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
The minute you give an 'art film' 1/10, you have people baying for your ignorant, half-ass-ed, artistically retarded blood. I won't try and justify how I am not an aesthetically challenged retard by listing out all the 'art house cinema' I have liked or mentioning how I gave some unknown 'cult classic' a 10/10. All I ask is that someone explain to me the point, purpose and message of this film.
Here is how I would summarize the film: Opening montage of three unrelated urban legends depicting almost absurd levels of co-incidence. This followed by (in a nutshell, to save you 3 hours of pain) the following - A children's game show host dying of lung cancer tries to patch things up with his coke-addicted daughter, who he may or may not have raped when she was a child, and who is being courted by a bumbling police officer with relationship issues, while the game-show's star contestant decides that he doesn't want to be a failed child prodigy, a fate which has befallen another one of the game show contestants from the 60s, who we see is now a jobless homosexual in love with a bartender with braces and in need of money for 'corrective oral surgery', while the game show's producer, himself dying of lung cancer, asks his male nurse to help him patch up with the son he abandoned years ago, and who has subsequently become a womanizing self help guru, even as Mr. Producer's second wife suffers from guilt pangs over having cheated a dying man; and oh, eventually, it rains frogs (You read correctly). And I am sparing you the unbelievably long and pointless, literally rambling monologues each character seems to come up with on the fly for no rhyme or reason other than, possibly, to make sure the film crosses 3 hours and becomes classified as a 'modern epic'.
You are probably thinking that I could have done a better job of summarizing the movie (and in turn of not confusing you) if I had written the damn thing a little more coherently, maybe in a few sentences instead of just one... Well, now you know how I feel.


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


user
I can't tell you how angry I was after seing this movie. The characters are not the slightest bit interesting, and the plot is non-existant. So after waiting to see how the lives of these characters affected each other, hoping that the past 2 and a half hours were leading up to some significant finish, what do we get??? A storm of frogs. Now yes, I understand the references to the bible (Exodus) and the underlying theme, but first of all, it was presented with absolutely no resolution, and second of all it would be lost to anyone who has not read the bible (a significant portion of the population) or Charles Fort (a still larger portion). As a somewhat well read person, I thought this movie was a self indulgent poor imitation of a seinfeld episode.
Don't waste your time. It would be better spent reading...
...well anything to be honest


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


user
"Magnolia" is a preposterous, bewildering acting showcase that adds up to very little. Like "Eyes Wide Shut," "Magnolia" is an aimless series of episodes without any concern for coherence. The camera swoops through hallways and corridors, catching glimpses of sad characters. Where is the reason to care for these people? The common theme seems to be people who yell a lot, who can't care for others (except for John C. Reilly's and Philip Seymour Hoffman's characters), and are self-destructive jerks who are either falling to pieces or dying. I was reminded of how much I disliked "Shine" because of the irredeemable monster of a father played by Armin Mueller-Stahl. There are so many unattractive, unappealing characters here, why would we want to spend time with them?
Having said that, there is nothing held back about "Magnolia." Paul Thomas Anderson's ideas are splashed onto his canvas with abandon. There are two ideas in particular that bomb. Both happen in the last hour of this 188-minute film. One has the camera flipping from one character to another while each one sings one of Aimee Mann's coffeehouse folk songs. Sweet, but ineffectual since we can't see what strings them all together. The other idea I refer to cannot be revealed other than to say it is completely unexpected and completely ridiculous.
"Magnolia" has a lot of great acting. Particularly Tom Cruise who unleashes a performance I didn't know he had in him. And John C. Reilly plays maybe the most decent and truly good cop in recent memory. But it all adds up to nothing. When the secret unexpected event happened, a girl behind me in the theatre couldn't hold it in any more and said, "This is stupid!" My feeling is the majority of moviegoers will agree.


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


user
Great cast. Great acting. Unpredictable story line for the first half
hour or so. I was really wanting to know what was going to
happen to each of these unredeeming characters, and how their
seemingly disparate lives would become intertwined. But when
the writers took out the glue to start connecting the players, they
mistakenly used super glue and brought the movie to a standstill
for the last two hours. I kept thinking it would get better, but it only
got worse. Don't believe the reviews. This is a waste of time.
Think about it -- Tom Cruise made ugly -- why? The gorgeous
hunky bartender wearing braces -- why? I know it had to do with
the plot, but without them, at least there would have been one
attractive cast member to remember.


