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 spent three months living in the East End of London in the latter half of 1987, when the show had been on the air for almost two years. It was considered a running joke there.
Why? Because it had an all-white cast. Every cast member and extra in the first couple of years was white.
The street where I lived was a long one, with over 800 houses, and to the best of my knowledge I was one of only three or four white faces living on that street. We were on the corner of the Indian and Turkish "quarters", and even if you excluded those two races the Asians and Afro-Caribbeans outnumbered the white people twenty-to-one. Plus, of course, of the very few white people who *did* live in the area, the vast majority were Scots like me - a "Cockney" accent was never heard.
That wasn't a racist rant, just a simple statement of fact. The BBC either couldn't be bothered crossing London to do their research before writing this soap, or else they only had white actors available and decided to bluff it out.
Either way, as I say, in the East End of the time, we considered it a comedy show. :-)


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


user
Eastenders has gone full circle from unmissable in 1985 to totally abysmal now. It's such a bad reflection of the nation this crap tops the ratings.
The ideas for plots can consist of nothing more trivial than putting ever characters name in a hat. The first two out (regardless of their sex) will sleep with each other, the 3rd & 4th out will have a fight in the Vic, the 5th one will be arrested, the 6th develop an addiction, 7th get pregnant etc etc.
The producers are clever though. The 30 minute show is only actually ever comprised of 3 lines.
1) Someone will walk in the Vic & say "What's goin on?" 2) Someone else will stand up say "leave it aht" (out) 3) Then a woman will say "Doan choo come in ere 'n' insult mah fam'ly"
That's it. That's every show. Apart from the occasional "Get it sort-id / Is it sort-id?"
The show was once a realistic portrayal of East End folk & their way of life. The buffers came off when 1) They extended it from two nights a week & 2) The Slater family turned up. How they attract viewers is beyond me. The Kat character symbolizes everything that's gone wrong with society, treating anyone else like something she's pulled off the bottom of her shoe.
The people who vote her the best character, in these polls, must the same as the ones that vote Jamie Redknapp 'Best Sportsman' despite the fact he hasn't played a game for 3 years.
What I can never understand is if the show is the pinnacle of British TV why do all the biggest names leave? Ross Kemp, Martin Kemp, the list is endless.
How long has the longest couple's marriage lasted, with them being faithful to each other? Yes, people leave, but until the script writers realise that characters, couple can be interesting & likeable without sleeping around the show will continue to deteriorate. An episode last week had 3 separate plots of exactly that. And Zoe & the doctor top even Lofty & 'Shell' as 'Most Unconvincing Couple Ever to appear on TV.'
Yes, Eastenders is the most watched show, thats undisputed. But many external factors contribute to that. 19.30 / 20.00 is the perfect time of day to gain the most audience figures, it has an omnibus edition for 2 hours, and more than that, millions of the viewers watch it, out of nothing more than habit, but if they were completely honest to themselves, they would admit that (in 2002, more than ever), it can be absolutely pitiful.


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


user
Now the television schedules (in England, at least) are crammed with home improvement, bargain-hunting, house-hunting and cookery shows in the afternoons, the chances of any of the terrestrial broadcasters digging out a complete obscurity like this to occupy a couple of hours of screen time on a slow afternoon are slender, to say the least. But back in the eighties, the BBC did just that, and guess what, I watched it. And it's a testament to the overwhelming weirdness of this Hungarian-American co-production that I can still remember large chunks of it, over twenty years later. To begin with, the eponymous hero appears briefly during the opening titles, only to vanish again for at least half an hour. (Imagine AN American TAIL re-edited so Feivel is nowhere to be seen, and you'll appreciate how confusing this is.) There's a supremely bizarre bit of animation where one of the characters gets his elaborately waxed moustache tweaked and stretched, complete with a boingy sound effect that causes him to go boss-eyed. Probably hilarious if you're stoned, but to a child, quite disturbing. Speaking of which, the infamous 'hippo cull' scene is represented in an abstract manner - clouds in vague hippo shapes are struck by lightning - but it's still pretty unpleasant. In fact, this film is pretty cold and uninvolving throughout, a sad state of affairs hardly helped by the strange-looking production design, all muddy colours, wobbly lines, bloated forms and that uniquely European bleakness reminiscent of Jan Svankmajer, only not as compelling. Then, to cap it all, we get songs by the Osmonds! This isn't so much an awful film as a deeply misguided one, not so much phantasmagorical as a rather bad trip.


