.K. and was interested to see that Peter Jones had manipulated the concept that originated in Japan and developed his own show for the States. The result is neither inspiring nor informative.
If you lack drama in your life you have a choice now Jerry Springer or the American Inventor To sum it up: a struggling musician selling out to a media mogul.
Idea: get me! And I'll produce a show worthy of the title


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


user
I can't believe I'm wasting my time with a comment - but this movie is weirdly bad. If 20 different directors were brought in to film different parts of the movie without having any idea of the storyline being filmed by the other directors, this is pretty much the result I would expect.
I also think some of the scenes were spliced out of order - things don't always seem to progress in order. The movie acts like we're already supposed to know about half the characters.
And Steve Guttenberg tries to do manic, a-la-Robin Williams comedy in this movie. Ewww. And the whole premise of putting an ex-con in charge of a bunch of kids just doesn't seem realistic in this day and age.


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 a waste of the celluloid it was printed on. It is a disastrous scene, much like a particularly gruesome train wreck.
Watching this is like trying to explain the meaning of life. The main plot point is that the character played by Steve Guttenberg is a party animal who's not supposed to gamble, because that would violate his parole. The kids he befriends refuse to play with him as coach for a while, because he gambles. BUT... a few minutes later, after they've won the championship, a large sum of money saves their shelter. And where did they get the money? GAMBLING!!! Add this to the creepy scenes at the funeral home (why exactly are there BEDROOMS in a funeral home?) and the useless peripheral character


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 be one of the few people who owns a copy of this classic. But i dont only own 1, i actually own 2. Its THAT good.
Well, when i say good, i mean bad. But i will try to do a thorough review. I even watched 'born a ninja' which one of the other reviewers here mentioned, to compare it to this. And born a ninja is actually worse, but not quite as funny.
And is this ever funny. EVERYTHING about this movie is poor. EVERYTHING. The plot is absolutely stuffed (note the 'you'll need to keep me alive if you want to know where to find your wife'). EVERY action sequence is stuffed too. Our hero danton is more than a hero; he can stab people with twigs, take 3 bullets in the heart at 50 cm away without even bleeding, and tie a rope up to a tree which, when an enemy steps on it, ties a knot around the enemies leg, picks him up, and throws him 50 metres into a bunch of spikes.
The acting is so bad it is impossible to comment on it, but it should have you rolling, especially dantons 'jump out of the ground and growl at the bad guy'. Oh yes, and the bad guys: somehow, it seems they resurrect themselves 5 times each in the movie. Perhaps it's just that there weren't enough actors, but in a movie of this calibre? i doubt that.
The 'plot' is about how danton was a soldier in the vietnam war, and now his colonel is hunting real people for training for his mercenaries. The colonel just happens to pick up danton, then danton fights back. This is just the excuse for a rambo clone, with most of the movie being danton slaughtering soldiers. And i really cant explain the plot any more cos there is nothing else to the movie. It still rocks though.
What else could be wrong you ask? Dont get me started. Hand grenades which actually go off at the actors' feet because the explosion is the size of a match.Scenes where there are 5 people chasing danton, then the camera cuts away and back and there are 7. The way that every time danton loads the grenade launcher he is against the same background even though he is in completely diffrent locations. And the worst part is when danton pushes the plastic boulders onto the enemies, and one enemy is completely untouched by the boulders, so he doesn't know what to do so he half heartedly dies without even being touched. It's ridiculous!!!
But funny. Very, VERY funny. This is one of the few movies i can thoroughly recommend to everybody, cos if you dont find it funny, you are 1 in a million. And for the rest of us it's magic.


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


user
I remember seeing this film when i was about 10, one of my friends had it. At the time it was just a film as i was about 10ish and just thought of it as another action film.
When i look back now as a complete film buff this is quite a shockingly bad film. Whoever produced this film i am sure had a short Hollywood career. Although the lead actor seems to have done a few films according to IMDb, albeit i haven't seen any and don't really remember him too much.
Anyway, just to say that this film is really bad, in all ways it could be. I would love to see it again though :oD


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


user
Was unlucky enough to see this while travelling by coach across Africa. It was far and away the worst film I have ever come across. Deserves to be the #1 all-time worst ;-) No acting, no plot, very little speaking. Lots of ape-like grunting though, in this hopelessly unlikely film. An unwitting self-satire - you'll either laugh at it or cry.


