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 saw the trailer of the film several times at theater and I excited. It looked like a classic action thriller like the ones made in 1990's. It recalled me also Fugitive movies, a cat and mouse chase between Douglas and Sutherland. However, The Sentinel is the most tasteless action thriller of all time. As I see, many people say that this is like a TV movie. Not exactly. Firstly, there are much more better TV movies in this genre. Secondly, TV movies might be very fun sometimes, but this film is the exact opposite of having a good time. It is not stylish at all visually and the most important, the tone of the movie is unappealing. This is not an action movie, there are two action scenes consist of a chase and a clash. Also they are not big action scenes, but the worse is that those action scenes are very tasteless like the whole movie. The love affair between Douglas and Bassinger was very unnecessary. Besides, the assassination plot to the president is the most cliché story in this genre either, but they insist on that. And this is not a cat and mouse film as it is supposed to be. Although, Douglas is very old now, he has still potential for acting in an action thriller. In the film, Michael Douglas cannot be like Tommy Lee Jones, for example. Sutherland is a wrong choice either, because you feel as if you watch Jack Bauer and somehow, its character is one of the reasons which make the film like a TV movie, Eva Longoria Parker is a strange choice, of course she is too passive or straight in this movie, because she is a soap opera actress. The movie was not fun even one second to me, so I could not get over for a while.


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


user
It saddens me to rate a movie with a lot of my favorite actors, locations and genres, i.e. Douglas, Sutherland, Washington, D.C. and political thriller, but 'The Sentinel' really hits a low. It's like they had a great idea up front, signed the right cast and had some great city shots and then took a holiday letting the remaining crew improvise the rest. And I wish I could blame it on yet another bland performance from Basinger (not only do I feel she's one of the worst actors in Hollywood, but I'm still steaming more than a decade later that she was the only one, and definitely the only bad actor in the film, to win an acting Oscar for 'L.A. Confidential.') But she wasn't the only problem. Sutherland, who I love as Jack Bauer on '24' once again playsJack. I miss his old 'A Time to Kill' or 'A Few Good Men' days. Douglas certainly took a hiatus from acting and phoned this one in. Plot: Someone, some Secret Service traitor, wants the President dead and Douglas is (haphazardly) being framed. Will someone believe him? Actually, no spoiler here: as quickly as they came up with that subplot half-way through, it's over before you know it. And why did someone(s) want the President dead? Is that to be revealed in the sequel? Too many plot holes, too many doors opened and never closed and too predictable 'The Sentinel' is. If you only see one movie a year, you may not know who the mole is, but anyone who's familiar with these types of movies or even just seen one 'Law & Order' episode you'll know in the first few frames. Was it terrible? Not really, the cinematography was good, and despite Sutherland playing Jack again, he's still got it.


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


user
A bum gives a Secret Serviceman a tip about a Secret Service man in the presidential detail who plans to kill the president. Baloney. How did the bum know? The script then turns to a most detailed examination of how the Secret Service works, but who cares. Most of this just slows down the movie. All the chases that follow are this film's version of the tiresome car chases of many movies. Then, after a lot of impossible athleticism in which our hero outruns and out-guns all his buddies, we have a shootout in the Toronto City Hall. The Canadians are clearly marked with maple leafs, but how did they get into this? Finally, all is worked out. But it still 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
SPOILER ALERT ! ! ! Personally I don't understand why Pete did not help to save Williams life,I mean that would be great to know why William was motivated,or forced.I think Secret Service members are every day people,and there is a rumor the writer was a member of the Secret Service,now he's motivations are clear,well known.But as a rental this film will not satisfy you,cause the old but used twists,the average acting -these are just things in this film,only for keep you wait the end.Clark Johnson as the director of S.W.A.T. did a far better work like this time,and I still wondering how the producers (for example Michael Douglas)left this film to theaters.


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


user
Hollow point is an alright movie worth a half price rental or if nothing else is on a good time waster with no thought required. There are the requisite explosions and hammy acting and pretty ladies. A pretty good cast with Donald Sutherland, John Lithgow, and the lovely Tia Carrere. This cast plus a light hearted touch make for a not a great movie but a fun one..on a scale of one to ten ..a 4


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


user
The director Sidney J. Furie has created in Hollow Point a post-modern absurdist masterpiece that challenges and constantly surprises the audience.
Sidney J. Furie dares to ask the question of what happens to the tired conventional traditionalist paradigms of 'plot' and 'characterisation' when you remove the crutches of 'motivation' and 'reason'.
The result leads me to say that my opinion of him could not possibly get any higher.
One and a half stars.
P.S. Nothing in this movie makes any sense, the law enforcement agents are flat out unlikeable and the organised criminals are full on insane.


