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
Now, I like the Bollywood films and I'm very glad they have recently gained success in the UK. However, Suneel Darshan's latest effort is a deeply flawed film from start to finish.
The idea of a modern-Bollywood take on Amadeus was quite an exciting one, that is until the two supposed 'musicians' appear on the scene looking as if they have never touched a piece of manuscript in their lives. Upen Patel is a very good looking man, and the film plays to his narcissistic sensibilities, but he is never once believable as a modern Mozart. In terms of acting, all he can do is stand there and pout. His expressions, hair and clothes all look the same throughout, including the scene where he is supposedly 'dying', when in fact he appears to have nothing but a slight sniffle. Bobby Deol, playing the Salieri role, does his best to liven up what little wooden script there is but, alas, just comes across as a little bit angry when he is supposed to be fuming with jealousy.
Bollywood films are widely renowned for their stunning set-pieces and colour schemes, but Shaklaka looks like a drab BBC drama reproduction. In fact, the closest thing Shakalaka comes to is Hollyoaks, as it blatantly hides a really bad script behind beautiful people looking, well, beautiful. "He has yet to reach mediocrity" - the same could be said for the totally forgetful songs.
In short, Darshan's latest offering has no boom, bang, wallop or twang. Instead it merely plods along with its head held low hoping to catch your attention with a soft tap on the shoulder. And that is not good enough at all.


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


user
Most people get the luxury of typing in the title of a film, and finding out about the film before watching it but unfortunately I've just never been one of those kind of people. I wouldn't even read the synopsis for fear of spoilers but there are two sides to that because if you ignore such warnings and even give a film a chance after it has flopped in theatres, you're entering at your own risk and might just end up with a bad taste in your mouth which is exactly how I feel about this stupid movie.
Honestly, the only thing good about Shakalaka-Crap-Crap are some of it songs (and seriously excluding the title track). Even the ever promising Kangana Renaut's talent (Metro, Gangster, Woh Lamhe) is seriously wasted here as she plays Ruhi, the woman who has captured the attention of both the leading male characters played by Bobby Deol (who plays A.J. a rootless music producer) and Upen Patel (who plays Reggi, an upcoming artist who crosses A.J.'s path). Celina Jaitley provides the right amount of OOMPH required of a socialite who gets jilted by Reggi (whom she helped get his foot in the record industry's door). This doesn't sound like a mix or movie that should include Anupam Kher right? Well, you're wrong because he's in it as Reggi's father (another wasted talent).
The film might not have been so bad had their not over-killed the writing behind Deol's character. The moral message was too preachy (revenge had a deadly dark side) and the ending was way too overblown that it will make you wonder why you sat down to such a foolish movie in the first place. Truly, this is the epitome of crap.


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 lacks in everything. Except Bobby deol, who in his own standards is mediocre, no one in this movie has come close to act in a single scene. Kangana is complete fake in her acting.
The great Anupam Kher has a guest appearance and is better in those 2 minutes than bobby in the whole movie. The music does'nt compliment the movie
that well. The contrast in Music between Bobby and Upen is not highlighted that well. Great concept gone completely wrong. The movie does'nt have a proper ending. Please don't waste your time as i did on this movie


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


user
Shakalaka Boom Boom is a rip off from the movie Amadeus. I personally rate Amadeus as one of my favorites not only because it is about music, which is my favorite subject, but also because it tells us the real story of a musical genius who is not only remembered for the voluminous works of beautiful music he produced during his life-time, but for his own self-destructive nature and his tragic death at a young age of 35, being virtually uncelebrated during his life time because of the politics played by some people, particularly Saliere, the Italian composer, who was jealous of him.
Personally, I was shocked to see Shakalaka.., as the director has invariably cut-pasted most of the scenes from the movie Amadeus. I see the worst kind of plagiarism in this movie and am skeptic about the kind of movies Bollywood keeps on churning day by day. The movie is a disaster, the two musicians in the movie don't give you any feeling of being realistic, the film is tasteless, meaningless and total failure on every count. The only person who makes an impact is Bobby Deol, who at least knows how to act. Otherwise, the whole cast looks like a bunch of amateurs.
The irony is that while watching the movie, the first screen in the movie says that all characters in this movie are fictitious and that any resemblance with anyone is purely coincidental which is a blatant lie, because all resemblances are very much clear and they are very much intended. I wish I could take Darshan and Co. to court not only for Copyright Infringement, but also for mutilating a beautiful work of art.