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


user
"War is in your blood" Rambo says early in the film, "don't fight it". Say, what? Is the scriptwriter taking the Mickey out of Sly? It is impossible for any person with a primary school education to miss the joke here. Yet, Stallone utters it without a hint of irony.
The same lack of humour applies to the movie. Rambo IV is an over-the-top, idiotic actioner that would have been funny without intention if it weren't sickeningly violent. A redneck fantasy of the basest kind where villains are so villainous, it is not enough just to kill them  you have to dismember them with relish. Stallone stops at no blue-collar cliché to make his point. It is not enough for the chief villain to be feed-them-to-the-pigs, throw-babies-into-fire kind of sadist. He is also a pedophile homosexual.
What is happening to IMDb? Is it taken over by the Rifle Society? How can this loathsome excuse for gross exploitation rate that high? I like a good action movie as much as the next man, but this is not entertainment  this is pornography of violence that trivializes and ultimately denigrates the real tragedy of Myanmar. The only good thing about the movie is that Sly doesn't take his shirt off. For this I will give it one star...


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


user
i hired this movie out from my local movie shop, not really expecting anything to flash or fancy. Since it was a "B" grade movie, made on a very tight budget. The opening scenes of the film were rather original and so was the plot and thats what made me hire the movie out. However the film becomes very boring and frustrating at points. The story had plenty of holes in it and the acting had its fair share of disappointments as well By the end of the film i was praying that a higher power was going to strike me down where i laid as i was extremely bored but more importantly frustrated with how the story turned out. i still don't understand what actually happened and i don't particularly care. in conclusion the devil would cry in disgust to know that Hell (his domain ) was used as a basis for such a crappy film.


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


user
11:11 a.k.a. Hell's Gate (2004) is another bad horror movie that tries too hard to be something it's not. A young girl has an imaginary play mate. One day whilst out in the fields playing with her friends, a couple of fugitives visit her parents and whack them off for no apparent reason. The young girl runs off and hides from the bad men. Years later, the girl grows up into a woman with problems. Losers at her school (looking like repressed homosexuals) flaunt their manhood in front of her when she rejected one of them. The girls hate her and life in general is miserable for her. A secret from her past returns to visit her. Who or what is it? Why does everyone hate her? What's her Guardian's problem with her? To find out you'll have to watch Hell's Gate.
The new title makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I don't know why people are given money to make such bad movies. This film is not even good enough to make fun of. It's a head ache inducing mess that'l confuse anyone who tries to make some sense out of it. Not worth your time.
Not recommended.


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


user
First of all, this movie is so confused that it is almost impossible to summarize it, since I myself did not understand this horrible story. Further, the unknown cast, leaded by an actress called Laura Mennell, is simply awful. The expressions and screams of the character Sara Tobias are laughable and ridiculous, confusing grimaces with acting. Last but not the least, there are many favorable reviews about this flick in IMDb as follows:
- Top Notch- Can't wait to see more of the directors work  the author has only one review in IMDb on 24 September 2004;
- Incredibly shot, amazingly intense  the author has only one review in IMDb on 12 August 2004;
- Not your typical blood and gore, in fact better. 7/10  the author has only one review in IMDb on 13 February 2005;
- As intense as Asian horror!! - the author has only one review in IMDb on 14 November 2004.
Coincidence? Or are they the parents, relatives, friends or people hired by the production to promote this crap? My vote is three.
Title (Brazil): "11.11  A Nova Profecia" ("11.11  The New Prophecy")


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


user
What can be said about such a pathetic movie ?
- Very bad acting ! The main actress seems to know only one facial expression : fear mixed with weakness. Like a poor beaten dog... The other actress (the one who plays the evil) looks like the female double of Ozzy Osbourne, with an awful red wig. The other actors are so pitiful that they don't even worth being described.
- There's absolutely no plot. The story begins with possibilities but goes nowhere : we don't know anything about the meaning of "11:11", nor who Rayden really is, excepted the simple "she's evil" or "she's a child of Apocalypse"... which is not an explanation. We don't know why the parents have been killed, what kind of danger is growing and why Sara was chosen. As the film goes on, we just watch pseudo-scary scenes, with a bad music. Moreover, the end doesn't tell anything : we just see two possibilities as if one of them was a bonus scene or the director's cut... There's no plot, so no possible interpretation.
- "11:11" is just full of clichés ! It is so obvious that i couldn't help laughing. For example : the deserted library or the bathroom scenes, ghost silhouettes walking with a blast of wind, ... there's even the fashionable "little scary girl" as in "Dark Water" or "The Ring". Of course, the main character is bullied at school and looks like a stereotyped Gothic girl (dark hair, red lips, skinny, black clothes). Is it an obligation to make her credible ? I don't think so. The psychology of Sara is so few developed and so typical that it doesn't make her credible, nor endearing.
- Terrible direction : as i said, nothing original, everything has already been seen a thousand times and is used here without any real purpose.
- There are some funny incoherences. For example, i don't know if "ghost science", "paranormal course" or whatever is taught in American universities... In Europe it is really not the case : teachers talking about negative energies or using "unmaterial" creatures sensors... ridiculous. Also : how can you watch a movie shot in the sixties with a Super-8 camera on a computer screen without spending hours of your time for a digitalization (in the movie they watch it immediately on the computer screen) AND how can you, on this old film, isolate a tiny detail then zoom in and see a perfectly identifiable face ? I wonder if the director has ever tried to digitize an old analogical film...
Eventually, "11:11" just worths being watched if you like to laugh at silly movies, or maybe if you want to fall asleep on your couch... But it's an expensive way to fall asleep !


