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
That is the best way I can describe this movie which centers on a newly married couple who move into a house that is haunted by the husband's first wife who died under mysterious circumstances. That sounds well and good, but what plays out is an hour of pure boredom. In fact one of the funny things about this flick is that there is a warning at the beginning of the film that promises anyone who dies of fright a free coffin. Well trust me, no one ever took them up on that offer unless someone out there is terrified of plastic skulls, peacocks, weird gardeners, and doors being knocked on. And the music is the worst, it consists of constant tuba music which sounds like it is being played by some sixth grader. And you will figure out the terrible secret that is so obvious that you really have to wonder what the people in this movie were thinking. Someone dies while running and hitting their head and the police are never called to investigate. Yes in the end this is a slow paced (which is really bad considering the movie is only just over an hour), boring little tale, that is easily figured out by the average person. Apparently none of the characters in this flick were the average person.


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


user
OK, I admit I watched this movie on Mystery Science Theater 3000 (which I am a huge fan of), but I am not one of those people who automatically gives an MST3K movie a 1/10 rating. Although I hate many of the movies they play, and some are among of the worst movies I've ever seen, I have actually been able to enjoy some MST3K movies. That being said, this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. (It is no wonder, in fact, that the MST3K writers themselves commented that this one was one of the worst. Don't believe me? Check out their site.)
To me, this movie is a good example of what NOT to do in filmmaking. The dialogue is very bad, the acting is worse, the cinematography is pathetic the direction (while perhaps being the best thing in this movie) is bad.
The pacing is the worst part in this movie. A few times in this movie, the viewer had to wait literally minutes for something to happen. While minutes may not sound like a very long amount of time, it can be in a movie, particularly in this one. I'm sure it was meant to create a mood, but I was just very bored. It truly felt like ten minutes.
If "suspension of disbelief" means "almost falling asleep during a movie", then this has plenty of that. But THE SCREAMING SKULL is just so horrible, there is no way I could have possibly even gotten interested in anything that was actually going on in the film, and thus the "suspension of disbelief" was indeed non-existant.
One of the worst, and probably the most boring movie I've ever seen.
1/10


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


user
I would of given this film a zero out of ten, but i will give it a two. Reason One is that Shah Rukh Khan appears in the film, which is not really a reason. Last Point is that Rani Appears in this film and does a smooch with Kamal. I Love Rani very much and have a respect that she is a great actress. Which is why i didn't enjoy her in this movie kissing Kamal, but its no big deal. Anyway enough of the bedroom scenes that made this film noticeable, lets actually talk about this film. Is it good or bad, I think its a completely rubbish movie that made me yawn. Me being a Fantastic critic, you can see my other 250+ review's by clicking on my name, I have great taste. The movie is not entertaining is one thing and if this is suppose to be hard hitting cinema, why is there no morale in this movie. Its a biased movie thats not a true story and it stinks. Watching Kamal kissing these actresses makes me sick, Man cant kiss properly anyway.


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 makes a promising start and then gets very confused and muddled. Kamal Hasan has made a lot of effort in getting the period look right, pity he did not spend more time on the plot. Most of the small characters in the movie show up for no particular reason.
Overall very disappointing, I would recommend avoiding 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
I had high expectations for this movie and was excited about renting it but was very disappointed when I saw it. It was very poorly written and sort of just fell apart. There wasn't a lot of good anything in this movie except maybe special effects.


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


user
An interesting idea for a film, both showing the last dragon on earth and showing the struggle he and someone evil have together. When he was younger, Einon got stabbed in the heart, so Bowen (Dennis Quaid) took him to the dark lord who gave him half his heart. Now grown up Einon (David Thewlis) is now the selfish and evil king. Meanwhile, Bowen is using a new friend Draco the Dragon (voiced by Sir Sean Connery) to get rewards for "killing" dragons. But because Einon has half of Draco's hear, they both feel the pain in one of them is hurt, or killed. Also starring Pete Postlethwaite as Gilbert of Glockenspur, Jason Isaacs as Lord Felton, Julie Christie as Queen Aislinn and John Gielgud as King Arthur. It was nominated for the Oscar for Best Visual Effects. Worth watching!