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


user
My friend & I rented this movie and within the first 5 mins we had no idea what was going on. It felt like it should have been over within the first 15 mins. It was a terrible movie, my little brother could have been a better actor than some of the ones in the movie, and the plot (if you can call it that) was full of holes. Never would I recommend this movie to my worst enemy, yet anybody I actually like.


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


user
You may not believe this, but when the credits to this movie rolled, I looked for the director's name. When I saw it, I burned it into my memory and I never forgot it. This movie is beyond terrible. It makes Ed Wood's films look like Orsen Welles. At least B movies are entertaining, this was a soul deadening experience. The quality was so bad, I began to wonder who allowed this to happen.
I hear Uwe Boll runs fourteen miles a day. This is because wherever his movies are viewed, the people must run him out of town with flame and pitchfork. The script was terrible, the lighting was like that of a high school football game, and the cinematography was just above the quality of Roger Patterson's Bigfoot video. The acting was executed by people too ashamed of the production to say their lines with any credibility. In the end was a film Alan Smithee wouldn't have put his name on. I learned that day to avoid any movie by this man despite the circumstances. From what I hear, this is not a bad thing to do.


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. Oh, this is a *really* bad movie. The acting is absolutely atrocious, the script is god-awful, and the photography is simply dreadful.
What does make this movie stand out, however, is that you never once care about a single soul-- good guy or bad guy, living, dying or dead-- in the entire 87 minutes. "Oh, s/he died? Huh... Figured they would" was the best reaction I could muster after each murder. Characters are so black-or-white that with the volume turned off, you could still figure out who was who. While the cast's voices had an odd monotone quality throughout, their faces give the impression that you're looking at an old silent movie with a lot of eyebrow waggling, exaggerated frowns and "pensive looks". Each character is a humorless, passionless, one-dimensional one-trick pony; once they fulfill whatever their particular role in this fiasco demanded their creation, they are summarily dismissed.
It vaguely made me think of what would happen if Thomas Borch Nielsen (director/writer of "Skyggen", American title: "Webmaster") decided to do a low-budget version of "American Psycho" and got kind of distracted along the way.
This isn't a particularly gruesome movie; the cold, passionless cast ensures that. It isn't an offensive movie; the director plays it so safe that no one could possibly find it so. It is, simply and after all, a bad movie.
Avoid it. We were not so fortunate and actually paid to watch this bomb on Pay-per-View. As part of my penance, I'm writing this review.
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
Did Uwe Boll seriously just rip off the basic idea and dialogue from Se7en?! Why is it so fekking difficult for this douchebag to be original?! He even mentioned in an interview with Gametrailers that he chooses stuff like games to make into movies because the characters, plots, backstories and so on are already there and ready for him to screw with.
Guess it isn't too much of a stretch for him to rip off another movie entirely...
I mean, seriously, what the hell...? Here's something I made in Uwe's 'honor'...
http://zuucka.deviantart.com/art/Uwe-Boll-is-a-Douchebag-70369862


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 into this movie with low expectations, knowing Uwe Boll's legacy as a film director, and screenplay writer, and I was still disappointed. Uwe Boll finds a way to make each and every movie he is involved in worse and worse. The overall concept wasn't a bad one, a man bored with his life as a stock broker becomes a serial killer. But the problem with the movie is there is no in between, he goes straight from stock broker to serial killer. The film has no-name actors, and I can see why, after watching the movie, I can't see why any actor with a career would want to even be involved in this movie. Anyone who turned it down did their careers a favor. And if you haven't seen it, do yourself a favor and don't.
I give Sanctimony a 3 out of 10


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


user
Astounding that something like this could find its way to be viewed by the public. I knew it was by Uwe Boll, & I found it in the bargain bin at a store for $2 (still pretty steep, considering) but morbid curiosity led me to view this, and:
1). I am fairly sure this is a rip-off of Seven, Silence of the Lambs, and American Psycho, all rolled into one, with dialog that may have been written by preteens.
2). Casper Van Dien plays the main character, and he's so absolutely bizarre and creepy that just about anyone would KNOW he must be the crazed serial killer.
3). Jennifer Rubin plays the "good cop" that invites a serial killer to her apartment for a home cooked dinner, and what does she get for her trouble? I'll let you guess.
4). Michael Pare plays an "intense" cop, who drives a VW Bug, new-style, that is, with a siren on it. A VW Bug...that'll strike fear into criminal's hearts when they see THAT coming.
5). Van Dien breaks up with his fiancé, but she still has an "not engaged" party, complete with "not a wedding cake". Imagine everyone's surprise he shows up (he was, of course, invited) and they all get shot.
6). Actually, this should have been #1, really. The killer in this is known as "The Monkey Maker". This is, without a doubt, the stupidest killer name anyone could have come up with in a million years. Presumably it has something to do with the "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" saying, complete with monkeys. It's possible that monkeys had something to do with the script, too.
7). Oh yeah, and there's a club that Van Dien visits near the beginning of the film. There's bad disco music, I mean, really bad, and a chain-link fenced cage with, uh, gang members beating the crap out of each other with baseball bats? That's what it looked like. And of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg, the really cool stuff (?!) goes on in the basement, where some questionable "actor" talks some woman into signing a confession before she gets shot, this being, I guess, a snuff movie? Not quite sure how this fits in with the rest of the film, and Boll probably wasn't either, so if he wasn't worried, then I won't worry.
An incredible piece of non-entertainment that will make you feel like you're watching something from a parallel universe. A parallel universe that's KIND of like ours, but where things are just enough off where they don't seem right. You have entered "The Boll Zone". Exit as quickly as possible, & don't look back.
2 out of 10.