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 enjoyed watching Lost from the beginning and endured a few bad actors in poorly written episodes because when Lost is good, it's really good! But this episode that features Mr Echos demise had so many drawn out scenes with lingering closeups of bad acting that I found myself tapping the fast forward button. This episode stood out so far as by far the worst. In fact, the variation in quality of Lost has been so inconsistent, I find myself often wondering how many writers they are using.
I will continue to watch but hope things get better and hope I stop secretly wishing for the sub-par actors in the series to die 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 have been watching "LOST" with my family since the first episode, it used to be great. The last season it was very disappointing, it seems as if they (writers)don't know what to do with the show, so, they keep trying to make it up for it by stretching one story line in a whole episode. The present season, which by the way I decided to keep watching only to see Rodrigo Santoro, and also with a tiny little hope that things would get better; has been one disappointment after another; my husband and son even stopped watching. First of all, he (Santoro) only appears for 30 seconds in each episode. But the real problem is with the story line, THERE IS NOTHING REALLY HAPPENING, each episode could be shown in 15 minutes. We watch each episode waiting for something that never happens; I am not asking that every secret be revealed at once, but how about some variation in the story lines? In the first and second seasons, we had different story lines, we saw the characters history, a little action, a little romance, now is like one big event that takes the whole episode to unveil. It is almost tiring to watch it, when it finishes you have a feeling that you lost your time. Now, it is important to note that the actors still great.I can't believe they killed Mr. Eko(Adelawale...)he was great, Jack(Mathew Fox)is still incredible, the perfect hero, so kind, magnanimous, brave. Sawyer(Josh Holloway), the "bad boy" is kind of mellowing because of Kate(Evangeline Lylli), but that's cool. I miss Sayid(Naveen Andrews), Sun and Jin(Yoon-jin Kim & Daniel Dae Kim), they are all an important part of the plot (or should be), but we barely see them. I hope Paulo(Rodrigo Santoro) will have a big part on the show; if not, why did you make such a big deal of him joining the show (Access Hollywood, etc)? Sorry if I've been rumbling for too long, but I feel cheated by this show. When I started watching it was great, I got used to it, and now it is very disappointing to see the way it is going. I'll be here, hoping for the improvements!!! Katia


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 really know why but I watched this with quite a sense of anticipation. Unfortunatly it was misplaced. Firstly this is not horror, it doesn't scare and (unless it was even worse than I gave it credit for - which is possible) doesn't try to. It's a trashy comedy and the fact I smiled once means I gave it a 2 not a 1. This film ripps of Gremlins in a truly special way, I can't claim to have ever seen a film which devotes its self more. Very, Very bad - avoid.


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


user
Lame is really the best way to describe this movie. It has a real poor script, uninteresting dialog and characters and it's lacking in basically everything else as well.
There are too many characters and problem is that you don't care about any of them. What the movie is lacking is one good and clear main character. Instead now the movie has a bit of everything, it has a bit of an hero, it has a bit of a love interest and it has a bit of villain. I wish it only had a bit less Ghoulies though, fore they are just mostly very annoying in this movie.
Ghoulies are supposed to be devilish creatures, who murder for pleasure. In this movie however all they want to do is drink beer and watch naked college girls. Besides, someone had the 'brilliant' idea to let the Ghoulies be able to talk this time. This works out really poorly and annoying. The Ghoulie-puppets had been definitely upgraded for this movie and they are more detailed looking and are able to do more, however at the same time they are way more fake looking than the ones from the previous Ghoulies movies.
It's obvious that the aim for this movie was more comedy than horror this time. The movie is like a lame '80's high-school comedy (even though this movie got released in 1991). It's humor is really the worst and most lame thing about the entire movie. It's so incredibly annoying and simply not funny at all.
The story is not going anywhere with its story and the movie is just basically one big mess, that never seems to end. The Ghoulies plot line seems basically to have nothing to do at all with the other plot lines of the movie, involving the human characters. The movie is not at all about the Ghoulies terrorizing a college, with the humans trying to hunt them down and stop their rampage. No big surprise that this is Brent Olson's only written movie as of yet. He simply has no talent for it and I think that he has discovered this as well and has gone back to college himself instead.
Even when compared to the previous Ghoulies movies; this movie is just simply terrible!
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
This rubber monsters failed trying to be cool,scary or even comedians,looks like a wannabe movie of Porkys or Animals House but the sequences and history is not always clear also can't catch your attention all the movie looks cheap and with an amazing bad taste,the only thing that's makes you laugh is the awful rubber monsters who must have a cost of one dollar each,because the work or them never looks realistic,the movements and expressions make looks the Muppets as a Pixar 3D movie when you compare with this. Hope Marie Carlton is the only thing that makes supportable this awful movie,and when she dies in the movie,this turns even worst than before.A movie who only must be seen in fast forward.


assistant
0