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


user
Sorry did i miss something? did i walk out early? The first ten minutes of unusual (and untrue!) stories had me thinking "This is going to be a classic" But it was all down hill from there! The acting was brilliant, for what it's worth William H Macy is fantastic and just gets better and better every film i watch him in. But it never seemed to connect. I was waiting for the big moment where all the stories inter connect and then suddenly..it rains frog?? it was if the writer said "i've gone to deep how can i pull all these stories together cleverely....Oh sod it i'll just have it raining frogs". I like clever movies, i like strange movies but this was just odd and boring. 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
I wanted to like Magnolia. The plot reminded me of Grand Canyon (which I liked). 4 different lives/stories that come together at the end but Magnolia took a wrong turn halfway through the movie and I was lost. I almost turned it off right then and there but I felt I should hang in there until the end, little did I know it would be another torturous 1 1/2 hours. Thank god I rented instead of seeing it in the theatre. I almost screamed out in frustration after 2 hours. The biggest kick in the pants was the ending frog scene. My DVD player still hasn't forgiven me and I don't blame it one bit. It was a unique movie, but a bad, boring, and pointless movie.


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


user
Normally I dont have a problem with gratuitous swearing in films, but this one really annoyed me. All they did was swear. For the whole film. (And, as someone else noted, get cancer) It was boring, rambling and pretentious. I wouldnt If I were you.
Its also not that I dont like films which, as most people who like it will claim 'observe life'. I love Eat Drink Man Woman, and all that happens in that is that a load of Taiwanese people lead their lives. But I could relate to them. I have never met anyone who swore as much as the 'actors' in this film, and I used to work on a construction site. So go figure. Having said that William H. Macy made me grin. Once.
2/10. Avoid, unless you enjoy tedium.


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


user
My guess is that this director/writer had something to say. Let's see, what it could have been... a. Frog storms would be creepy? b. can I get someone like Tom Cruise to say the "C" word many times and look like a bad Patrick Rafter? c. Cast my wife and get her to say the "F" word every 2 seconds. This aside I really liked the beginning and the frog storm. The rest was a relentless, over-long (under-edited), over-indulgent failure. Glad so many of you enjoyed it!



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


user
1999 will go down in history as the year the movie critic lead the general public astray. First they sent us to EYES WIDE SHUT. Then they hyped up THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and now MAGNOLIA which is by far the worst movie of the year. What is it about? Who the heck knows. Its full of self-indulgence and loaded with bad acting. I always like to stay and watch the credits, but when this thing was over I couldn't get out of the movie theatre fast enough. Most of the audience that attended the showing that I was at, felt pretty much the same way. Dates were arguing with each other as well as strangers. It's an ugly and hateful film that will make you feel ugly and hateful.


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


user
Magnolia presents itself as a wall to wall canvas of screaming, shrieking, overwrought, hysterical twits who are all bedeviled by regret, guilt and pain. PT Anderson is certainly a gifted filmmaker but perhaps he should leave the writing to someone else or at least find someone with the balls to tell him he needed to edit this overlong mess.
A look at the cast will tell you that the performances were excellent, and they were. I just wish that every scene didn't involve an over the top shouting match or long digression into the sins that have been committed and the pain that they have caused.
I also think that Anderson fails miserably to create a story that parallels the bizarre tableaus that open the film. The opening sequences are wonderful in showing how fate can bring together people and circumstances that even the most optimistic believer in a cosmic puppeteer pulling our strings would scoff at. But the story that then develops lacks any of the stuff that these opening fables display. I kept waiting for some form of cosmic convergence to display itself, but instead all we get is waves of regret from morally challenged characters who see their past spread out before them and now seek absolution. Throw in an out of left field biblical plague near the end and all you end up with is a cadre of Anderson devotees who will marvel at his genius when all it really proves is that he has actually read the Old Testament.
I will say that the music by Aimee Mann was great and I'll be looking for the Soundtrack CD. In short, a good movie to look at and listen to (the music, that is) if the actors would have shut up or toned it down it may have been