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


user
The only reason I watched this is because of its stars, CASPAR Van Dien, Micheal Pare & Eric Roberts & catherine Oxenburg * & Jeniffer Rubin, All capable actors & have given good performances in the past,. NOT THIS TIME,, a weak serial killer story, You can guess who the killer is in the first scene. Very contrived in all aspects there is nothing to recommend in this disaster, my rating is *1/2 POOR


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


user
My husband wanted to watch this film because the review in the paper said that it was better than Fatal Attraction. Well, not liking either Michael Douglas or Glenn Close, I would have to agree. Not for conventional reasons though.
This is one of those films that needs to be watched late at night when you don't want to watch something that really requires thought but don't want to go to bed yet.
Yancy Butler is a really enjoyable bad-guy. She is not the best of actresses, in fact she isn't even good but she is perfect for this role in this film. Everyone else in it varies from pine to oak, including the slightly disturbing boy who comes across as a warped Pinocchio.
SPOILER: The ending goes a step or two too far, complete with the cliché not quite dead, up with a roar, still gonna get you moment and then there's a shot of Pinocchio with his frozen wooden smirk which makes you wonder if they were going for chilling or just forgot there was botox in the make-up.
Regardless, it's a hilarious eighty odd minutes and despite being a bad film, you would have to be lacking the humour gene to not enjoy it somewhat. Don't pay for it but if you're in that kind of apathetic telly mood then this is just right.


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


user
The material is poor....the script's dreadful....the acting mediocre at best and the music telegraphs what the scene is supposed to be communicating like a kick in the head.
Give this one a miss....even Yancy Butlers not hot enough even in the semi nude scenes to save this tripe.
I'm amazed people rave about Yancy Butler.....given what I've seen here and in the couple of other things I've seen her in she hasn't got the depth or presence to be a star...and her off screen behaviour would tend to indicate she knows that as well.
Last thing is where was this shot? I don't recognise the externals.


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


user
Totally forgettable and almost unwatchable. If you enjoy bad acting, thin plots and predictably weak outcomes, pull up a chair. Of passing interest to see Bridget Fonda look-a-like Suzy Amis.


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 by far the worst film I have ever seen in my life. A woman "The EX" pretends to be a number of people in order to gain access to her ex-husband. Killing people for no- reason in baths to achieve her goal. The women I don't think ever went to acting college. She just spends the whole film making stupid expressions, and she looks like she is trying her absolute hardest to avoid looking into the camera. Failing on most occasions. She makes friends with her Ex Husband's wife and son, she does this to use them against her husband. At first when you watch this film, you think that the "Ex" wants to kill her ex-husband, maybe because he has treated her in a bad way. But in fact the women is obsessed with the man and wants him back. The two of them used to enjoy rough entertainment (using whips of course). My advice to the general public is do not buy this film, do not rent this film and do not watch it like I did (at 1.15am on FOX)


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 pretty simplistic romance. Girl finds boy, girl loves boy, girl loses boy, girl finds boy. Colleen Moore is the outstanding ingredient in this recipe, delivering a wonderfully varied dramatic/romantic performance, well deserving of an Oscar nom. Equally fine are the aerial combat special effects.
Moore plays a French girl whose mother has turned over their field to a British aerial squadron during WWI. She is the "daughter of the regiment", loved as a little sister. Into this mix comes a fill-in for a downed flyer, Gary Cooper. At first they hate each other, then they love each other, then the entire squadron is sent out on a suicide mission. Cooper returns but crashes in the village and a red cross unit removes him. Moore searches for him, is told at a hospital he is dead, then wanders the streets until he calls from a hospital window and they are reunited.
It's a nice little romance, but hardly more than that. Recommended for fans of Ms. Moore and Mr. Cooper