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


user
This movie has such inexorable B class cheapness to all its scenes, effects etc as to make you think they spent 80% of their budget on Connery. It's like watching some Wing Commander stuff after Star Wars (quite apart from content).
Story can be described in one word: FLAT. And oh my God I can't remember a villain so uninteresting since long long ago. We're given neither a reason he's so wicked (an inborn defect, we're lead to think:) nor any real convincedness or flair to his wickedness.
If you're out for Connery rather go rent `Hunting Forrester'.


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


user
It is incredible in that it succeeds in being terrible on so many levels. The script, the acting, the directing and the choice of cast are all appalling. The costumes, sets and pseudo-medieval language are also utterly awful. In an odd way I actually enjoyed this film, once I had accepted that it wasn't going to be any good. It seems a shame that people would spend so much time and effort producing something so poor, when really they could have made something pretty decent out of the premise (albeit not very believable!), but instead we are treated to a rather nauseating and cheesy tale of dragons and knights, that lacks any of the charm to be found in other such fantasy films. Let's just hope that The Lord of the Rings is a bit better! Oh, and David Thewlis' haircut makes him look like He-Man. It does!


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


user
"Diary of Sex Addict" is a pathetic attempt at a serious drama about sexual compulsiveness. Probably a movie marketing scam, this flick is a stylish shoot with a good cast and little else going for it. Bottom line, "Diary..." would have us believe that our sex addict character has the dumbest wife in the world, a stable of babes on the side who have nothing better to do than drop their panties for him at his whim, and no job in spite of being a restaurateur. At the best, this flick could have been good drama. At the worst, cheap softcore. "Diary..." isn't either and nowhere in between. This one's for the dumpster. (D-)


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


user
let me first say, i watched this movie around midnight, and usually there only is trash around this hour, but this movie broke the record
first of all the main character is an old non attractive creepy guy, yet he gets to f*ck all girls that come on his path for example he goes to a shop, talks to a girl and then you see them f*ck
secondly there are loads of sex scenes, and in many of them there is no nudity at all, i would not have been surprised if one of the characters in the movie would say: fast put your clothes on so we can f*ck!
thirdly this movie should show what a sexual addiction can do to a man or a family, this movie only shows soft bad acted erotica it makes me wonder why those actors agreed to play in such trash


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 (not a film -- clearly recorded on a cheap cam-corder) may be one of the greatest cinematic stink-bombs in history. Beware: the packaging advertises the flick as an erotic exploration of sex-addiction. The film is not an exploration of anything, and it is no more erotic than staring at one's own warts. The script is pointless and meandering, with all plot elements serving as segways between supposed sex scenes. However, even the sex scenes are lame lame lame. Except for the first, they are around three seconds long (then again, maybe my version was cut) and comically overwrought.
If you are looking for a decent film, you don't want this. If you are looking for a titillating sex-flick, you don't want this. Whatever your life's goals, desires, or perspectives, you do not want to watch this movie. How they got Rosanna Arquette, Natashia Kinski, and Ed Begly to act in this stink bomb is puzzling in the extreme.


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 was so amateurish I could hardly believe what I was seeing. It is shot on VIDEO! NOT film! I have not seen the likes of this since the early 70's, when late night networks showed movie of the week 'horror flicks' shot in......video. It looks like a bad soap opera, and that is paying it a compliment. Some of the actors give it their best shot. Michael Des Barres does okay with what he is given to do, which is to act like a sex addict out of control. I can't say that it is pleasant to watch.
Nastassja Kinski as the therapist sits in a chair for practically the entire film, with very little variation in camera angles. I can't fault her for someone else's poor blocking, but she is totally unbelievable in her role. Her little girl voice works against her here. And I consider myself a Nastassja Kinski fan. She is certainly ageless and exotic, but she's outside her range with this.
Alexandra Paul is pathetically overwrought. Every line she delivers is with three exclamation points. Someone must have directed her to scream at all costs. Why would Michael Des Barres want to have sex with such a raging shrew?
Finally, Rosanna Arquette as the sweet, maligned wife comes off okay, and probably the most believable of the bunch. But that is not saying much.
This has to be the worst film I have seen in years.