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


user
That's not just my considered verdict on this film, but also on the bulk of what has been written about it. Now don't get me wrong here either, I'm not a total philistine, I didn't hate the movie because it wasn't enough like 'police academy 9' or whatever, I enjoy more than my fair share of high brow or arty stuff, I swear.
'Magnolia' is poor, and I am honestly mystified as to why it is seemingly so acclaimed. Long winded, self indulgent, rambling nonsense from start to finish, there is just so little that could credibly be what people so love about the movie. There's some high calibre actors fair enough, and none turns in an average or worse performance. Furthermore, my wife (a self confessed Tom Cruise hater) tells me it's his career best performance by far. But the plot is so completely unengaging, meandering between the stories of several loosely connected characters at such a snail's pace that even when significant life changing events are depicted they seem so pointless and uninteresting you find yourself crying out for someone to get blown up or something.
It doesn't help that none of the characters are very easy to identify or empathise with (well I didn't think so, but I don't like most people admittedly). They all play out their rather unentertaining life stories at great length, demonstrating their character flaws and emotions in ever-so intricate detail and playing out their deep and meaningful relationships to the nth degree with many a waffling soliloquy en route. Yadda yadda yadda. The soundtrack's dire as well, with that marrow-suckingly irritating quality that I had hitherto thought unique to the music of Alanis Morisette.
All in all, it was about as enjoyable a three hours as being forced to repeatedly watch an episode of 'Friends' whilst being intermittently poked in the ribs by a disgruntled nanny goat. The bit with the frogs is good though.


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


user
This ambitious film suffers most from writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson's delusions of grandeur. Highly derivative of much better material (Altman's "Nashville," Lumet's "Network"), this lumbering elephant takes far too long to get nowhere. A couple of misguided detours along the way (an embarrassing musical interlude, a biblical plague) don't help matters. Neither does the uneven level of performances. Especially bad: William H. Macy, whose character and storyline could easily have been eliminated altogether; Julianne Moore, for her unconvincing angst. And how many times must we see John C. Reilly's Sad Sack shtick ("Chicago" and "The Hours" will suffice)? Tom Cruise comes off well by comparison  his misogynist, foul-mouthed Holy Roller was rather amusing. Speaking of foul mouths, the script was so loaded with "F" bombs, they lost their impact in no time. Don't even talk about that awful soundtrack, full of insipid and annoying vocals by Aimee Mann. Her extended rendition of "One," a maudlin number to begin with, drove me to distraction at the start of the film. I should have heeded the handwriting on the wall and saved myself three more hours, by which time I'd been pushed to the brink of hell. One redeeming feature, which I haven't seen mentioned in other reviews, is the best performance in the bunch, by unknown Melora Walters in the role of Claudia, the damaged coke fiend bent on self-destruction. Her credibility exceeded all others by far. This film took itself way too seriously and just didn't know when to end.


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


user
I can't say this is the worst film of all time, but only because there are still some movies I haven't seen, yet! This has to be the most pretentious attempt at making a movie of all time! The director suffers from the same issues he had with "There Will Be Blood" (though he wasn't quite as bad in that film. The whole movie it feels like you're watching a guy trying to hard to impress beyond his abilities. It's like he sits in his little director's chair and thinks "how would a great filmmaker handle this scene?" He just doesn't have it in him. I don't know if this film could be saved by a great filmmaker. There were certainly some nuggets of greatness that could have been polished, but nothing was brought to ripen. The scene where all the characters are singing was the worst moment in cinema history. One by one as we see the characters singing, and I squirmed in my seat, I kept saying "please, PLEASE, just don't have the guy on the brink of death singing, too!" Sure enough, MASSIVE FAILURE!


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


user
What made the idea of seeing this movie so attractive was the hope that it would live up to Charlotte Bronte's brilliance of the original classic story. I was deeply disappointed to find that this movie, which seemed to be either written or filmed in great haste, had not the qualities that made the original novel so powerful. Much of the witty back and forth between the main characters, Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester, seemed to be either missing from the screenplay or left on the cutting room floor. Also missing was Jane Eyre's charismatic sense of self, which enabled her to suffer through her turmoil and triumph over all. The original Jane Eyre was a hero. The woman in this movie did not seem to have much to triumph over, including one of the greatest parts of the story when Jane runs away from Thornfield and Mr. Rochester. Her struggle to find food and shelter, her shame at having to beg for bread, the threat of freezing to death in the cold, all to get away from a man she loved were, in my opinion, poignant parts of the story that were simply left out of this movie. The title character seemed dry and uninspired. The story was unappealing and for those who did not read the book, I cannot imagine that this story would be the least bit interesting. The screenplay and Direction did little if any credit to the classic story.