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


user
It looks like people involved with this movie are stuffing the ballot box to boost its ratings. The good news that apparently only 18 people have seen it. I suppose that makes me the 19th. I have no involvement with the flick and don't know anyone who did and I'm a long-time IMDb user (check my vote record and reviews over the past seven years), so I promise I'm giving an honest and unbiased opinion. It's coming to you from a 30-year horror fan who has also appeared in a couple of low-budget flicks himself.
Aside from a couple of interesting video effects, "Frankensteins Bloody Nightmare" is incoherent, boring, and technically flawed beyond all reason. It was apparently shot on silent stock and the audio then dubbed in; most of it sounds like it was recorded with a tin can and a piece of string, anyhow. More than three quarters of the dialog is inaudible.
I watched this from beginning to end and have no idea of what the story was, or even if there was one. It seems like the director is mostly impressing himself with long, panning shots of the corners of table and dead black spaces that do nothing but pad the film out. That would be a problem if one were actually developing a plot and making a film that had some sense of pacing. In this case, though, the rule doesn't apply. It doesn't matter how scenes are shot because they don't add up to a story.
Watching this video is an exercise in futility at every level. Whatever people who worked on it are writing and however they're trying to influence the ratings here on IMDb, this is just bad, tedious stuff.
That's the honest truth. If you're thinking of spending your money or time on this one, think again. It's easy to find something better because you won't find much worse.
And that's the unbiased, unvarnished truth.


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


user
This conglomeration fails so miserably on every level that it is difficult to decide what to say. It doesn't merit one line, much less ten, but to adhere to the rules of IMDb, here goes and I probably won't succeed the first time around and have to type some more to make up for this submission to be accepted. LOL
If I had seen this schlock during the '70s while I was going through my mushroom phase,I would have still considered it unimaginative and shallow. The most exciting shot for me was the long shot when the elevator door opened and closed.I was on the edge of my seat.
One person on here wrote that he had met the creator of this mess, as if that were a red letter day in his life. One can only pray that something far more exciting occurs in that posters life.Get a grip, amigo.


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


user
One of the commentators on the subject of Lil' Pimp (dbborroughs of Glen Cove), got it right when he/she stated that the movie is really bad but I take exception when he/she commented on the animation.
The animation wasn't bad because of Macromedia Flash. It was bad animation because it was directed wrong. Flash is just a tool. In the right hands, an artist can create animation as full and fluid as any Disney film and, in the wrong hands, it can look as bad as the stuff on the internet, which is where Lil' Pimp originated and should've stayed there.
Studios such as Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, Disney, and Warner Bros., create wonderful animation using Flash (i.e., Puffy Ami Yumi, Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, Mucha Lucha, etc.).
Lil' Pimp was an ill conceived piece of tripe that was made because Revolution Studios bought Media Tripp and Lil' Pimp was one of the properties included. Roth and company thought they'd make a quick buck exploiting a turd like Lil' Pimp and the sham was perpetuated by it's producer, Amy Pell. The reason for this third trimester abortion of an animated film is that none of the executives at Revolution Studios had the pragmatic brains to sideline Mark Brooks and Peter Gilstrap (they really tried their best but were way in over their heads), and hire real writers, directors and at least a semi-competent producer. They did one thing correctly though, they hired some of the best storyboarders, designers, and animators in LA, but as Lil' Pimp demonstrates, one can buy the best sports car on the floor but if you're a moron, you'll wreck it for sure.


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


user
I mean really, really, REALLY high and this movie has a shot at entertainment. I don't mean regular high, i mean the high where reading the phonebook would have you in stitches. otherwise save the time out of your life and go do something more constructive with it, like hitting your head on a brick wall and insulting your own intelligence. A complete waste of talent in some cases (Bernie Mac, John C. McGinley, Tom Kenny, and the master of hams Shatner) and exactly the kind of crap they deserve to make (the myriad of rappers who insist on making movies). Not without it's laughs (again chemical aid is crucial) and certainly not without offending the politically over-sensitive (which I'm always in favor of) but ultimately not worth the time out of your life.