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


user
Well This was a complete waste of celluloid. The preview was promising but after watching the movie, it looked like the preview *was* the whole movie. No plot, no clear storyline, just some misplaced suspense. It looks like the director tried very hard to create an atmosphere of mystique and fear, but still there are gaps to be filled. Why the drugs? Why the number 11.11? (Btw. As Sarah enteres the library, the clock says 11.14) What's the connection to the murder on the parents? What's the role of this Rayden woman? Is she one of the children or not? Who are those children anyway. There is a lot of material lying around to create the ultimate cult movie like "the Omen" but the director just leaves them lying on the floor without digging into the story. Even "the Blairwitch project" was more scary than this one. All the gaps you hope to be filled like in "The Butterfly effect" stay open as the credits start rolling.. OK. Off to the next movie...


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


user
Wow, what a bad film. Not frightening in the least, and barely comprehensible. The plot doesn't hang together at all, and the acting is absolutely appalling. What's that line from a famous critic? "She runs the emotional gamut from A to B." Yup. That about sums it up. Not even good for camp value! I wasn't expecting Oscar material, but this? And gosh, her friend's a ghost? You'd have to have the IQ of particularly stupid mollusk not to see that one coming.
This film (and I use that word loosely) is an insult to the movie-going public. If only someone involved with it knew how to string together narrative! This gets a 1 out of 10, simply because there's nothing lower. On the bright side--at least it's not a full two hours long.


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


user
The film starts well enough. It is a truly terrifying scene as a couple of fugitives on the run from the law tear apart an innocent family living in a secluded country cottage by killing the mother and father. The young daughter only manages to escape with the aid of a mysterious spectre, who kills the two aggressors while she covers in a downstairs cupboard. Then, we catch up with her 15 years later as a drug-addled student researching the supernatural, living with her promiscuous aunt and being looked after by a mysterious redhead. She has no real friends, was almost raped at a party and keeps having bizarre visions which no-one else can see. So yep, life is grand. Things get a lot more pleasant when she has a falling out with her mum's sister, who is later found dead in a bathtub under suspicious circumstances with 11 etched into her forehead. Hmm, I wonder who the police's main suspect will be? This is quickly followed by more deaths, all linked by their relation to our heroine having been on bad terms with them before their passing. Could she be the culprit, or perhaps the explanation could be something of a more ethereal nature? Clue: If you think the former, you've picked up the wrong movie from Blockbuster. Go back and get the correct one, short-sighted gimp.
As I said, I was all ready to fast-forward to the good parts, safe in the knowledge that I wasn't missing out on anything but a mediocre suspense potboiler. But the first ten minutes grabbed me, and I decided to give it a chance. I was quite pleasantly surprised: it certainly wasn't a masterpiece but the acting was good enough and the script kept throwing up intriguing situations of which I looked forward to finding the solution to. Alas, 45 minutes in, I realised my attention start to wander during a long sequence where the main character is walking round a library, doing nothing. We then get a cheap scare, followed by quarter of an hour of goddledegook about the paranormal between her and her new hunk of a boyfriend. Things only got worse from there, as the promising beginning is thrown out the window as we get one unconvincing plot twist after another, followed by an ending so anti-climatic it's like being promised the moon and ending up with a teeny weeny meteorite instead. Pathetic.
If it was bad all the way through, it would have been far easier to swallow. The fact that it starts at a canter and barely ends with a whimper is not just disappointing, it is heartbreaking. How can something which began so promisingly end up being so formulaic? I don't know, and I don't particularly care. I'll just give the writer and director a bit of advice for next time: Don't spend 5 weeks writing the first part of your screenplay, then 5 minutes finishing the rest. You tend to notice these things in the final product when you treat your project as sloppily as you have here... 3/10


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


user
Bad plot, bad acting, bad direction.
It had possibilities but just didn't achieve anything.
This film looks like someone started with an idea, googled a bit of info and then tried to flesh an hour and a half with lots of night shots and bad suspense music.
Others had to stop watching because they were scared 2/3 of the way through - I had to take a break purely because I just didn't care anymore.
Reminded me of an episode of Days of our Lives with marginally more suspense.
Just bad.