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


user
This bomb is just one 'explosion' after another, with no humor and only absurd situations. Really, pyrotechnics to the extreme. Reality is not one of its strong points. I give it a 1 out of 10. I would have made it a zero but that option wasn't permitted. Sorry, but Lithgow and Sutherland deserve better roles. But then at times we all need to have money. And I still recoil at that Tim Burton farce about Mars. Nicholson was brave enough to admit that was a turkey. But if that was a turkey, this movie then is not even a gizzard. I wish I could say, "give me back my money". You can bet I would if I could. But that is the trouble with premium services, the subscription variety.


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


user
I saw this movie years ago in a group tradition of Fast Forward Film Festivals, where we would set out to rent a bunch of B-movies and vote for who picked the worst.
The night we watched this, it was voted the best, due to semblance of plot and fun costuming.
This is certainly a silly, kitschy, movie, to be watched under the full understanding that you are watching low-budget fluff. Personally, however, I wouldn't recommend additional substances ... this movie will leave it's own mark on you.
It made enough of an impression on me that I've actually been trying to get my hands on a copy for a few years.
A good choice if you are setting out to watch bad movies. This one is fun, and I remember bouncy music ...


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 horribly acted, written, directed and produced. But it's so campy it's actually semi-watchable. That's SEMI watchable.
The storyline (what little there is) makes virtually no sense whatsoever. The Barney Drum character is the only real comic relief in the movie and that gets tired after about 30 seconds.
Many of the Canadian supporting cast can be found in TV commercials.. None of them went on to anything else that I'm aware of. And of course Sly Stallone's even less talented brother well..... =\
Trivia: It was filmed almost entirely in and around the little village of Claremont, Ont. (about 20 miles N.east of Toronto) I recognized many local landmarks/intersections/buildings. I think the Drive-in scene was filmed at the now demolished "Oshawa Drive-in" just before it was torn down.


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


user
To say this film stinks would be insulting to skunks. As the other commenter says, this movie is insulting to anyone over the mental age of 7 (it is especially, incredibly insulting to gays). It is awful - and not in a "so bad it's funny" sort of way either - it's just plain awful. No, I have to say it: IT STINKS! (sorry skunks).
From the opening credits to the end titles there is hardly more than 10 seconds of this movie worth opening your eyes for. The "plot" is incoherent, the characterization non-existent, the acting is of the over the top mugging "look at me I'm being funny!" school and so it goes on. The set pieces are clumsily set up (if at all) and are badly executed, it's just awful on every front - apart from the music maybe, I don't remember thinking the music stinks (apart from the songs).
To be fair to the makers, they lay their cards on the table pretty quickly: the opening credits include the title "Also starring Ertha Kitt as the voice of Betty the meteor" (since as the meteor in question turns out never never say anything but make an occasional purring noise they may well have lifted Ms. Kitt's contribution from one of her records) and the second line of the movie runs something like: "...and scientists have discovered new facts about the rings around Uranus." Uranus - "Your Anus" geddit? geddit? huh? huh?? Your Anus? The humour really is that cheap.
It says strange things about the "comedies" of that period in that it was perfectly permissable for the hero to deliberately shoot people dead in the street but not say "sh*t" out loud.
I paid fifty pence (about $1.00) for this movie in a sale. I feel ripped off.


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


user
Sly Stallone is hardly the finest actor in the world but compared to his brother, Frank...well, roll out those awards now! Mullet haired, muppet Frank seems to think that every part he plays, calls for him doing the role as an American/Italian Wise-guy refugee from the 'Godfather.' Please, somebody make him an acting offer 'he can refuse!' This film just stinks the place out, even by the terrible overacting in this, Frank still steals the acting dishonours. All the people compensate for their lack of talent by shouting their lines and throwing their arms about, gesticulating wildly in a style that went out of fashion back with silent films.
The plot, what there, is, makes no sense as a meteor lands and turns all the women into sex-crazed nymphets but as this is 15 certificate film, that just means they strip to their underwear and make moaning sounds like dogs on heat. What happens in the end, I'm not quite sure as I was losing the will to live long before the film finished.
Avoid this like the plague and watch 'Deep Impact' for a reasonable film about a meteor about to hit the earth.
N.B. Point of order: when one of the female leads strips down to her underwear, she has her knickers/panties under her suspenders/garter belt, it's knickers over the suspenders to allow women to go to the toilet with less fuss. A trivial point, perhaps, but shows how dumb this film is when they can't even get this right!