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


user
Lil Pimp is the story of a little boy who becomes a pimp. The animation and voice acting were perfect for this type of film.
I laughed out loud for the first 20 minutes or so of this movie; mostly at the concept. After that, the joke wore thin. As a 15-20 minute animated short, Lil Pimp would have been a classic. Instead, this movie consists entirely of one joke that lasts far too long.
Weathers, voiced by Ludicrous, does have several crude and funny one-liners. Unfortunately, that is all the boy's pet rat is good for as he contributes nothing else to the story. Eventually, I grew as bored with his remarks as I did the rest of this movie.
I am a big fan of South Park, and other animation aimed at adults. I also play several online pimp games, so I am partial to stories about pimps. The transition from little boy to lil pimp was brilliant; but after that, both the story and dialog became redundant and predictable.
I give this movie a five. It is worth watching for the great concept and voice acting. Just do not expect much else or you will be quite disappointed.


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


user
First things first, I am by no means a picky movie watcher. I'm not one of those people who gets movies just to pick apart the flaws and criticize, I, like most other people, watch to be entertained. I'll basically watch any type of movie of, no matter how bad anyone says it is (sometimes a movie's so terribly made and written that it invokes a sort of pity humor which i get a kick out of). With all that aside, lil pimp was simply pathetic. I saw it on TV and just didn't know what I was watching. It was too poorly written and cheesy to be an adult movie, and had way too much sex, innuendo and swearing to be a kid's movie, in fact, I doubt even kids would be amused by it. The humor (pretty generous even calling it that) was so pretentious and campy, I couldn't see how anyone with half a mind could even find it funny. The only thing that made me laugh was how people like Bernie mac and ludicrous could put their name and time onto/into something so hurting. Luda's character was such a cheap ploy for laughs, which fell extremely short of its goal. The plot didn't make any sense whatsoever, the storyline has got to be the worst sequence of events ever put together on screen. I could keep going on, but I want to see what people think of my reaction before I start discussing specific instances of pathetic scenes. All I have to say is it really has to make ya wonder how much time these writers spent on their knees trying ta get it made.
J


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


user
This movie was extremely boring. I only laughed a few times. I decided to rent it when I noticed William Shatner's name on the cover. It's all about this little kid who gets picked on all the time by his classmates. When wandering the streets looking for old ladies to assist, he meets a prostitute. She takes him to a club called the Playground, where he befriends several pimps. When mayor Tony Gold (Shatner) decides to take over the pimp business, Lil' Pimp must lay down for his homies.
The animation isn't very good in this. It looks like it was made with Macromedia, which I'm sure it was. It doesn't suck, it's just the sort of choppy flash animation that people have gotten used to over recent years. The humor in this is not very good, I didn't think any of it was funny.


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


user
Although Charlie Chaplin made some great short comedies in the late 1910's, others don't quite make it. Examples like His New Job and Shanghaied come to mind, and I would also The Floorwalker in this category.
Charlie gets mistaken for a manager of a department store (and vice versa). This manager tries to steal money from the cash register and make a run for it, and Charlie is just an honest costumer but getting blamed for some missing objects, stolen by other costumers.
There aren't many laughs in it, except for the last couple of minutes or so with some great scenes on the escalator. For the rest, quite disappointing.
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
Why, oh why, is this trash considered a classic? I've seen higher body counts on episodes of The Simpsons. Virtually nothing happens in this film and much of it's running time is filled with nearly unbearable melodrama straight out of a low-rent soap opera.
The Trenton family are going through tough times and when dad is away mommy and little boy go to get the car fixed. But when they get to the ranch they discover that the guard dog has gone mad. The rest of the film is just them sitting in the car while the slobbering St. Bernard circles them over and over.
Regarding the kid, I have never, ever seen a more annoying child in a film in my life. And obviously he's completely Aryan since blonde-haired and blue-eyed kids, such as the one prominently featured on packets of Kinder chocolate, are apparently more sympathetic than people with brown eyes and dark hair, like me. All he does is cry and whine. Same goes for mommy. She gets out the car, she gets in the car, she gets out the car, she gets in the car.
I know this was made in 1983 but I just sick to death of horror films where the characters make stupid, illogical decisions. If mommy just used some common sense she'd be able to get away from the icky dog.
It's very poorly written and there's zero tension. If you want to see a good "bad dog" movie then check out John Lafia's Man's Best Friend. It's funny, inventive, has a better dog, a higher body count and a more involving story. Leave this garbage be.