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


user
I fell asleep on my couch at 7:35pm last night watching Larry Sanders (I usually DirecTivo it, but not last night). Woke up at 3am (invesment banker on the west coast), and was fascinated to see this on HBO2. I was shocked on how poor this 'movie' was. Seriously. shocked. So shocked that I had to write a commentary on iMDB. This is really really bad. the writing is boring, but the directing and editing are simply below those of a freshman at a film school.
Yes it is shot video. Mind you, that is shot on VIDEO, not DIGITAL VIDEO. It does look like a soap opera. The clips from skateboard videos have a more 'film' feel to them then this horror.
I wanted to describe the poor directing but i honestly cant remember anything. The shots and blocking are stupid. yes, i chose the word 'stupid'. not unconventional, not daring, not bold, not boring, just stupid. I know people reviewing this review will say "well give me an example". I cant. It was 3am. but trust me, I know you will watch it anyway, you will be drawn by the horrible reviews.



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


user
A sexually obsessed chef leads a duplicitous life: one as a "happily" married man with a ten year oldish child, the other as a sex fiend. The bulk of the documentary-like film follows him for five consecutive days and is told in flashback with Nastassja Kinski as a clinical sex therapist, listening to his story and intelligently probing him. Nastassja's role is very restrictive and she is the only principal adult character who does not take off her clothes. If she had, I would have rated this movie a big fat "F." As it is, it rates an F+, implying that it is still a failure unless one likes to be bored. It is probably a lot more interesting to spend ninety minutes cleaning out the garage. "Diary of a Sex Addict" falls into the category of films that once one has seen it, one wishes that one hadn't.


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


user
I was subjected to this atrocity by my wife, tried to turn it off after 10 minutes, but was forced through the whole thing. This must be, hands down, the most gruesome pretense of a movie ever...
There were great script moments, such as:
Sammy - "If she gets over here right away, she gets a bonus" Madam - "A boner?" Sammy - "No, a bonus"
To summarize: Horrible script, terrible acting and incredibly illogical.


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


user
I wouldn't normally write a comment on-line, but this is the worst movie I've ever seen. Not only that it's filmed just like a soap series ("The young and the restless" is really filmed by professionals compared to this), but it also has awful cuts. It has no action. It is full of useless garbage.
Here's an example: a guy wants to kill the main character as he got fired because of him. So (after loads of crap) here they are: the guy puts a knife at his throat and says something like "You're dead now". Then the main character says: "If you kill me you're dead. I've told the police you're threatening me". So the (killer) guy goes like (just about to cry): "Oh no... the cops are following me!?!! Oh... my God".
Remember: this is just an example. I really cannot believe this movie actually exists. So: IF you want to see the WORST movie ever... go ahead, I recommend it :)


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


user
I really tried to like this movie. It deals with an important problem in any society: sex addiction.
In this story we learn that you can lose everything when you're addicted to sex. In this case, our main character and hero, for having non-stop sex with all kinds of women (crazy, kinky, neurotic) puts in jeopardy his marriage, job, and even his life.
The production values are terrible; mainly the acting. Oh, you won't enjoy ANY of the sex scenes, most of them are done in very poor taste and you might think you're watching a home made flick.
Second, the plot is just non sense. How could such a smart and beautiful wife stand all the nasty stuff from the husband? How could she believe him?! The threesome situation is priceless and will make you chuckle for a while.
Also, the scene with the black movie theater attendant is just pointless and will leave you thinking "wtf?".
Scenes like those you will find plenty.
Avoid this movie. Please, avoid it; it's not soft core, it's not a documental, it's not a dramatic feature. It's a pretentious effort form a so called documentary director or whatever.
Only Mrs. Kinski's legs on display are worth the watch. I caught it on HBO and I'm glad I didn't spend my money on it. But those 90 minutes of my life won't come back.


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


user
As many others have stated, this is a terrible movie, from every aspect of movie making. How they ever got some known name actors to take on this project is amazing.
Many people have complained that it was shot on 'cheap' video cameras. Yes, it was shot on video, but not 'cheap' video. What made it bad was the lighting, white balancing, shooting technique and editing.
There were so many different shooting and editing techniques used that it was a production mess. Harsh, inconsistent lighting, over use of hand held shooting (ala Woody Allen), choppy editing (another Allen technique), but poorly done, without real purpose.
The lack of white balance in the restaurant kitchen scenes is embarrassing; very amateurish.
The simulated sex scenes had no acting value at any level.
How this video ever made it to print is beyond me. It is worth watching if only to be amazed at how bad it is.


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 rented this from a video store thinking it was suspense. (He never reads the synopsis).
Well, it would be funny if the thing was watchable. It simply isn't. The same thing over and over, no intrigue, and WHERE did they find the leading man?. The leading man, Michael Des Barres, is not even feasibly good-looking, especially for this role he is given. Also, sexual harassment at work is something, if you want to see, rent Michael Crichton's "Disclosure". At least Michael Douglas looked good in the early 90's.
Alexandra Paul, who is usually watchable, plays an embarrassing scene here. There are also lighting effects cheaper than your at home web cam. Don't even waste time renting this. 0/10.