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


user
102 Dalmatians (2000, Dir. Kevin Lima)
Believed to be cured, Cruella de Vil (Close) is released from prison and sets out to make a new start in life. Things are going well for Cruella who is busy helping homeless dogs off the street. When the clock strikes on Big Ben, things turn bad. The hypnotic cure is reversed and Cruella is back, and this time she is determined to make that spotted coat she always wanted.
Glenn Close reprises her role as Cruella de Vil and once again is the highlight of the film. Every scene with her in is worth watching in this dull sequel, which feels more of a repeat of the previous film, rather than a new story.
She's Changed.  Ken Sheperd (Ioan Gruffudd)


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 bring a child under 8 to see this. With puppies dangling off of buildings squirming through dangerous machines and listening to Cruella's scary laugh to name a few of the events there is entirely too much suspense for a small child.
The live action gives a more ominous feel than the cartoon version and there are quite a few disquieting moments including some guy that seems to be a transvestite, a lot of tense moments that will worry and may frighten small kids.
I don't know what the Disney folks were thinking but neither the story nor the acting were of their usual level. The puppies are cute But this movie is spotty at best.


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


user
After seeing the 1996 remake, I thought it was the funniest way to see Cruella De Vil getting her punishment for torturing animals just for their skin. The whole movie was quite funny, and on my view, better than the animated one. But there was actually no need for a second one. First of all, if Cruela is returning, don't cure her and make her insane again. Just make her break away from jail and that's a rap. I thought it was not very funny. It's supposed to have only one original puppy returning. I'd expected that it should be Lucky, since he was the most appealing, and besides, having Roger and Anita back too. However, they decided to have a complete recasting and adding not really one hundred, not even one hundred and two, but only THREE puppies, and a parrot that thinks he's a dog (clever). Gerard Depardieu's part was pointless. At the end, Cruella suffers way too much, way too humiliating and way too exaggerated to be true. She gets baked inside a giant cake. That was a desperate attempt of physical humor, trying to imitate the same effect from the first one. That just didn't work. It was too much over the top, and not too funny. I actually felt sorry about Cruella.


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 a good film for kids who love dogs. It runs a bit slow early on but ends if a flurry of gooped up De Vil. The basic plot is the same as the first movie. The bright side of the movie for adults is the talking bird that thinks it is a dog. The bird talks like a human(Eric Idle of Monty Python) and barks like a dog. It is the comedy that the film needed more of. See it in the matinee so you don't have to pay full price or wait for it to appear on Disney.


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


user
...because this was simply awful. 101 Dalamatians was funny even if formulaic, but this is nothing more than puerile drivel. The same plot except with the story excised from it; the world's most intelligent and horribly annoying macaw; Tim McInnerny proving that he really can't do comedy (everone remembers Percy in Blackadder but that was his high spot - it's all been downhill since then); direction so poor that if a group of college students had made this you'd throw it in the bin and tell them to do it again - properly this time. Ieuan Grufford better go back to Hornblower sharpish, whilst Glenn Close and Gerard Diepardieu ought to go into hiding for several years.
Perhaps I could be too harsh; after all I didn't manage to sit through the whole film. It gets 1/10; only because I can't give it 0.


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 pure pain. Sitting in the theater for x-amount of minutes, I was wondering when the film was going to start. All the setups were in place; typical love story, characters have to overcome their short-givings, villain has to emerge, but none of it ever initiated. By the time these things happened, I was already bored stiff and the devices were completely ineffective. In scenes that required immense tension and buildup, it felt like necessary frames were cut. Kid's stuff does not have to be this way. Children's films can be as riveting and engaging as adult ones. The excuse, "hey , its for kids," is bull. I'll take "Sword in the Stone" any day. This was terrible. I'm getting the feeling that Disney will put out anything these days. And as for the kids, the 10-year I saw this with will agree...pure trash.