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


user
I am writing this with 10 minutes left before the film finishes. I feel comfortable writing it now, because unfortunately I know exactly how this film is going to end.
The premise is simple enough, rabid dog on the loose in a small town, kills people. Great - simple plot for a good fun camp 80s horror.
Uhh ..no.
The main problem is this is based on a book (Stephen King) and you can tell that is should not have really been adapted to film, at least not with the same plot. Why? Cuz its boring! The first 45 minutes tries to build depth to its main characters and create suspense. It however lasts too long (half the film!) - the characters are unlikeable and we never care for them anyway, and it just about creates zero suspense. The easiest film (according to plot and time) to compare this to it the classic Jaws. Everything that Jaws does right, Cujo does wrong. Jaws created good characters and a genuine feeling of dread. Cujo does neither. Jaws effectively creates a scary, creepy villain in its shark. Cujo has a dirty St Bernard running about growling and jumping, and not a lot else. Jaws is exciting and unpredictable. Cujo is a tireless bore that remains predictable right to the end.
Also confusing is the plethora of subplots that just act as boring red herrings to the films main plot.
If this film was rewritten for the big screen and had a better director this could have been good. But it wasn't. It was a waste of 90 minutes of my life.
People on here are saying this is one of the best King adaptations - Im sorry you could not be more wrong. The Mist is a hundred times better, Thinner is 10 times better and even the one with the cats is twice as good! This in my opinion is one of the worst! The only good thing was the action scenes with the dog looked real, even though they were dull.
Films ended now, and it didn't get any better. Avoid.


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


user
It takes an eternity for this typically over-simplistic and idiotic Stephen King-based film to finally get out of the starting blocks. About half-an-hour is spent on needless introductions to various boring characters and their irrelevant little personal problems that might excite bored housewives and apathetic pensioners in soapy dramas, but this is supposed to be the horror genre (or so I naively thought). The mutt fails to look all that fearsome, which Leonard Maltin, the notoriously clueless/hopeless and always grinning film critic, would disagree with: he considers Cujo to be "genuinely frightening". (I often do have to wonder if Maltin is genuinely thick - or merely likes to do favors for his Hollywood friends...) It's both illogical and inconsistent the way Wallace survives an attack with only a leg injury. And, naturally, her car breaks down just when she needs it to save her life: this is one of the oldest horror-film clichés; trust King to use it to minimum effect. The premise is imbecilic, too banal, even for a horror film: a rabid mutt attacks a family. Is that it? This sort of thing barely constitutes a 3-minute sub-sub-plot in your average zombie film. I think even Cujo must have sensed that he was starring in a turkey. Mutts have terrible agents... But what I really don't understand is how people can actually throw themselves at the "Cujo" book and read it from cover to cover? These SK fans must be immortal: that's the only explanation, i.e. why they treat time as such a meaningless commodity.
Bodycount: 3.


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


user
1983 was a bumper year for Stephen King books making it to the big screen. Christine, The Dead Zone and Cujo were all released within a few months of each other. While The Dead Zone was easily the pick of the bunch, Christine and Cujo were both pretty bad, and it's a close-run thing as to which is the lesser of the two. If pushed for an answer I'd say Cujo - marginally - is the weakest.
Donna Trenton (Dee Wallace, fresh from success as Elliot's mom in "E.T - The Extra Terrestrial") is a mother whose marriage to husband Vic (Daniel Hugh-Kelly) is hanging by a thread. She's been having an affair with a local worker, and is now dwelling on whether or not to leave her husband. Dragged into the marital heartache is young Tad Trenton (Danny Pintauro), son of Donna and Vic, and a pretty messed-up kid with a chronic phobia of the dark which often leads to severe panic attacks. Donna and Tad take the family car to a nearby mechanics' yard for repairs, but as they arrive their car splutters to a halt. Things get a heck of a lot worse when they discover that the mechanic, Joe Camber (Ed Lauter), isn't there (he has been savagely killed by his pet dog Cujo, a gigantic St. Bernard which was recently bitten and infected by a rabid bat.) Soon, the dog has them trapped in their car and is trying everything to get inside the vehicle to tear apart these two hapless victims. The weather is swelteringly hot; not a living soul knows they're there; the car won't start; and the dog seriously wants their blood......
Cujo has potential to be a genuinely taut siege thriller, but it never really clicks into gear. I've read the book and it is quite disappointing - certainly for King - so it's hardly surprising that the film version amounts to so little. On the printed page, King was at least able to generate a degree of tension, but the film is critically hampered by the fact that a St. Bernard simply isn't very scary. The "visualness" of the film medium serves as a constant reminder that Cujo IS a St. Bernard. In the book, it was possible to forget this. In the book, Cujo sometimes almost seemed to assume the guise of a monster. Even with the relatively short running-time of an hour-and-a-half, Cujo becomes a tedious and patience-straining experience, occasionally unintentionally funny and certainly never as suspenseful as it would like to be. They've even omitted the book's cruelly downbeat ending and replaced it with an "all's well that ends well" conclusion so that audiences can go home in a cheerful mood!!! Chalk this one down as yet another inferior King adaptation.