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


user
This version is pretty insipid, I'm afraid. Jane Eyre is one of my favorite books and has been since childhood, but William Hurt's weary, throwaway acting style is completely unsuitable to the bold passion of Edward Rochester and poor Charlotte Gainsbrough looks like a bored, petulant teenager whose dental braces hurt! I also can't believe that they eliminated Edward's great marriage proposal scene from the end of the book, one of the most moving moments in literature. I do appreciate that they finally used such a young, plain woman to play Jane, a character who is supposed to be a worldly 18, but if you want to see a version that closer approximates the personalities and passions of the novel, please see the 70's version with George C. Scott and Susannah York. York was too old, tall and pretty to play Jane, but no one has touched Rochester's character the way that Scott did.


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 like using the word "awful" to describe any work of the cinema for which a great deal of time, effort, talent and money is spent in its creation but Zefferelli's attempt to adapt Charlotte Brontë's novel 'Jane Eyre' is a total waste of time.
The script is lacking in finesse and power, everything explained to the viewer in no uncertain terms, leaving little to the imagination. The lead actors are woefully miscast, clearly hired for their star names, and the musical score drippy and dull. Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt have absolutely no chemistry with one another at all. She is like a wet noodle, worse even than Joan Fontaine, who at least was capable of some modicum of emotional involvement in what should be a story of frustrated passion. And William Hurt acts the entire film on one tone and that tone is flat and devoid of energy. Of course the limp and vapid script does not aid any of these otherwise fine actors in their efforts to bring any whiff of life to this flick.
Joan Plowright's Mrs Fairfax is like some Disney creation who keeps popping up to sweeten scenes in which she would have been best left out.
There is no mystery surrounding the story of Rochester's first wife. The role of the would-be second wife, played like a Barbie Doll by Elle MacPhearson, is an empty cipher.
Fiona Shaw, a very great actress, is completely wasted as Jane's Aunt, Mrs Reed. She would have been better-cast as Mrs Fairfax. Only Amanda Root, as Jane's beloved school teacher, evokes any authentic sympathy or believability.
I saw this version of 'Jane Eyre' after viewing Robert Young's for British television, made in 1997, starring Ciaran Hinds, Samantha Morgan and Gemma Jones. There is no comparison. Young's vital, romantic and deeply moving version is like an exploding nova compared to Zefferelli's wet squib.
I will be interested now to see the 1970 version with Timothy Dalton, about which I've read some very good things on this web-site. I am amazed at how many people liked Zefferelli's Yorkshire picture book.
About all I can say good about this film is that the house is beautiful and the cinematography vividly colored, beyond that it is a complete dud.


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


user
Jane Eyre_ is one of the greatest novels in the English language and this screenwriter should of read it. I hate it when writers use Spark notes for what a novel is all about. This movie is unbearable to watch if you have read the book.
The whole 'red room' is so down played that I wonder why they even bother to put it in. In the book the 'red room' is foreshadowing for the WHOLE story and the rest of Jane's life. Helen Burns is treated so badly in the movie I'm sure she was happy to die and leave early. In the book she is one of the most compelling characters and she was not the red head. The whole Christian theme is missing from her life and the rest of the movie.
Do yourself a favor and miss this movie and read the story as Charlotte Bronte masterfully told 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 read the novel 'Jane Eyre' for the first time back in 1986. It was round that time that I saw the BBC-version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. It was an excellent version and very much like the book. Years later, I laid eyes on this version and was horrified. William Hurt is totally miscast as Mr Rochester. Mr Rochester is a passionate character, where as William Hurt portrays him as a block of ice. The same goes for Charlotte Gainsborough. It was like watching two zombies together. This is story about love and passion, but I couldn't see it in this version. No, back to the BBC-version. A wonderful time is guaranteed.