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


user
I know a couple people who look just like the lead actress in this film (or, at least, like the character she portrays.) They all give me the creeps and I would be the last person to ever lend one of them a gun or even a sharp knife. She has one mean and ugly-looking expression. If you can conjure up a bit of sympathy for her, let me know.
Of course, I might have the same expressions of concern and fear if I had an imaginary friend who had been killing off my real friends and acquaintances for the last 15 years.
And for our European friends on the IMDb, I'm saddened to say that, yes, some colleges and universities in the US teach courses on paranormal phenomena, relying on the pathetic defense that it represents "academic freedom" and open inquiry.
This film is not worth your while. You will have no sympathy for any of the characters (except for Aunt Lydia, who gets offed pretty early) and the plot makes no sense.


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


user
Newly released on DVD in the US; just stay far away from it.
I usually give plenty of room for stupidity in horror films; I'll settle for nearly anything remotely suspenseful, supernatural, spooky, or even just a vaguely interesting concept. This one simply stank. I knew there was trouble when Sara's "best friend" in college, who had considerable screen time, wasn't even listed in the credits on IMDb! I wasn't surprised not recognizing any actors, but that character ("Daysha" or "Day-Glo" or whatever her name was) apparently didn't even exist!
I'm so embarrassed that I actually paid a rental fee for this garbage; deeply, deeply ashamed...


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


user
If you see this film in the TV listings just ignore it. If you're looking for something scary you'll be better off watching reruns of the X-Files.
Previous comments referencing the incredibly poor acting by the female lead are dead on. She is almost unwatchable. The sum total of her range includes 'whiny and scared' and 'whiny and not scared'.
I am the kind of movie buff who enjoys a good 'bad' movie. But this is ridiculous. There is no direction. The plot is as simplistic as the set of numbers they keep throwing at you and much like that set of numbers, it ends up having no meaning in the end.
Your time will be better spent if you turn off the TV and give your dog a bath.


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


user
Good lord! This movie needs to have a new classification on its cover "watch only if you have absolutely nothing else to do!". I am disappointed. I was looking forward to a good horror movie over the weekend...needed an adrenalin rush and that awesome tingling sensation going down my spine. But this movie didn't do it. A reasonably good story but pretty awful acting, dialogue, and filming. It was disjointed and sometimes outright silly. We had actors looking at the wrong direction of the camera, people talking out loud (by themselves) and narrating what they feel and what is going to happen, shadows of equipment in some shots, silly clichés like "I just need you to hold me" in the totally wrong places and situations. Thank you for allowing me to offload and sorry if I'd offended anybody but it was a waste of time and money.


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


user
Years ago, Sara, a young girl witnessed her parents being murdered, now as an adult she suffers from various mental ailments (did I mention she has an imaginary friend?) This film lulls the viewer, not into a sense of tension, mind you, but rather a sense of sleepiness. Deathly boring, I found it hard to sit through as I could feel my eyelids growing heavier and heavier with each endless minute of mindless prattle and supposed 'mystery'. Is Sara going crazy? or is it the paranormal? A better question would be, Who cares? And the answer to that, no one. No one at all. Skip this film, save yourself some time better suited to do other more worthwhile tasks.
My Grade: D-


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


user
Was a college acting class exercise filmed and released as a movie? The formulaic posturing and stylized drivel of a "horror" soap opera for people who don't like horror films but wish to be able to tell that friends that, yes, they did see a horror movie. It even features soap opera music.
Do books falling off library shelves scare you? Do doors shutting terrify you? Then this flick is for you. Have you ever been kidnapped? Yeah, most of us have. When you were raped, was it simply ignored, because the rapist was the cool kid? What's scary is not this movie but this filmmaker's view of the world.
And then the little twists aren't even original. This is a film for people who've never seen a horror film before, who don't want to see one now, and who want to see another flick about everyone conspiring against the weird kid.