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


user
Ok, I wrote a scathing review b/c the movie is awful. As I was waiting another review (for Derrida) of mine to pop up, i decided to check out old reviews of this awful movie. Look at all the positive reviews. They ALL, I say ALL, come from contributors have have not rated any other movie other than this one. Crimminy! and wait till you to the "rosebud" [sic] review.
Checkout the other movies rosebud reviewed and had glowing recommendations for. Oh, shoot!, they happen to be for the only other movies by the two writers and director. Holy Window-Wipers Batman.
Joe, Tony, you suck as writers, and tony, you couldn't direct out of a bad script. No jobs for you!
ALWAYS CHECK POSITIVE REVIEWS FOR A LOW RATED MOVIE!


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 let the title trick you into watching this movie. I read the title, saw that it came on in the middle of the night, and figured it was one of those soft porn movies. This movie is bad. If you like soft porn movies, then I'm sorry to say this isn't one. There are a lot of sex but nothing shown and they only last for 5 seconds or so.


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


user
This movie could had been an interesting character study and could had given some insight on its subject but real problem with this movie is that it doesn't have any of this in it. It doesn't give any insight-, or solutions to the problem. It's just the portrayal of 'old' male sex addict and the problems this is creating for his every day normal life and family. Why would you want to watch this? It's all so totally pointless and meaningless.
It also really doesn't help that the main character is some wrinkly 50+ year old male. You'll have a hard time identifying yourself- and sympathize for him. He just seems like a dirty old playboy, who is an a constant hunt for woman and sex. He has all kinds of sexual intercourse's about 3 times a day with different woman and not just only with prostitutes.
It also doesn't have a bad visual style, though it all feels a bit forced. But nevertheless it's all better looking than most other direct-to-video productions. Who knows, if the film-makers had been given better material to work with, the movie would had deserved a better faith.
The story really gets ridicules at times. There are really some pointless plot-lines that are often more laughable than they were obviously supposed to be. I'm talking about for instance the whole Ordell plot-line. Things get worse once they movie starts heading toward the ending. Also the whole way the story is being told, cutting back and forth between the events that happened and the main character's sessions with his psychiatrist feels a bit cheap and simple.
But as far as bad movies are concerned, this just isn't one of them. It's not really any better or worse than any other random straight-to-video flick, with similar concepts.
Still seems weird and quite amazing that they managed to cast Nastassja Kinski and Ed Begley Jr. in such a simple small insignificant production as this one is. Guess they were really desperate for work and money.
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
No reason to bother renting this flick. From the opening credits on, I knew I was in trouble.
It was filmed as though it was a soft porn movie, but there really isn't anything erotic about it. The look into the world of sex addiction is intriguing, but only to a point.
Boring sex scenes, bad plot, and cameos by Ed Begley Jr. and Rosanna Arquette aren't enough to save this film.


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


user
This movie could have been a decent B-movie if 3/4 of the the movie wasn't so much focusing on the sex scenes. I mean, he's a sex addict, and I'm sure that there's a lot more that goes on with sex addicts outside of having sex on a constant basis. Michael Des Barres did a good job considering what all he had to do, which wasn't much. At one point or another, one would have to laugh at him, because his character was so pitiful. Nastassja Kinski was alright in her role as the concerned sex therapist, she could've of done more though and I'm not suggesting her having sex. The person that stood out the most to me in this movie was Rosanna Arquette in her convincing role as the loving and concerned wife. There's something about beautiful inside and out that strongly appeals to me. She played that role and as you watched the movie, you start to feel bad for her.
"Diary Of A Sex Addict" while not Oscar material or a modern classic to anyone's standards, is quite informative and does a fair job in showing you how one's personal demons can take over and ruin the very things in life you think highly of.