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


user
Remember the name Kevin Lime - and please, please never let
him direct again. Timing, pacing, editing: all hopelessly wrong.
Three or four decent professionals (next time, guys, walk off the
set) can do nothing to save this film from amateurs like Alice
Evans, and the kind of production standards you'd expect from
teen-produced children's shows on british TV.
Greatest mystery: the music. A score so inept, inappropriate and
ill-matched to the tone of the film that one seriously wonders if it is
a case of sabotage. Add an acoustic that booms apparently
unengineered from a single mike, and a director who only
intermittently remembers to add auditory action offscreen, and we
have what must be on of the greatest ratio of money to result of
recent 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 don't know why, but for some sick reason, I think since I've been on the Disney sequel binge, I decided to just go ahead and see 102 Dalmations. The first movie that was a remake of the Disney cartoon classic starring Glenn Close as Cruella De Vil, it seemed like a sure hit, but it was just a bomb. I think the reason why these movies don't work is because 101 Dalmations, the original, was a cartoon, it just worked better and was more appealing to the kids as well as adults. This was not really that fun because it's adults running around trying to act like cartoons instead of just actual human beings, I understand they're trying to make sure that it's appealing to the kids, but it's ridicules to see the way these actors are behaving in the film. And 102 Dalmations's story isn't really that good.
Cruella De Vil has been in prison for a while, but things change when she is proved that she now loves animals and is a pleasant human being. But her reputation is now damaged as a puppy-napper, but she buys a man's dog shelter and is all of a sudden is being loved by everyone and it looks like she's changed. But when she sees her probation officer's Dalmatians, she goes crazy and starts seeing spots, and she looses it. She's back for revenge on puppies and is still determined to get that Dalmation coat she's always wanted.
Glenn Close is such an amazing actress, very under rated, but her taking on Cruella De Vil, she's good, but let's face it, this movie made the fun villain just more of a silly nut case. Also, as cute as the puppies were, it just works more for the animation, it sounds stupid, but it's just not as believable without the cartoon and their personalities being in the mix. I wouldn't really recommend 102 Dalmations, it's alright, but if you agree that the first movie was just a waste of time, this is just the same thing.
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
A sequel to (actually a remake of) Disney's 1996 live-action remake of 101 Dalmations. Cruella deVil (Glenn Close) is released from prison after being "cured" of her obsession with fur by a psychologist named Dr. Pavlov (ugh!). But the "cure" is broken when Cruella hears the toll of Big Ben, and she once again goes on a mad quest to make herself the perfect coat out of dalmation hides.
This movie is bad on so many levels, starting with the fact that it's a "Thanksgiving family schlock" movie designed to suck every last available dime out of the Disney marketing machine. Glenn Close over-over-over-over-acts as Cruella. With all that she had to put up with in this movie -- the lame script, the endless makeup, getting baked in a cake at the end -- I hope they gave her an extremely-large paycheck.
(Speaking of which, where in the world are you going to find a fur coat factory, a bakery with a Rube Goldberg assembly line, and a candlelight restaurant all located within the same building -- as you do in the climax of this film?) Of course, the real stars of the movie are supposed to be the dogs. They serve as the "Macaulay Culkin's" of this movie, pulling all the stupid "Home Alone" gags on the villains. (Biting them in the crotch, running over their hands with luggage carts, squirting them with icing, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.) I have to admit, the dogs were fairly good actors -- much better than the humans.
Gerard Depardieu is completely wasted in this movie as a freaked-out French furrier. The two human "dog lovers" -- rehashed from the earlier film, but with different actors -- are completely boring. When they have a spaghetti dinner at an Italian restaurant, the movie cuts back and forth between the two lovers, and their dogs at home, watching the dinner scene from "Lady and the Tramp." I thought to myself, "Oh please, don't go there!" I half-expected the humans to do a satire on the "Lady and the Tramp" dinner scene -- as Charlie Sheen did in "Hot Shots: Part Deux" -- doing the "spaghetti strand kiss," pushing the meatball with his nose, etc.
And don't get me started on the annoying parrot with Eric Idle's voice.
The costumes were nominated for an Oscar, and the costumes in the movie *are* good. But they are the only good thing in the movie. The rest of it is unbearable dreck.


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


user
This sequel is thoroughly uneven, incoherent and rambling in "plot" (if there really is one)and tries too damned hard to be modern (ridiculous, out of period and character 21 st century style songs predominate) and cute (yawn: there are too many manufactured, belaboured jokes with animals.) The actors in his film are secondary to the juvenile plot. Even Glenn Close (and she is normally very good) sweeps through this film, parodying herself as the original De Ville and the lead from Sunset Boulevard! It's a film that isn't even good to look at. This is a very good example of a bad and pointless sequel. Even Basic Instinct 2 had a plot, characterisation and acceptable acting. This doesn't. It is bad.