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


user
This quirky and watchable film is the story of a deluded dentist who starts out on his mission or crusade to fight tooth decay in the back and beyonds of Patagonia. Hailing from Northern Ireland, via New Jersey, the main character, Fergus, sees his crusade as a mission of mass importance and approaches it with all the enthusiasm, vitality, discipline and attention to detail one would expect from a trained dentist. Which adds to the hilarity, as his grand plans unravel and gradually fall to pieces as he goes from disaster to debacle in the Patagonian outback on the back of a customised motor bike or his, er, mobile dental unit. We never get to meet his wife, nor the rich philanthropist who is sponsoring the ill-fated mission, but, we do get a solid display from Lewis. Fans of his work will not be disappointed with his very believable performance as the deluded dentist who is gallantly adored by the, innocent but sexy, 18 year old female lead who tags along on for the *ahem* ride.
This film is not for everyone and I can understand why it wasn't pushed by the suits. It's a low budget, sometimes charming, always disarming, mildly amusing and instantly forgettable film that sets out with low expectations and almost succeeds.


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


user
This is the worst work ever of Daniel Day Lewis..... I can not believe that in the same year he made this awful movie and My left foot..... Please stay away from this movie....this is a movie only for Argentine people as a curiosity... The plot is impossible to understand...... The writer thinks that in Argentine all the people speaks in english... Of course the Patagonia bring a very good frame for the photo shooting of the film, but that is not enough reason to see this movie.... I repeat , only if you are very fan of Daniel Day Lewis, or if you want to see the south of Argentine, part of the Patagonia, and you do not have enough money to travel yourself.......


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


user
In a word, god-awful... too many plot holes.. um, yeah... Who takes their kid to dig up a dead body in the middle of the night? and what's up with his wife stealing the skeleton.. who does that? why, exactly did the shrink stab himself in the neck? and that whole dog thing.. i mean, really! Having Sparrow narrate from the beginning also just completely destroyed the suspense for me.. i mean, if he's narrating the story, clearly he's lived to tell it, so there's no chance of him getting offed.. where's the suspense there?
Of course, you expect plot holes in a film like this. But, there are so many I lost track of the story completely because of them. What kind of name is Fingerling? Or Toppsy? Why did the wife dig up the body? (Who does that?) or go into that crazy spooky asylum alone? and where'd all those candles come from? Why does the writer have his PO BOX in the freaking book??? I mean come on... And the book just happens to find its way to the bookstore next door to the wife's bakery?? Way too convenient... Oh and Happy Birthday Honey, here's a book about a serial killer.. What a THOUGHTFUL gift! The book is like 20 pages long, half of which are blank, and it takes him freaking FOREVER to read it. If he's truly obsessed with this book, wouldn't he have read it all in one shot?
A bit convenient for him to bump into his future wife (carrying a cake!) about 23 seconds after being released from a mental hospital.. how old was he playing? 36??
Was I the only one at the end rooting for the bus to actually run the guy down? Not good when you're rooting for the protagonist to bite it in the end.
It seems like this was written by committee.. I imagine that the first draft probably had nothing to do with the number 23... It seems as if they needed a gimmicky hook to bait the audience into thinking there was some supernatural thing going on, when in the end it really didn't seem to have anything to do with anything. I mean, I wasn't expecting the Godfather or anything, but everything about this film was a total let-down. Without all the numerology stuff, this movie could actually have been OK, instead of some hackneyed Se7en knockoff.
Not scary, unintentionally hilarious and otherwise a total snoozer.


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 has no respect for the viewer's time. It takes a 15 minute story and stretches it into 95 minutes. In order to achieve this, they have to use a very slow narration and have everyone run around with some implausible frantic angst. By the time this movie showed anything interesting in the plot, I just didn't care. The problem is not in the acting, but instead the pacing. The story is just weak. Jim Carrey is a capable actor, but his attempts to inject light humor into a serious role is just out of place. His style of humor is not generic, so he comes across as a watered down version of himself. The number 23 causes great grief and frustration to the people in the story, but the justification for this is never logical. At most it's just mildly interesting. Jim Carrey has far more ability in a serious role than this movie reveals. Don't waste your money seeing this in the theater. Rent this movie if you've had problems sleeping. If you are still wide awake after 10 minutes, then you liked it more than I did. I was not fond of the lighting and artistic aspects of the film making either. A lot of passive visual eye candy was thrown at the viewer with lighting or effects and it did little to enhance the already weak story.


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


user
This is the most stupid movie ever made. The story is laughable. His wife and kid think he's insane. Then they don't. Then it turns out he is and I think they knew it all along. There is a dog named Ned that causes some problems and I think it's all his fault...so does Jim Carey. God only knows why Virginia Madsen took this role...this is a career sinker. I think the target audience for this is 11 and 12 year olds. And that adds up to 23. Or maybe it's for 8 and 10 years olds which also adds up to 23. Or maybe it's for really dumb 23 year olds. Or maybe really dumb 32 year olds because that's 23 in reverse. Or maybe 46 year olds would enjoy it because half of that is 23. I think looking up things on the internet about the number 23 would be more entertaining than this movie, unless you wanted to see a comedy.