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


user
What was Franco Zeffirelli thinking? Was Hollywood responsible for this travesty, or can I take comfort in the idea that someone who didn't speak English as a first language just completely missed the point of Charlotte Bronte's classic? I don't think I can improve on a comment I read below, so I'll just paraphrase it: "Jane Eyre is a great great book, the screenwriter should read it sometime." It's true that this movie's two leads were sadly miscast. But pity the actors, because the screenwriter left out all of the best scenes. The dialog that makes you understand the Jane and Rochester have a meeting of minds and a shared sense of fun...deleted from the script. The marriage proposal, the fortune teller...gone. The allusions, half joking, half sincerely felt, to Jane as a fairy sprite from olde England come to rescue Rochester in his despair...eliminated.
It is unfortunate that Zeffirelli felt the need to completely rewrite the end of the novel and Jane's interactions with the Rivers family. But it is unforgivable that he has surgically removed the love from one of the best love stories ever written.
Do yourself a favor and go find the 1983 (?) mini series with Timothy Dalton.


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


user
I agree with one of the other comment writers about good story & good actors but mismatched, and I would also say rushed. It has been about 24years since I read the book as it was in school. But I felt that you would need to know the story of Jane Eyre when watching this one as bits are left out & therefore it doesn't fully make sense. For example Jane & Mr Rochester have hardly spoken & suddenly he is proposing marriage!!! The actors don't have time to let the audience know how their character feels about each thing happening in the story.The actors are good but aren't given enough time to do this story justice. I'm sorry to say it but I didn't really enjoy this version.The 1970 version with Susanna York & George C Scott would be the Jane Eyre movie of my preference BUT you should check out the 1983 BBC mini series version with Zelah Clarke & Timothy Dalton in the 2 main roles. I love it so much I watch it regularly.There is an abridged version which goes for 225mins or the full version for 330mins.


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


user
Having read the novel before seeing this film, I was enormously disappointed by the wooden acting and the arrogance of the producers in their blatant disregard of the plot. I feel this film in no way reflects the brilliance of Bronte's work, and rather gave the impression of a shallow love story. In the condensing of the film to a short 2hours, the film lost many of the key features which make the book comprehendable and progressional, thus resulting in a somewhat jumpy plot with little grounding. There is no build up to the romance between Rochester and Jane Eyre, so this appears rather abrupt and unfounded since the two characters have such infrequent interaction you cannot help but imagine their 'love' is superficial. This is such an injustice to Bronte's novel;you are given no impression of Jane's quirky cheek and boldness which attracts Rochester to her, and his arrogance which attracts Jane to him.
Despite to poor scripting, I think that a few of the characters were portrayed very astutely, namely Mrs Fairfax and Grace Poole, however overall the production was poor. Given a better scripting, perhaps the film would have been more successful. See "Jane Eyre" (1970) with Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton for an outstanding production.


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


user
Oh just what I needed,another movie about 19th century England. Which is pretty much like regular England,only nobody's vandalising football stadiums.In this picturesque setting of lords,dames and other randomly chosen titles,Charlotte Gainsbourg walks around aimlessly as Jane Eyre,from that novel nobody has ever read willingly.Jane usually hangs out in Mr.Rochester's crib,where she tries to teach a French girl to look at an empty chalkboard all the time.One day,Mr.Rochester(William Hurt on auto-pilot)comes back to fall in love with Jane and all that,but there's still the matter of his fruitcake wife that is locked in the attic.Oops,that wasn't in the brochure.After some people being thrown around and some carefully spread fire(they probably rented the set),the movie finally comes to an end.Everything looked really authentic,that's something I guess.But then again,nah.


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


user
I love the book, "Jane Eyre" and have seen many versions of it. All have their strong points and their faults. However, this was one of the worst I have seen. I didn't care about Jane or Mr. Rochester. Charlotte Gainsbourg (Jane) was almost tolerable and certainly looked the plain part, but she had no emotion in any of her lines. I couldn't imagine what Mr. Rochester saw in her.
That brings us to Mr. Rochester. William Hurt had even less emotion than Jane, if that were possible. How two such insipid people could fall in love is a mystery, but it certainly didn't hold my attention. Perhaps the director (Zeffrelli) fell asleep during the production.
The Timothy Dalton (too handsome for Mr. Rochester!) version is far more faithful to the book, but Ciaran Hinds plays the perfect Mr. Rochester in the 1997 A/E version (which is NOT all that true to the book).
Trying to find something positive about this movie: Geraldine Chaplain was perfect in her role.