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


user
Sammy Horn (Michael Des Barres) is the head chef and owner of a famous restaurant in California. He has a lovely wife, Grace Horn (Rosanna Arquette), who is pregnant, and a beautiful son of about five years old. Sammy indeed loves his family, but like Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde, he has a double life, having sex with many different women. Dr. Jane Bordeaux (Nastassja Kinski) is trying to help him. OK, it is my fault: I read the summary of the other IMDB user comments, I saw the IMDB user rating, but I really did not believe that Rosanna Arquette and Nastassja Kinski could participate in such a bad movie. I decided to check it, and actually some comments are very complacent. The storyline, the screenplay and the dialogs are so silly and laughable that even in some X-rated movies we can find more intelligent stories. The photography is so amateurish and naive that in some parts it seems to be taken through a VHS camcorder. Michael Des Barres does not have sense of ridiculous: being an old man, bald, would be acceptable in an advertisement of Viagra or grandfather of the small boy. But as an attractive man who gets and has sex with any woman, it is scary. In Wood Allen's comedy, maybe he got a chance, but in a `serious' movie, it is funny. I am trying to figure out why or how Rosanna Arquette and Nastassja Kinski accepted to participate in such awful, amateurish and trash movie. Do they need money? Lack of chances in better movies due to their ages? Are they friends of the `director' (sorry for using this word) and decided to help and promote him? I do not know whether the intention of Rosanna Arquette was to show her breasts full of silicone, but it is unacceptable that such a great actress accepts such a script. The same is applicable to the gorgeous Nastassja Kinki. She is presented fat, without make-up, without any glamour. A total lack of respect with one of the most beautiful actress in the cinema history. A fact is really intriguing me: how can a reader, without any personal interest, promote this trash, giving higher ratings or writing favorable comments about this movie? Are they friends of the `director' (again, I am using this word...) or the cast? It sounds very strange to me that a normal IMDB reader can like such a film. My vote is two.
Title (Brazil): `Viciado Em Sexo' (`Addicted In Sex')


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


user
Race car drivers say that 100 mph seems fast till you've driven 150, and 150 mph seems fast till you've driven 250.
OK.
Andalusian Dog seems breathtakingly bizarre till you've seen Eraserhead, and Eraserhead seems breathtakingly bizarre till you've seen Begotten.
And Begotten seems breathtakingly bizarre till you've seen the works of C. Frederic Hobbs. Race fans, there is NOTHING in all the world of film like the works of C. Frederic Hobbs.
Alabama's Ghost comes as close as any of his films to having a coherent plot, and it only involves hippies, rock concerts, voodoo, ghosts, vampires, robots, magicians, corrupt multinational corporations, elephants and Mystery Gas. And the Fabulous Woodmobile, cruising the Sunset District in San Francisco, of course.
What's really startling is that somebody gave him a LOT of money to make Alabama's Ghost. There's sets, lighting, hundreds of extras, costumes, lots and lots of effects. Somehow that makes Alabama's Ghost SO WRONG. You watch some awful cheeseball like Night of Horror or Plutonium Baby, and at least some part of the weirdness is excusable on the basis that they were obviously making the film off the headroom on their Discover cards. But Alabama's Ghost was made with an actual budget, and that's EVIL. I mean, I've got a script about a tribe of cannibals living in Thunder Bay, Ontario, building a secret temple in the woods out of Twizzlers, and nobody's beating down MY door waving a checkbook - how did this guy get the funds for FOUR of the flakiest movies ever made?


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 at least the third remake of this movie so if while watching it, there is a sense of deja vu, don't be surprised. All they did was change the setting of the story and tell it differently but the differences are not significant. And it doesn't get any better because the plot is flawed to begin with. It never works. And like its predecessors, the acting is mediocre.
The plot has a unique ending which will surprise any one who has never seen the movie before but the ending doesn't fit the story. Had this movie ended ten minutes earlier, it would have worked and have been very satisfying and I would have thought it more worthwhile. But here is the spoiler and that in the end crime does pay because the criminal is not caught. I never like this message resulting from a movie.


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


user
My god this movie is awfully boring. I am a big fan of Gina Gershon, when I rented this movie I expected a romantic drama, and some great performance from Gershon. Gershon is great as always, but she is not right actress for this role, she is too good for Rade Serbedzija. The romance between Gershon and Serbedzija's characters is too unconvincing. And I absolutely hated Serbedzija's character (a wonman organizer), he is not charming in anyway in the movie. How did Dr. Lauren Graham (Gershon) is beyond my comprehension. Maybe Sean Connery, Robert DeNiro or Harrison Ford would have done a better job on this role, but they don't have the European-ish looking I guess. Any way, I was so bored druing the movie. If you are looking for a good Gina Gershon movie, check out Bound, her best film so far. If you are looking for a romantic film about a younger woman and an older man, try some Harrison Ford or Sean Connery movies. Gina Gershon is so underrated, and she deserves better chance than this, I wish her to make better choice in the future.