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


user
Don't get me wrong, I love Stephen King! And this is a pretty good movie over all. The rabid Cujo is very scary and the movie is suspenseful. But after the first few minutes that poor Donna and her little son Tad were held captive in their Pinto by the rabid St. Bernard, I began to wonder why she didn't do something to help herself.
She could have stuck her foot out the door and pushed the car backwards (I mean, it was a Pinto for Pete's sake and they were on a downhill incline) and rolled to safety, but then it would have been a very short movie. When she got the car started, did she pop it into reverse and hope that she could get at least get part way down the driveway? No, she tries to make a three point turn in a car with a bad alternator. She did manage to get out of the car and look around for 45 seconds or so at one point to try and get to a baseball bat that was lying on the ground nearby--what a waste of time! I mean, if you're going to make a run for the bat, do it and at least you'll have something to hit the dog with. But, forget the bat. Were there no tools in the car, like a tire iron or something? I didn't see her looking in the spare tire well of the car. Really, why wait until you're bitten and weak from dehydration and your son is having seizures before you make a stand against the animal?
At the end of the movie she was battered and torn, but by God she was still wearing high heels!


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


user
Man, I just cant believe this movie. I have watched it entirely (believe me, I have done this !) and the best part was the traillers on the beginning (and I hate traillers!!!!).
No plot, no acting, no nothing. I was watching the movie and thinking, "When this is going to start" ? It never started. How people can spend money and time to make such a crap ?
The "plot": A Dog gets bitten by a bat and get rabies - Okay, until now no problem, nothing special but OK. Now the rest of the movie will be - the Dog will chase people!!! thats it, nothing else!!! Now add to this some of the worse actings/actors I have ever seem, some completely irrealistic scenes (and some others really idiotic, like the child cant breath and the mother gives him a big and strong hug to see if he gets better), and a very lame ending, thats it, here you have CRAP... ops!.... CUJO.
Do your self a favor and make something more worthy, like hiting your head against the wall or play chess with yourself.
ZERO out of 10.
Gabriel.


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


user
Not me.. If it came down to it, I could kick a dog's ass, and that's why this movie doesn't work for me. If it was me against the Alien, or Jason.. Or.. Hell, I dunno.. ANY OTHER HORROR MOVIE ANTAGONIST, then there'd be no contest and I'd have my ass handed to me barring divine intervention. A horror movie works because it puts people in a situation with a creature, person, being, entity, whatever, that is more powerful or resourceful or intelligent than they are, and then people think 'well what if that happened to me', and they get scared - and that's why this is a horrible idea for a story. I can't imagine myself being terrorized by a dog, so I'm not scared.


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


user
Cujo is a giant, lovable, gentle and affectionate St. Bernard owned by the Camber family, during the opening sequence Cujo chases a rabbit over fields and through a local wood somewhere in Castle Rock, Maine. The rabbit disappears into a burrow and Cujo sticks his head into the entrance hole. The rabbit vanishes from Cujo's sight, angry Cujo starts to bark and in doing so inadvertently wakes up and annoy a colony of bats, one of which bites him on the nose. Donna Trenton (Dee Wallace-Stone as Dee Wallace) is having an affair with Steve Kemp (Christopher Stone, Dee Wallace's real life husband) which her husband Vic (Daniel Hugh Kelly) who works in advertising, discovers. Obviously their relationship becomes strained. Happily oblivious to all of this is their young son Tad (Danny Pintauro). Joe Camber (Ed Lauter) fixes cars for a living out of his barn on his farmhouse. Joe is planning a guys weekend with one of his friends Gary Pervier (Mills Watson) when his wife Charity (Kaiulani Lee) wins $5,000 on the lottery and decides to take their young boy Brett (Billy Jayne as Billy Jacoby) with her on a trip to see her parents. Arriving at Gary's house to pick him up Joe finds him dead on the floor, he goes into the kitchen to call for help and his dog Cujo who is now rabid attacks and kills him. Donna and Tad drive to the Camber's farmhouse to try and get her car repaired. The place is deserted except for Cujo who is now completely rabid, foaming at the mouth, his fur stained red with blood and maddened by pain. Cujo attacks the car to try and get at Donna and Tad, luckily for them the windows hold firm, at least for the time being anyway. Donna tries to start the car but it has completely broken down, they are both trapped with nothing but the hope that someone will come and rescue them. Cujo lies in wait, ready to attack and kill anyone who crosses his path. Directed by Lewis Teague I thought the film was a bit slow for my tastes. The first half plods along, the second half builds up a head of steam but I still felt it was a little underwhelming and unexciting. The acting is fine by everyone involved, I've no complaints there. Technically the film is OK, photography, music, special effects, editing and it's generally well made. The big problem is the script by Don Carlos Dunaway and Lauren Currier and in particular it's first half, most of which appears to be padding to stretch the run time out. Clocking in at just under the 90 minute mark it felt longer. It's also a little predictable as well. Cujo as a monster never really scared me either, I just don't find slobbering overweight St. Bernards scary I guess. I suppose there's nothing really wrong with it, but I don't think I'd be in a hurry to see it again. Average, not too bad if you can find a copy going cheap or catch it on T.V. for free.