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


user
As a "Jane Eyre" fan I was excited when this movie came out. "At last," I thought, "someone will make this book into a movie following the story actually written by the author." Wrong!!! If the casting director was intending to cast a "Jane" who was plain he certainly succeeded. However, surely he could have found one who could also act. Where was the tension between Jane and Rochester? Where was the spooky suspense of the novel when the laughter floated into the night seemingly from nowhere? Where was the sparkle of the child who flirted and danced like her mother? Finally, why was the plot changed at the end? One wonders whether the screenwriters had actually read the book. What a disappointment


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


user
The first half of this version was the best I've seen (and I think I've seen every version of Jane Eyre ever made). The development of Jane's childhood and character were exceptional. Then, it was as though someone said "Uh oh, this is running too long," and hacked the rest of the story to shreds. The major scenes, when included at all, are glossed over, combined, and put out of order in such a way that they completely change the storyline. There was so little transition or even scene development that it would be difficult for anyone not familiar with the story even to follow. The big disappointment was that the beginning opened so much hope, and then the end dashed it.


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


user
What a pathetic movie.
I won't waste much time commenting about it. I'm still trying to get back the couple hours I wasted on it.
Let me leave it simply with - Shaq has NO BUSINESS being an actor or singer. He is utterly without talent at both discplines. It's a crying shame that substantially more talented people waste away in community theatres and karaoke bars while Shaq uses his name as a basketball player to undeservedly get cast in movies and cut CDs.
Much of the failure of this movie was the pathetic no-talent that is Shaq.


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


user
This is one of the most god-awful movies ever. Shaq better just stick to basketball. This movie took away apart of my life I will never have back. I will make fun of this movie until I die, and then some. It is so horrible it is not even funny. MST3000 would have a blast with 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
There's only one thing I need to say about this movie - the scene where Shaq is in a musical number with Francis Capra's character about wanting to be a genie; never see this movie. The story is horrible, the acting is terrible (c'mon, it's Shaq!) and I'd rather see Capra in Free Willy (equally horrible) twice before ever seeing 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
This is the worst film I have ever seen.I was watching this film with some friends and after 40 minutes we had enough. The plot was bad and there wasn't a single likeable character.I could get more entertainment watching static. I gave this movie a 1 only because the scale didn't go into negative numbers. Avoid this movie at all costs.


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 given the book version of Kazaam for my 8th birthday, and people always say the book versions are always better than the movie, but this time they were wrong. At least with the movie it's over soon.
The acting in this is terrible, which i expected from a film with Shaq who plays a magical rapping genie that comes out of an old ghetto blaster (which there was probably a good reason he was trapped in there). The kid in the film that plays Max is whiny and a terrible actor. He's bullied by neighborhood kids, which i don't blame them because he's a little douche bag.
The story is just plain stupid and extremely cliché. About a boy who's father is always working and never around who finds a new friend who makes his life better and eventually helps him reconnect with his father.
Even at 8 years old i thought this was a stupid idea. It's a surprise any of the people whom worked on this film had careers after wards because it's an embarrassment and should have never been made. i could ramble on even more about how this movie sucks, but you should already know just by reading the plot.


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 successfully proved what we all already know, that professional basket-ball players suck at everything besides playing basket-ball. Especially rapping and acting. I can not even begin to describe how bad this movie truly is. First of all, is it just me, or is that the ugliest kid you have ever seen? I mean, his teeth could be used as a can-opener. Secondly, why would a genie want to pursue a career in the music industry when, even though he has magical powers, he sucks horribly at making music? Third, I have read the Bible. In no way shape or form did it say that Jesus made genies. Fourth, what was the deal with all the crappy special effects? I assure you that any acne-addled nerdy teenager with a computer could make better effects than that. Fifth, why did the ending suck so badly? And what the hell is a djin? And finally, whoever created the nightmare known as Kazaam needs to be thrown off of a plane and onto the Eiffel Tower, because this movie take the word "suck" to an entirely new level.


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


user
If you are a fan of really bad movies, and you think there funny, you will the great acting of Shaq. First off putting pro players in movies hardly ever works. Shaq had to of been the worst actor i have ever seen next to Dennis Rodman who also made a few bad movies. Well any way this movie is also bad due to the hideous kid. I would give this a zero but that is impossible.