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


user
"Fate" leads Walter Sparrow to come in possession of a mysterious novel that has eerie similarities and connections to his life, all based around the number 23. As the story unfolds in real life and fiction, Sparrow must figure out his connection to the book and how the story will eventually end.
The Number 23 offers an intriguing premise that is undone by a weak execution. The film just failed on many different levels which is pretty disappointing because it held so much potential. The screenplay was probably the worst part about it. It was filled with silly sequences and laughable dialog that just killed the mood of the movie. It seemed like the screenwriter had a good idea, he just didn't know how to develop it to stretch over a ninety minute running time. The second half of the film was running low on ideas, the twist was pretty obvious and the ending was awful.
Joel Schumacher is responsible for one of the worst movies ever and he did redeem himself a little with Phone Booth and a few other films but The Number 23 reminds me that he's still capable of making a stinker. He has the movie drenched in style but he just can't get a good focus. He moves the film at a clunky and slow pace. He switches from reality to what's actually happening in the book which quickly got annoying. The actual book in the film that's titled "The Number 23" is an awful detective story and the audience gets stuck listening to Carrey narrate it which just bored me to tears. When Carrey is finally done with book, we get stuck watching him run around trying to solve the mystery. At this point, the audience has lost interest and there is no real tension. We impatiently wait for the movie to reach it's horrible ending and unconvincing explanation before celebrating that film has finally finished.
The acting was mostly average and pretty forgettable. Jim Carrey was clearly just sleepwalking through his performance and he didn't even seem to be trying. He was either completely over the top in some scenes or just very wooden. His narration was a complete bore to listen to and he put no life inside his character. Virginia Madsen did the best she could with a limited role but she needs to pick better scripts. Logan Lerman was pretty bland as was Danny Huston. Overall, The Number 23 was an awful thriller that offered more laughs than suspense or thrills. Rating 3/10


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


user
** out of **** stars
Let's see...14 divided by 20 times the square root of 13 equals 23, which was my departed grandmother's favorite number and the year she was born, 23 minutes past the 23rd hour. Assign the number any way you choose and ooh be very scared. Be EXTREMELY scared when you throw in a brain-dead looking mutt to go with 23, and you have Schumacher's latest attempt at a dark suspense fest with The Number 23. Oh yeah, 23 is also my record in Cuervo shots at my favorite dive on 23rd street in the 23rd state in the union.
Carrey carries the film to about it's halfway point, then we lose sight of him, not caring much. Don't look for any crazy expressions to come from the comedian Carrey, as you have seen in The Mask and Me, Myself and Irene. No. And don't expect an embodiment of a character as he did with Andy Kaufman. This role is a sad and peculiar devolvement for Jimbo. Where's The Riddler when you need him! I know, we don't need him. Virginia Madsen, like usual, is underused as the supportive, speculative and peculiar wife. Her talent, like Carrey's, is suppressed, and it's almost painful to watch her try to rescue her underdeveloped character from near anonymity.
To give credit where credit is due, there are a couple of interesting scenes in The Number 23 that showcase some very crafty cinematography. They are arresting enough on their own without having to be convoluted within the incoherent narrative of this silly story.
I don't know about you, (and I realize this is a work of absolute fiction) but I don't know of anyone who often reads his novel in a dank, dark basement, or spends his time at graveyards on a regular basis like Carrey does in this movie. Schumacher keeps his film dark and blood-red and gloomy and rainy and smoggy and gloomy and rainy and dank and on and on and on from beginning to end. Even Flatliners and The Lost Boys had a little more daylight in them, and we're talking about medical students obsessed with death and teenage vampires!
If you feel like watching this film, even if it's out of mere curiosity...make sure you do it while enjoying about 23 catnaps, that way you can kill 23 birds with one stone.


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


user
What the hell was this? I'll admit there were some scenes that caught my eye such as the 23 bullshit where the protagonist sees or calculates the number 23 everywhere he goes, but that was pretty much the movie in a nutshell?! For crying out loud this was supposed to be a suspense movie and being labeled as a psychological thriller I would have expected it to have at least some catastrophic effect on the mind but instead what did we get? We just got something as shitty as an animal control guy finding himself in the middle of a mid-life crisis and his journey to redemption. Kinda like an old-man flick if you ask me. I probably should have just rented Wild Hogs, it wouldn't have made a difference. I mean who are we kidding, they should have made someone else the killer of that girl. By juxtaposing Sparrow with the protagonist of that book The number 23 they were pretty much giving out the movie to the viewers by hinting that he was the killer all along. How would that have shaken our heads? Shame on all of you voters who chose to show some generosity towards this wretched piece of work you call a movie and kudos to most of the critics who concurred with my reaction.