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


user
Only reason I have seen 101 Dalmatians was its nominations for original song and costume design for the Oscars. I must admit that I was less than impressed with this film. In this sequel, Cruella DeVil(by the way Glen Close pulls off this role very well) is released from the hospital due to her good behaviour. She likes all sort of animals and locks all her furs away. From that point, we only wait until she starts having crises. Soon enough, she does and tries to make the best coat of fashion world, of course for herself and from fine Dalmatian fur. Apart from Glen Close, I found all cast quite silly but from a child's eye funny. That is fair enough as its target market is, I assume, children under 12. Quite a good entertainment for children and families, but didn't do much for me. * out of *****


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


user
Conventional wisdom is that a sequel is seldom as good as the original movie. There are occasional exceptions, but this is NOT one of them. Disney should have quit while they were ahead. This was a real disappointment after a reasonably entertaining 101 Dalmatians.


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


user
102 DALMATIANS [Walt Disney]: I wasn't a fan of the previous installment and this effort has all the weaknesses of the first, a silly padded storyline, terrible over acting by Glenn Close, who hams up every scene as though she's playing for her own amusement, and incredibly borring and uninteresting lead actors. Once more the dogs are the only "actors" that seem "real" and thats a stretch. Another wasted effort here. 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
This movie provided NOTHING new or worthwhile. After seeing it, my wife and I both agreed that the studio simply churned this out and could have cared less if it was entertaining. This is a good example of a "concept only" film--they have a concept about a film and the other details are unimportant because execs KNOW it will make $$ just based on the initial concept.
The movie starts with Cruella getting out of prison and going on parole. She no longer hates puppies but has been programmed to adore them--she simply couldn't hurt a flea. This doesn't last too long after her release and she's back to her old ways. Period.
The most annoying aspects of the movie were the supporting characters. Eric Idle as the voice of Waddlesworth the bird made me HATE him--and that is TOUGH considering I am a die-hard Python fan. It was obvious he did this because they gave him lots of money (there can't be any other reason). Cruella's low self-esteem servant, Tim McInnerny, was funny in the Black Adder shows but here he is totally wasted and unfunny. And it must have cost a few bucks to get Gérard Depardieu but he was utterly wasted as well. There were some other supporting actors as well but given how poorly written the characters were, I am trying to block them out of my mind.
Overall, you'd be better just to let your kids watch television than bother letting them see this drivel.


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


user
My 10-year-old daughter, Alexandra, writes:
I thought it was very boring, and I thought it was just a repeat of stuff from "101 Dalmatians." I couldn't wait for the movie to end. The best part was the credits at the beginning - they were cute and well done. The rest of the film is not worth watching. Thank you.


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


user
I watched the film recently and it poorly resembles the book is based on. I blame this on poor screenplay and direction. Some parts were forcibly introduced (the gay rape scene) for no apparent reason. I actually read the book after watching the movie and some 20 years or so after reading it for the first time. I found it hard to read and somewhat clumsy. Too many disparate ideas introduced for no benefit at all... other than sensational parts for the time. As it covers stuff that was deemed 'sensitive', to say the least, during communism, I can see the fascination it produced at the time. That isn't the case anymore though or maybe I see things differently now or a bit of both. The film tries too much to cover many aspects from the book, the result being a concoction of scenes that may make some sense to someone who read the book. Even so this is a film that is difficult to watch and maybe should have never been made.