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


user
We have an average family. Dad's a famous rapper, we have the "rebelious teenage daughter", the adopted white kid, and the cute little kid. And we have careless housemaid, what show has had a housemaid like that? Do we have a messed-up Brady Bunch? Yay! When it first came out I thought it was really cool, mostly because I was young. The music was bad. The raps were so bad and they were too g-rated. All of his raps were about his family and friends and problems. The dad was kind of the "Danny from Full House" type of dad. Always gave the advice out. But he wasn't a clean freak. They had a house-keeper for that. Remember? The plots were basically Lil' Romeo was in trouble of some sort, or... not that's it. Oh and maybe some preteen drama. Yeah that stuff is good. Not really. But its still a good show for kids. But Nikelodean could do better.


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


user
My title just about sums this heap of crap up I should have taken a hint when I saw it was a Fred olen Ray movie - but i thought 'HEY, IT MIGHT BE BETTER THAN HIS USUAL RUBBISH' boy, was i wrong! This has to be the worst movie ever targeted at children. The acting was awful, the humour was non-existent, The Direction was the worst i have ever seen & The special effects wouldn't seem out of place on a 1950's Disney movie.
WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO DEE-WALLACE STONE! Who once had such a promising career in the 80's. Movie veteran & former child actor Russ Tamblyn was a awful bad-guy & the budget was so low it was a totally unbelievable even as a kiddie movie.
I haven't seen the sequel made in 1999 and nor do i intend to
If you want a good kid movie Watch 'HONEY I SHRUNK/BLEW UP THE KIDS/KID' OR ANY DISNEY MOVIE
MY RATING AS A 19 YO :- 2/10
RATING AS A KID MOVIE :- 3/10 AT THE BEST!


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


user
When this film was released in 1997 the 'special effects', such as they are, were poor. They would have been dated even for the 1980s, and even some films made in the 1970s and 1960s have had the same or better SFX work. Certainly no-one involved in the production of this film was looking for an Oscar. It's a wild departure from director Fred Olen Ray's usual stuff, most of which has the word "Bikini" in the title (Bikini Pirates, Bikini Chain Gang, Bikini Girls from the Lost Planet, etc) and are little more than T&A flicks, but here we are with a film rated "U" and aimed squarely at the kiddies. You've got to give him credit for diversifying!! This was a minor direct-to-video cult hit which later resulted in a couple of sequels - Invisible Mom 2 and Invisible Dad. Dee Wallace-Stone (whose career went downhill fast after 1982s "E.T.) plays the 'invisible mom' of the films title and would return for the sequel. Russ Tamblyn (whose career had been in free-fall even longer since 1961s "West Side Story") plays the villainous Dr. Woorter. It's probably fair to say that most of the cast were at the point in their careers where they would be prepared to work on almost anything just to pay the bills that month - except maybe young Trenton Knight as Josh. It's rather telling though that although he worked prior to this movie, this child actor didn't work again after the sequel, "Invisible Mom 2". Maybe the film was cursed. After all, he wasn't that bad in this film. For a child actor, he's pretty good - no better or worse than any of his more experienced co-stars.
As mentioned above, the "invisibility" effects are naff to say the least, the direction is poor, the writing obvious and the acting nothing to write home about. There are plenty of worse films out there though, and for anyone under the age of about ten, this film will no doubt be quite watchable. Most adults will probably want to do a disappearing act of their own while it is on though, and I wouldn't blame them one bit!