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


user
Not just because of that theme in the movie. Which was one of the lame excuses for something reminiscent of plot. No.
I watched this, knowing I would not like it. I HATE numerology. Whenever someone starts going off about patterns with numbers I feel the urge to slap them. My own brain starts hurting out of empathy. And fully aware this is a movie just about that topic, I couldn't resist the urge to watch it and maybe get a good laugh. But it wasn't funny. Just exactly the dumb sort of "Isn't this totally scary and yet amazingly cool?! I can turn any crap into 23!" dialog I was afraid of. As soon as the son started to chime in, I knew this movie is a turd, no matter what happens. But I hardly ever stop watching a movie I started. I sat through it. I enjoy the pain.
The movie pretends to mock numerology under the disguise of showing how obsession can end badly. But it rides that wave as much as it's supposed to crush it. I don't see that message. I only see characters raving about a stupid number with little plot to justify.
Top that off with the usual "surprises" - trying to put another twist to throw you off, that makes no sense, and you almost believe it due to the quality of the narration up to there - and you get one hollow piece of movie-making. That just happens to be centered around the topic I despise. If only it did not try to be serious and rather had been some hilarious movie with actors I don't give a damn about. But I was starting to like Carrey...while it's not his fault, he is trying. It's not even good for watching with a bunch of friends and mst3k the hell out of it.
My expectations were low enough for someone to trip on them, but this movie managed to live up to be one of the worst I've ever seen.


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


user
The movie starts good, it has a thing going for it. About 1/3 into the movie things go downhill. Carrey starts obsessing about the number 23 because he sees it everywhere. So what? Thats no reason to go nuts and start writing stuff all over your body and on walls.
The acting by whoever is playing his son is bad. From the get-go, as soon as he hears of his fathers obsession, he jumps on the bandwagon and is hysterical about it. Totally unbelievable. I hope I never see this kid in another movie again.
Its a waste of time watching this movie. Grab another. Boring piece of ... well. The number is killing him? Give me a break. I won't spoil the ending for you, but let's just say it is equally disappointing.
3 / 10.


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


user
There was a time when Joel Schumacher was ranked quite high on my list of favorite directors. Back in the late 80's and early 90's, when his name was attached to several great films like "The Lost Boys", "Flatliners" and "Falling Down", he truly was one of the most gifted directors in Hollywood. Then came the stupid "Batman" sequels, unfortunately, and after that it seemed as if every potentially sublime screenplay turned into a gigantic mess in Schumacher's hands. Both "8MM" and "Phone Booth" could have been much better films and even the incredibly imbecilic concept of "The Number 23" should have been processed into a slightly more compelling and entertaining movie. Literally from start to finish, "The Number 23" desperately attempts to be a mysterious and uncanny thriller and therefore uses all the dreadful clichés from the big book of cinema history, including heavy-voiced narration, flashbacks, disorderly structure, characters with multiple personalities, numerous plot twists that grow increasingly absurd and sinister asylum settings. Nothing helps, however, simply due to the sheer silliness of the basic formula and the clearly uninspired engagement of cast & crew. As much as you try to associate with the lead character and be open-minded regarding the insane theories, this still remains a movie about a two-digit number and two-digit numbers aren't scary. Walter Sparrow (Jim Carrey in a rare non-comical role) is a bored animal trapper whose wife Agatha gives him a bizarre book on his birthday. The book tells about all sorts of devilish theories and strange coincidences that are linked to the number 23. Walter almost promptly identifies himself with the book's protagonist (a sleazy detective investigating a grim case of suicide) and begins to spot copious examples of the 23 enigma in his own private life. I did some research on Google and Wikipedia and, apparently, this whole 23 numerology nonsense really exists and certain people honestly believe that most catastrophes and accidents are directly connected to this evil number. Well, that's just  crazy! But hey, I'm not here to judge people's beliefs and fears, regardless of how demented they are, and I can only share my humble opinion on a movie that is based on an out-and-out berserk enigma. "The Number 23" is not suspenseful, in spite of several gloomy set pieces and nasty make-up effects, and never at one point manages to make you contemplate about the role of numbers in your own life. All cast members perform below their normal capacities, but it was still nevertheless a joy to see the lovely Mrs. Virginia Madsen in a relatively big production again. Definitely not recommended in case you're looking for a solid and creepy evening of thriller fun, but endurable and not entirely without merit.