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


user
The only reason I DVRd this movie was because 1. I live in Cleveland and Shaq plays basketball for us now and 2. I've always heard how awful it was. The movie did not disappoint. The best parts were Shaq's outfits. The worst parts were, well, just about everything else. My 12 year old son and I just squirmed and couldn't look at the screen when Shaq started rapping and we kept wondering why Max didn't wish for Kazzam to fix that front tooth of his! But for all it's terribleness we just couldn't stop watching it, the story sucked you in, like a black hole or quicksand or a tar pit, it was hypnotic. But it was worth it for the laughs and just to say that we actually watched "Kazzam".


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


user
OK so after watching this invigorating movie and wasting an hour and so many minutes off my life here is the basic summary: Genie comes out of ghetto boom box, gives this kid with shaggy hair 3 wishes, the kid wastes his wishes on i forget what, shaq sucks at rapping, and i guess thats it.
So mainly I laughed, I cried......but mainly I laughed at the shear comedy that came from the wonderful acting skills of an nba player/rapper and boy with shaggy hair.
I highly recommend this movie for college kids sitting around drinking some beers with their close friends and are in serious need of a good laugh.
I'm going to give it a 3 out of 10 only b/c the movie is based off of 3 magical wishes.
If I had 3 wishes one would be to erase this horrible movie and for everyone to pretend like Hollywood didn't waste money on making this.


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 give a quick summery of the film: A rotten, rude kid named Max stumbles upon a radio that contains Kazaam: a rapping genie. Like all genies, he grants 3 wishes but, being good natured, also helps Max with his personal life, as he has to deal with bullies and a father mixed up in organized crime. During all this, Kazaam raps from time to time, (also showcasing Shaq's dismal rap skills).
This movie proves what we all know: Athletes need to stick to sports. I admit that it never looked like an Oscar-worthy movie, but EVERYTHING about this waste of film is horrible. The characters are either unlikable or stupid, the plot is not even worth mentioning, the dialog is a joke, and Shaq is only a quarter of the problem. Hell, even if Denzel Washington played Kazaam this movie would still be a joke. I know that the movie only drew ANYBODY was because Shaq was so big (no pun intended) at the time. I honestly cannot think of a single positive thing to say about this waste of time. Shaq should have put the time had used to make this movie toward practicing free throws.


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


user
Now, I'm one to watch movies that got poor reviews, and say, "Hmm... this isn't so bad!" I loved The Cable Guy, and thought that My Big Fat Independent Movie was great. Keep in mind, I really didn't start watching this with high hopes, but I figured that maybe... just maybe... it would be bad in a kind of way I could laugh at it. I was wrong. At no point at all during my suffering through this "film" (And I use that term sparingly) was I even close to being mildly entertained. To start, Shaq makes Quentin Tarantino look like Marlon Brando when it comes to acting. I hate rap music, but as far as I could tell, an Amish priest would probably make a better rapper than him. The main character is simply annoying, and not a character that it's easy to like. Quite frankly, I would rather eat a greasy turd out of a Harlequin fetus' bloody sores than watch this again.


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


user
What was the point of this movie? What was the plot? I do not know. Shaq can't act, people don't know how to direct, and I am Kazaam! A genie who raps? Come on. Maybe Eminem or Linkin Park will be in a movie like this. I remember I watched this just to kill time. It didn't really interest me. I just remember thinking, "Who put Shaq in this movie???" The whole story seemed stupid too. It made no sense whatsoever. I guess an unrealized moral of this movie is that you can find anything in the ghetto and anything can happen. I can't comment much more because this movie is so terrible there's nothing worth commenting about. I "wish" this movie would go away.