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


user
Drew Barrymore plays young Holly Gooding, who moves in with aspiring hack screenwriter Patrick Highsmith (George Newbern) and completely disrupts his life by claiming that her "doppelganger", or evil twin, is out to kill her and her family.
This silly horror film is kind of hard to take seriously, even if the film-makers and actors themselves seem to be dead serious. "Doppelganger" is muddled, with some unpleasantly dumb dialog.
Some viewers will note that Drew's character's name is drawn from Audrey Hepburn's role in "Breakfast at Tiffany's", and that Newbern's character's name is a play on the name of famed author Patricia Highsmith (he is actually trying to re-write "Breakfast" as a horror film, believe it or not!).
I suppose that it deserves some credit for not being quite your typical horror film - I mean, writer/director Avi Nesher seems to genuinely care for his characters, and gives his film more plot than standard slasher fare.
After a silly villain-explains-everything-to-the-audience confrontation, the film goes on to submit a hideous, out-there climax that has to be seen to be believed. This film certainly does not skimp on the gore.
But hey! Drew kills her mother in this one. No, I'm not joking. Jaid Barrymore shows up near the beginning only to get violently slaughtered.
Drew is always very watchable, and very sexy in this one. Newbern comes off as a likable-enough, "nice" sort of guy. But the highpoint of the film has to be the scene with Sally Kellerman, an attractive veteran who's very professional in her one scene as a former nun who's started a phone sex business(!!!!!!).
The film is basically junk but fairly amusing on a sleazy, sordid little level.
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
Although I recently put this on my 10 worst films list, I have to say it's probably no worse than Burt Reynolds in "The Maddening" or any of the "Look Who's Talking" sequels. Still, it's pretty nauseating, even with sexy Drew Barrymore playing something of a horror-movie answer to Holly Golightly, relocating from New York City to Los Angeles but finding out she's being stalked by a murderous look-alike. Poor Sally Kellerman, a quirky actress of great acclaim in the '70s, is reduced here to a paltry supporting role, and Barrymore's leading man George Newbern is the worst type of sitcom actor, always pausing for a laugh after every line. The picture is swill, but Drew's bloody shower scene boasts showmanship, and the identity of the psycho (although right out of a "Scooby Doo" episode) is interesting. But as for the finale...get real! Who had to clean up THAT mess? * from ****


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


user
Doppelganger has its moments, but they are few and far between.
Essentially, this is a grade B blend of pop-psych thriller, ghost story and horror. Drew Barrymore plays a young woman who is haunted by the demons of her past (most of her family has been murdered and she was, in at least one case, the prime suspect), or does she just have a really bad case of multiple personality disorder? George Newbern is her new room mate, and most of the action centers on him.
Newbern's character is pretty sympathetic, and both he and Barrymore do decent work (though not exactly good). The mediocre to (at times) totally horrendous script and the unimpressive directing seem to have combined to sink the rest of the performances into oblivion. Leslie Hope's character is memorable, but so irritating that you will want to forget her.
The plot eventually disintegrates into a bifurcated (one story arc is psychological realism, the other is supernatural horror) outlandish climax which is so badly conceived, acted and photographed that it effectively counteracts most of what value the film had achieved previously.
Overall, the film has the feel of what might expect to be the result of M. Knight Shamalyan's first undergraduate film class. The acting and script for the two leads are just good enough to make you care a little about them - at least until the film derails utterly and completely.
My recommendation - send your doppelganger, but avoid a first-person encounter.


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 interested in the topic, and only fans of Drew Barrymore's dancing on David Letterman's desk will find anything remotely interesting in it. OK, she shows some breast (or maybe a body double does). The plot is slashed to bits and the acting is horrible. Neither lead has any material to work with, as the direction of the film leads nowhere. Don't waste your time. See Donnie Darko instead if you want a creepy Drew Barrymore film, and if you want to see another, skip this and see Darko again.
The treatment of the Doppelganger legend is absolutely criminal as well. Refer to Charles Williams' novel "Descent Into Hell" for something worth considering instead. This is just an excuse to make a B film to go straight to video and suck some life out of people at Blockbuster.
What makes any of these people think the acting here was praiseworthy? Give me a break.


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


user
Drew Barrymore keeps seeing her alter-ego all over town and it's really starting to become a pain in the butt.
After Dee rents a flat from a hack writer, her encounters with 'the other Drew' become more frequent. Writer-dude feels that it's his responsibility to snap 'the real Drew' out of her stupor, so he does what he can to help including seducing her as soon as he has some free time. Not very interesting, and even less scary, but Drew is sexy as usual, especially when she gives a group of rude construction workers the finger... yeah Drew, that's hot!
Best scene just might be where Drew stabs her real-life Mom, Jaid, with a big kitchen knife... hmmm... and how was your day?


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


user
I have just watched the movie for the first time. I wanted to watch it as I like Drew Barrymore and wanted to see one of her early movies.
The movie is about a girl (played by young and beautiful Drew Barrymore), who moves from NYC to LA in order to get over her recently troubled loss. Short after moving to a guy who falls in love with her, it becomes obvious that she has an evil twin=doppelganger, who haunts her.
The movie is quite poor and lousy. Both the dialogs and the acting make the film not really worth seeing it. Summing up it is just something for the fans of Drew Barrymore.