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


user
Boy oh boy oh golly gee,
The most interesting thing in the movie was the hilarity of the bluescreen effects used to create Mom's "invisibility." They looked like they were shot on cheap video, and it looks totally unreal, and not even in a good way where its so funny that you end up loving the movie...
I did NOT end up loving this movie. The attempted "steadicam" shots were really pathetic as well. I mean, hey, if they had a low budget flick, that's fine. You can still make a great movie with a low budget. But, a BAD movie and a low budget AND effects. That makes for a bad combination. In this case, such a doomed combo created the craptastic film, "Invisible Mom." If you have kids, and your kids have no taste, perhaps they will stay awake through all of 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
When the movie was released it was the biggest hit and it soon became the Blockbuster. But honestly the movie is a ridiculous watch with a plot which glorifies a loser. The movie has a Tag-line - "Preeti Madhura, Tyaga Amara" which means Love's Sweet but Sacrifice is Immortal. In the movie the hero of the movie (Ganesh) sacrifices his love for the leading lady (Pooja Gandhi) even though the two loved each other! His justification is the meaning of the tag-line. This movie influenced so many young broken hearts that they found this "Loser-like Sacrificial" attitude very thoughtful and hence became the cult movie it is, when they could have moved on with their lives. Ganesh's acting in the movie is Amateurish, Crass and Childishly stupid. He actually looks funny in a song, (Onde Ondu Sari... )when he's supposed to look all stylish and cool. His looks don't help the leading role either. His hair style is badly done in most part of the movie. POOJA GANDHI CANT ACT. Her costumes are horrendous in the movie and very inconsistent.
The good part about the movie is the excellent cinematography and brilliant music by Mano Murthy which are actually the true saving graces of the movie. Also the lyrics by Jayant Kaikini are very well penned. The Director Yograj Bhat has to be lauded picturization the songs in a tasteful manner.
Anyway all-in-all except for the songs, the movie is a very ordinary one!!!!!!


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


user
Five passengers at a bus depot tell each other their scary dreams while waiting to be picked up. But is there more to these nightmares than meets the eye?
Lucky me, five bad movies for the price of one! Each segment features the very worst in acting, special effects, make up and music. And these were supposed to be scary? Hmm.. I think I've been more freaked out during an episode of Teletubbies. I swear, you'll sit there like I was, bored to tears waiting in vain for something interesting to happen. Don't bother. It never does. In fact, I even stopped fast forwarding the commercials, as they were a good deal more entertaining than the main feature. AND the ending is the ultimate cop-out. Yep, none of this actually ever happened. If only the same could be said for the day I set my VCR to record this cobblers.. 2/10


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


user
Going into this I was expecting anything really good, but after the damage this inflexed on me, I'm just happy to think strait. It's hard to think what the film-makers( HA!) this was a good movie. the stories, and I use the world loosely, are incoherent and do make any sense at all. There just stupid things that happen at random. the acting, if can be called acting is horrible I've seen batter acting in toy ads! I know it's a low-budget video-bin garbages, but still even it's not like they tried. Will after stetting thought it, I feel very sleepy and still #yawws# do, I'm going to go lie down.
WARNNING: DO NOT ATEMP TO DRIVE, WALK, READ OR DO ANY AFTER Watching CHILLERS. OTHER SIDE AFFECTTS MAY ENGULED LOSE OF ANY OR ALL METAL FUNKIONS.


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


user
OK well i found this movie in my dads old pile of movies and it looked pretty good from the cover but the movie actually sucked!! OK the first story with the swimmer was pretty good but it took a while to get into, then the one with the boy was completely retarded! It wasn't even scary! His dream sounds like a little kid's bedtime story. Then the news girls one was completely retarded too. I'm sure someones going to call up the news guy and ask him to go out with you. But that one ended cool where she stabbed him and she was in the hospital and she saw him on t.v and he said all that junk to her. Next was that pretty gay story about the guy who brought back the dead people..OMG its so stupid I'm not even going to say any more about it.The last one was the best. It wasn't that scary but the idea of the story was pretty cool..uh yeah the girl gets possessed and she kills all her classmates or something. Then when they're all done telling their dreams to each other the losers get on the bus (TO HELL AHAHAHAH) and they see all the people from their dreams on the bus(Ha). The End.


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


user
"John Hughes' son wrote a high school drama! Wow!" I thought as I checked the flick's info here on IMDb, late on a Saturday night, having found myself watching the opening credits on BBC2.
I've just finished watching it, and sadly it was downhill from there on. Arguably you can't spoil a film this poor, but I'll leave the spoilers out of this review...
There's an awful lot of style over very little substance: unfortunately the style hasn't dated too well in the eight years since its release. As for the substance, the film tries to pose an interesting look at the nature of control in society through the microcosm of school-life; but beneath the shiny veneer, a remotely meaningful or relevant argument fails to materialise. Characters are painted in childishly broad strokes, falling into the kind of generic stereotypes the writer's father sought to question in Breakfast Club.
Director Kyle Cooper does a decent job keeping the pace up (perhaps relying a little too much on montages of information, which soon becomes a tiresome device, but at least pushes the story along), but his efforts don't sufficiently detract from the poor script and bizarre casting (how anyone is supposed to side with 'Maddox', when Blake Shields gurns and glowers his way through the part, I just can't understand), not to mention the numerous gaping plot holes (I'm all for creative license, but when the "bad guys" know the identities of the "good guys" making their lives a misery, but fail to act in any way to stop them, you really have to wonder why this script didn't undergo another few re-drafts before production - did Daddy even read it?).
I'm sure a younger audience might get some enjoyment from this film (and all power to them), but they're really better off sticking with Hughes Sr.'s high school output, and if the idea of school-time rebellion is what really appeals, the 1968 classic "If..." is a much more satisfying examination of the subject.