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


user
One would make you believe that this game is about a man obsessed with a number. And sure, it's an interesting subject - can a person become so obsessed by something marginal as a simple number that he completely loses touch with reality and becomes hopelessly delusional and paranoid?
Well, perhaps someone will make a movie about that sometime. This one unfortunately doesn't have anything to do with the above, never mind what the trailers (or even the movie itself) would like you to believe. I would like to say that this number is just a MacGuffin, but it isn't even that. It's pointless. A gimmick. A hook for unsuspecting audience.
Well what IS the movie about? A dog-catcher (Carrey) who becomes obsessed with a cheesy noir crime book because he feels it somehow reflects his own life. There. Sure, the character in the book - detective Fingerling (sigh) - is (for some reason) obsessed with number 23, and Carrey himself becomes obsessed and starts seeing the number everywhere.. but it's just padding, and totally irrelevant to the story. In fact, you can cut out all the 23 references and have the main character(s) obsess about cheese or something and you'll have the exactly same story. It is painfully obvious that all the "23" stuff was written in waay after the story was already finished, rejected and sent for "rewrites".
Which would be OK.. I guess.. if the movie wasn't dull, dull, dull. Half of the movie is narrated, for chrissakes. You aren't watching the movie, you are listening to Jim Carrey narrating the movie. About a quarter-in Carrey starts reading the book, and from then until the horribly cliché ending we are forced to watch "real-life" scenes from dog-catcher's life (where nothing happens) interspersed with narrated artsy film noir-ish "book" scenes which will either leave you snickering or just plain depressed. It's like a poor man's "Sin City" with all the violence cut out, narrated by Carrey and shown in slow-motion. Ugh.
This is a simple case of a C-movie script somehow being filmed with an A-movie cast.. probably because of the "number 23" hook which I guess sounded intriguing enough on paper to warrant the premium Hollywood treatment. However, since - as I said already - the movie is about number 23 as much as it is about cheese production in Switzerland, one cannot feel anything but cheated.
I give "Fingerling - the movie" 3 out of 10, because I guess it didn't insult my intelligence as much as "Forsaken" did or made me downright suicidal like "Battlefield Earth" did and the bottom of the scale must be reserved for abominations like those. But fear not, this is still a pretty lousy flick.


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


user
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I didn't go in with high expectations, but as soon as it started I thought it might be o-k. It wasn't. Jim Carrey seemed to try, but he spoke all his lines as though he were some diabolic cartoon character. The other actors all seem to try their best but are kind of wooden. The plot has a good basis, but the melodramatic lines make it dull and kind of stupid. I was laughing during the whole second half of the movie, and after five minutes of that I got tired of that. Most plot 'twists' you could see from several miles off. It's just not worth watching. I really wish I hadn't wasted my time with it.


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


user
So, this starts with at least an interesting and promising basic idea, goes on and on with tension, Carey in a good untypical role but in a less than you expected performance, weak direction from Joel Schumacher match with some plot holes, the "detective scenes" show us the luck of creativity. If you don't have great expectations (because of the negative reviews) maybe you will enjoy this . At the end they offer to us a lesson about morality (for those who remember "Falling Down") and the "Family Joy and Cure" that ruins every possibility to be kind and find the film watchable P.S. It's obvious who is the "killer"! I wonder why W.Sparrow (Carey) didn't resolve the mystery from the beginning of the film...


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


user
A couple move into their dream home, unaware that it and its neighbours have been built over land formerly used as a cemetery. The film is said to have been based on a true story, although how much of it is supposed to be true is not disclosed. The plot is hardly unique - see Spielberg's 'Poltergeist' (1982). Within a short time, they experience various supernatural phenomena: these range from the disturbing - mysterious shadows, the serious illness of the daughter - to the frankly ridiculous - toilets continually flushing and garage doors going out of control. There is little depth to the story: once it has become established that the land had been used as a cemetery, we do not learn anything more. The plot does not seem to develop. The characters are not particularly well drawn or in any way memorable, nor is the atmosphere particularly special. The film could be disturbing to some viewers. There is no sense of catharsis or any kind of positive message from it.


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


user
Bathebo, you big dope.
This is the WORST piece of crap I've seen in a long time. I have just stumbled onto it on late night TV and it is painful to watch. Really painful. How does something like this get made?? Horrible, horrible, horrible! OOOOOO ..... The toilet is flushing by itself again! Scary toilet! Scary toilet! Scary toilet! 1992 doesn't seem like that long ago to me, but watching this makes it seem like 1952. I mean its horrible. Please don't waste your time on the drivel!
Scary old black man telling them not to build the pool in the yard. Scary! Scary! How does this stuff get MADE???


assistant
0