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


user
and totally non-scary film. The characters doesn't interest at all, and most of the time is spent in a car. The dog is at best ugly, never really scary. To interest, a more threatening menace would have been needed, at least a few people you care for and evokes some emotions in you. And, not the least, something interesting must happen. Something unexpected. As it is, this film just drags on and on, in what seems like forever. Maybe a Saint Bernhard was not that smart to choose as the Terrible Threat to life and society?
In most scary movies/thrillers/mystery, just whatever genre, there must be characters that sparks interest and makes you want to know what happens. Here you really don't care, you just wait for it all to stop, and wondering if it wouldn't be better to see something else. One of the weakest King adaptations.


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


user
Certain filmmakers can do no wrong in the eyes of national critics, which is one reason you should never pay attention to them. This film is a perfect example. The critics like director Eric Rohmer.
This movie is a boring soap opera about a woman and a teenager ("Pauline") she's taking care of for the summer, and the relationships they have with a few men. It's talk, talk, talk and more talk.
For those looking at the cover and hoping to be titillated, there are a few quick nude shots and a couple of swear words but otherwise this is a harmless French morality play. A friend of mine loaned me this tape. He thought he was getting some sexy French film, and was disappointed. I was just as disappointed because it also was so boring.
How this gets such great reviews is almost unfathomable.


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


user
Being a huge fan of Conte d'ete ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115940/ ) I was expecting to be wowed by another French beach romance with a lot of honesty, realism, and humor. Same director, same actress- what could go wrong? Unfortunately, Pauline a la plange is a huge disappointment. It's very slow and talkative which would be fine if the dialog conveyed insights into the characters, was meaningful, or original. But it comes across as a typical soap opera alternating between irrelevant pillow talk and jealous accusations. The only thing that saves this movie from being a complete disaster is a small amount of character development or at least "character change" with regards to Pauline. The source material is standard fare (sexual awakening during a beach vacation) but it could have been a decent film nevertheless if any of the characters were sufficiently interesting. Unfortunately that's not the case. Event though there are other shortcomings with Rohmer's season cycle, most of his later films are definitely leagues above 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
Another first: this French movie is my introduction to the world Eric Rohmer. Perhaps I'm a bit hasty when I say that this is probably my last Rohmer movie but I was immediately turned off by the way Rohmer relies on monotonous philosophical conversations that never get to the point. There is a scene in the movie where the characters discuss love that I thought was never going to end. Honestly, no matter how much I tried, I couldn't understand why Rohmer is so highly regarded among cinephiles. He struck me as being one of those obnoxiously petulant people who are filled with hot air. If this is a sample of what his movies are about, I'm not interested. I don't care much for French cinema (usually reflective and speculative to a fault), so maybe I'm biased.


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


user
Nothing about this movie is any good. It's a formulaic predictable "romantic comedy" geared to make females force their significant others to watch. In other words, it's a predictable chic flick that is neither comedic or romantic and is extraordinarily forgettable. If you like watching the same thing over and over then this movie will fit just perfect. I was also forced to watch this with my g/f at the time and it's no surprise we are no longer together. I enjoy great movies that are wonderful to watch, while she just wants to see the same thing over and over again just with different actors. Nothing good to say about this movie. The title says it all. 1/10 (one b/c I can't give it a zero.


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


user
The cookie-cutter gets to work overtime in this obvious and unoriginal love story. The plot, such as it is, has been done before a trillion times so there is no need to recount any of it. Suffice to say that all 12 year old girls will love this movie while the rest of us will be forced to make a face. Even the soundtrack is awful! Its not that I dislike figure skating, although I don't, its that I dislike cliched, bad movies.


assistant
0