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


user
The guy did a lot of title design for a bunch of movies and I guess one day he said; I should pick a cheap scenario, try to put as much title in it as a can ( cause after all i'm a title designer ) and try to persuade people that this is in fact a movie. One of the worst i've even seen that's for sure. If you fell the urge to see nice titles, go check out some posters don't waste your time watching this.
It kinda ironic don't you think, did you saw the poster? the only part of his project that SHOULD had title work done have almost none !


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


user
OK, not possibly, honestly the worst movie i've ever seen.
this made absolutely no sense, there was no plot, no characterization, no acting, just nothing.
here's what i thought when i first saw it may 28th, 2003 **caution, this is a spoiler alert. it's also alot of me complaining about how bad the movie is::
ok so the movie begins and the characters are introduced, but there is no character explanation. as far as i knew the main character was new to this school, but apparently not. also it appeared that he lived by himself... then that he was a foster kid... then that his mother was a raging alcoholic who lived with him still. also all his friends apparently had no parents and lived by themselves.
now we come to a main plot point, this insane guy has broken out of the insane asylum and is running rampant. now our main character is obsessed with this guy and focus' intently on him for the contingency of the movie. i think i must have missed a main plot element here, there was no REASON for the main character to get hooked. even if that's the point, having no reason, why do all his friends, who are skeptical like 5 minutes before, suddenly follow him and do what he wants.
so the movie continues on, and it gets all right. they're running havoc on the school, blah blah blah. but wait a minute... suddenly everyone knows that the main character is running the 'show' here. wait a second, didn't the insane guy specifically tell the main character NOT to do that? it was supposed to be anynomous.
ah another important plot element has been skipped over... the insane guy was supposed to not be insane... everyone said he wasn't insane. but as the story goes on, he is VERY CLEARLY OUT OF HIS MIND. but i thought the news people said he wasn't... hm...
now the movie comes to a close. THAT WAS THE CLOSE? WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT? not only did the ending not answer any questions about the main character, it didn't answer any questions about the insane guy. are these people in the same situation? if yes, then there are some very basic story lines that do not tend to this. if no then what is the point in saying "that's you in two weeks."??
*end of the thing...*
that's what i thought then. that is pretty much what i still think now. it's 6 months down the line, and if i can get it for free, i might give it another chance, but i doubt it. i highly doubt it.


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


user
I'm still trying to figure out if there was a point to this film.
For content that's supposed to be so 'rebellious' and 'controversial' the things that Maddox distributes to the students are awfully lame. Students seem to be easily swayed by vague anti-authoritarian sentiments and snippets of words illegibly scrawled onto leaflets. Rebel, everybody.
I suppose it would have been too much to ask to have a teenage rebellion film where a school fire alarm doesn't get set off.
Apparently a 'huge fight up on the football fields' is a fight that consists of two people.
Characters personalities seem to wildly vary at random. A football jock who Maddox was fighting (and who subsequently got a staple on the face) is all smiles and apologies the next day.
The fact that it doesn't come to any real conclusion of the plot makes me feel that the whole thing could have been fitted into a half hour after school special. If they had cut most of the attempted pseudo-glitch soundtrack.


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 terrible. The characters are completely unbelievable, and wildly inconsistent. The plot is awful and some of the classroom scenes are cringe-worthy and make for uncomfortable viewing.
In fact the quality of the script and characterisation would suggest that this film was written by high school students, only the utter lack of credibility to the school environment would suggest that, in fact, the writers probably never went to high school. The acting in most cases was weak too, although a lot of this was down to a poor script and plot, i am not sure that any actors could have made this film watchable.
having said that the sound track was OK, and the cinematography was nice in places (although the editing was poor).


assistant
0