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


user
Here we have a movie which fails in pretty much every way it is possible for a movie to fail. Terrible script, lousy acting, amateurish directing, laughable special effects...it's just an utterly awful movie. Not to mention the fact that when you get to the end you'll realize the whole thing doesn't make a lick of sense. After spending the whole movie wondering what in the world is going on here when things are finally explained you realize the story has been built on a foundation which is ludicrously impossible. In one of those hideous "villain explains the whole movie" sequences we are told that our villain has done something which quite simply can't be done and which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Oh, and after that we see that there also appears to be some kind of jell-o monster involved. I'm sure Drew Barrymore would very much like to pretend this movie never happened. If for some ungodly reason you are ever tempted to sit down and watch this movie may I suggest instead taking that time to bang your head against a wall for 104 minutes. That would prove to be a much more pleasurable experience than sitting through this garbage.


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


user
I got the DVD very cheap and I'm a total Drewbie, and thats probably the only constellation where this movie could ever interest anyone.
An early Drew movie, she's looking great, and she gets a quite lot of really cute scenes of her, like a shower scene, a sexy dance scene, quite a number of sexy outfits etc. She does never show the friendly charm we know from her more recent movies.
The movie itself is pretty average or sub-average, and much more looking like being made for the TV than one for the cinema. There is no real horror or tension built up and the dialogs are often cheesy.
The most interesting part is probably the end because I honestly don't understand it. But maybe there is nothing to understand about it anyway. But at least you don't get the end you would be expecting, and it also comes much sooner than one would have expected.
Overall I think this movie is exclusively for Drewbies.


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


user
Even in a bad film, there is usually some redeeming feature, something that you can say yes it was terrible, but there was that performance, or that part of the script, or that special effect, this was just simply terrible all over. The acting was laughable, the script terrible, complete with many inexplicable Breakfast at Tiffany's references, and even the special effects were shoddy at best. This was a very bad film and one that even Drew Barrymore wishes was expunged from history. Watch it if you want to: a) Suffer harsh self inflicted pain. b) See just how bad a film can be. This is one film where I can use the cliché "there's ninety minutes of my life I will never get back" with some justification!


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


user
Drew Barrymore is an actress that has gone through bad periods, not only in her career, but in her personal life too. After being a prodigy child actress she descended into obscurity with mediocre films of low quality. While she has recovered from that dark past, this movie stays as a reminder of Drew Barrymore's worst days.
The movie starts with an interesting premise, very reminiscent to Brian De Palma's "Raising Cain"; with a plot dealing with multiple personality disorder that sets the story for a horror/thriller. Barrymore stars as Holly Gooding, a young woman who is trying to make a new life in California after a traumatic event of her past in which apparently her other personality killed her mother.
Suddenly, her past returns to haunt her as her evil personality is back in her life willing to ruin her new found peace and her new found love. In the middle of the chaos his new boyfriend, Patrick Highsmith (George Newbern), will try to help Holly to face the demons of her past.
Unlike De Palma's underrated thriller, "Doppelganger" is for the most part a mediocre film that not only never fulfills it's purpose, it also concludes in one of the worst endings of movie history. While Barrymore is definitely not at her best, she manages to keep her dignity with an above average performance. The rest of the cast however range from mediocre to painfully bad over-the-top performances, although Leslie Hope manages to be among the best of them.
The script is full of clichés and De Palma's influence is quite obvious. While the movie tries to be original by making literary references in almost every line, the dialogs are dull and the wooden acting certainly doesn't do any good. It has a fair share of nudity and for strange reasons, and excessive use of special effects.
The make-up effects are done by the outstanding KNB and are really among the few good things in the movie. However, the bizarre over-use of the effects in the totally out of context ending decreases the impact of KNB's work and makes cheesy what in a different movie would be amazing.
The fact that this is a B-Movie is no excuse for it's low quality, as with a better and more coherent script this could had been an interesting movie. Sadly, all we have here is a mediocre film that gets worse every second. Worthy for Barrymore's beauty. 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
Dear God! I kept waiting for this movie to "get started"... then I waited for it to redeem itself... and when it did neither, I just sat there, dumbfounded that: 1) it could possibly be this bad, and 2) that I had just wasted a couple of hours on just sheer stupidity. I had faith that Drew couldn't possibly have made this bad of a movie... and boy, did I ever lose my faith! Don't bother with this one! Drew tried, but the movie was poorly written, poorly acted, and just poorly conceived! I can't believe a script this bad ever got funded! It had a million chances to actually do something with the idea, (the word "concept" is too big for this movie to even qualify for!) and it STILL didn't go anyplace! Its just pitiful! Where the other reviewer got the idea that it wasn't the worst, baffles me! Because believe me, if it got any worse I'd have slit my wrists before finishing it!


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


user
Are you kidding that was AWFUL!!!
But that notwithstanding I got given this film and 3 others and they were all on DVD. The film starts of pretty much an OK movie but goes downhill from about the middle onwards.
And the ending well let's just say it was one of the most anti climatic endings in recent film history. Lots of gore in the end sequence and if you like a dose of schlock horror then this is the film for you....
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
Although it's an R rated movie, I really doubt that you'll really enjoy it unless you're a teenager
Why? Because there's no real plot, no character development,no funny jokes.
The only thing that this movie has plenty of is nudity. Tons and tons of naked or almost naked chicks (pretty nice ones I might add) to feast your eyes on.
I really can't understand why this movie has the American Pie title since it's only a bad combination between an erotic movie and a comedy without succeeding in being either of them.
My suggestion is to watch this movie only if you want to see some naked chicks, but you're too shy to rent/buy an erotic movie.
Gave it 1/10 for the 2 smiles i had in the entire movie and another 2/10 for the nice chicks


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


user
American Pie: Beta House is sort of in limbo between genres. On the one hand, it's a comedy with no plot and few genuinely clever jokes. On the other hand, it's porno that's a tad too soft-core to actually turn on any viewers. Essentially Beta House is a collage of sex scenes - some humiliating, others just lame attempts at humor - with a couple thin plot points thrown in an effort at cohesiveness. The characters are barely even two-dimensional, most development relies on knowledge of Naked Mile, and the "important" plot scenes are so far apart that you wonder why the writers even felt the need for a story.
In all fairness, I did not go into this movie without expectations. I liked the original three American Pie movies, and thought Band Camp and Naked Mile were solid rentals. I thought Naked Mile was almost good enough to be released in theaters, and so when I saw that some of the same characters were returning for Beta House, I was excited to see this installment. I was aware that there would be numerous scenes of debauchery and sexual humiliation in multiple forms. And I was fine with it, because in the past, these scenes were backed by the story and were well integrated into the plot. In Beta House, however, it's almost as if the writers forgot why the formula in the other AP movies worked. They spent too much energy working in the nudity that they forgot to actually write a story.
This movie is a disappointment and not even worth a one-dollar rental. The jokes are lame, the story is non-existent, and the porno-aspect is too tame if that's all you really care about seeing.


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


user
For starters, I would like to say that I'm a fan of the American Pie series. Even though 'the naked mile' and this one are the two worst, this one seems to be the downfall of the whole series.
First of all, the best part of the film was that it was an American Pie film, which is always appreciated.
However, there are tonnes of bad things to say about this film. First of all, the story has a very stale 'arc' structure. First, there is the introduction of the characters, then the pledging of the beta house and finally the Greek Olympiad. Each of which has exactly 25 minutes of length. Apart from the general staleness of the plot, there is little to no character development, which makes a double whammy of a bad plot.
Apart from that, I deeply disliked the stereotyping in this film. That is, showing the jocks as the extremely cool, only-thinking-about-sex guys, and explicitly displaying the geeks as inferior. Also, it shows females only as sexual objects, and males as only wanting to treat the females as sexual objects.
Apart from that, the acting was also poor. With perhaps the exception of Steve Talley.
So, in the end, a generally horrid film, if seen from a critical point of view. If seen from a teen point of view, I guess that it's better, but this film is rated 18+ in most countries, so it shouldn't really be seen by minors.


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


user
American Pie has gone a long distance from the first. At first i believe the actors don't have a clue what their doing and instead it's just a remake of a college party gone nuts. Story sets out as two freshman college guys (featuring the young stifler) setting out the dreams of attending college just to experience the late night parties, sex and of course the booze. The plot is stupid and comes along way away from the original pie. In fact they didn't once again feature an apple pie somewhere in the film.
Luckily i work in a video store and can rent for free. But please remember it is a waste of time unless you enjoy brainless sex films with absolute nudity and insane drinking. I'm a teen myself and i believe even Evan almighty would've been a better choice instead.


assistant
0