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 is so, so, so horrible, that it makes angels lose their wings. Shaq had tried to make other crossover efforts, like his work in Shaq-Fu for the NES and his plethora of unbearable rap albums, and later, the epic serving of horrible film-making that is Steel.
There's not a single good thing to be said about this movie. I saw it a bunch of times when I was very young, but I must've been an idiot then, because this movie takes all that is enjoyable about films and tears it apart. It's fun to mock. I saw it on the Disney Channel a while back and spent a few minutes doing that. Although, once the thrill of mocking it is done, you still become overwhelmed by its terribleness.
If you see it on TV, try this: consider, as your watching the film, removing from it all the scenes in which Shaq uses his magical genie powers. If you do that, it becomes like a film about a pedophile chasing a kid and rapping to seduce him. That's kinda funny, and disturbing.
A horrible example of film. Do not, unless looking to mock it, see 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
Yes, Kazaam is one of those horribly bad movies that almost reminds one of everything that is wrong with not just kids movies, but with humanity. Here we have Shaq as a rapping genie- yes, a RAPPING genie- where he does everything from making bad puns to dressing in ridiculous outfits, all ending in him in a Christ-like pose with lots of light surrounding him. So, yeah, expect really cheesy bits, including the first wish being a lot of junk food falling down from the sky (and, regrettably, not knocking out the two main characters, particularly the kid). What might not be expected is that a film with a kid and Shaquille O'Neill would be so incredibly schmaltzy! The main plot of the film involves this kid, played in that all-too-typical and annoying-kid fashion by the great-grandson of Frank Capra (where in which the kid is yelling out his dialog angrily), who comes upon a genie who's been trapped in a boom-box. Then "hiarity ensues" as the kid makes the Shaq-genie his quasi-slave as he waits on his last two wishes as he tries to make amends with his shady-gang-type absentee father.
This really sappy, contrived son and father story would be bad enough, as there are certain lines that have been uttered in a million other movies (i.e. the "two chances in life" speech from father to son). But it's Shaquille O'Neill who is both the reason to watch the film (ironically), and the obvious sinking crux of it all. His plot line involves him, when not getting the over-talky treatment from Capra, to rap within the dialog and also start off his blossoming recording career. On top of this, he also kicks ass and takes names with the main bad guys who want him back in the boom-box. So is there a camp factor to the movie? Up to a point, but this is even squashed by all of the mushy scenes and 'heart-felt' moments that have really no business with the rest of the material. One might ask if the people making the movie, who were obviously doing it at the behest of the popularity of a BASKETBALL player who wanted to go on the Michael Jordan acting bandwagon, if it would be anywhere near decently entertaining or convincing. I'd hope that they too knew they were just getting paid. But I'd hope even more that they felt at least a little guilty afterwords for feeding the Shaq-machine.
So, if you want to have a fun night of Shaq as genie-turned-rapper-turned-wisecracker, all the more fun to you. Hell, it might even be interesting to have a Shaq movie night with this and his other critically acclaimed effort Steel. But if you're hoping to keep a few brain cells, stay away from what is very likely the worst flick of 1996, and a candidate among many others for worst of the 90's.


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


user
There was a genie played by Shaq His name was Kazaam, and he was whack His rhymes were corny, this lines were bad some stupid kid cryin over his stupid dad bad actin, bad casting, bad special effects whats next? this movie sucks Prolly didn't make 20 bucks he lives in a boombox not a lamp hurts like a cramp like a wet food stamp...
Yeah, you get it, a stupid rhyming genie who can't act, in a stupid movie with horrible special effects. Oh, and its confusing as hell. I'm not even gonna go on. Let's just say, it belongs in the "its so bad, its funny" category. Watch it once with your buddies and get a good laugh. But don't expect anything spectacular.


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 proves that the "commercial" cinema ,or else,the Hollywood movies are in a serious crisis.There is absolutely no reason that this movie should have been produced apart from the fact that somebody expected success based on Shaquille's name.There is no worth referring to the plot :it is a bit more perplexed than a knot.What else?The screen is somewhat dim,O'Neal is a bad actor but Francis Capra is even worse.
Rating: 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
Would someone tell shaq to stick to what he is good at basketball. This movie was not even entertaining on a stupid level. In this movie shaq plays a genie who lives in a boom box is that not orginal a genie in a boom box instead of a lamp. He is supposed to help a little boy played by the equally annoying francais cappra. This movie had the most flimsy storyline since water world, the acting was awful and I think that anyone who likes this flim would be afraid to admit it.


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 quite possibly the worst movie of all time. It stars Shaquille O'Neil and is about a rapping genie. Apparently someone out there thought that this was a good idea and got suckered into dishing out cash to produce this wonderful masterpiece. The movie gets 1 out of 10.


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


user
I saw this film at the 2005 Toronto International Film Festival. Based on a novella by science- fiction author Brian Aldiss, this film attempts to tell the story of Tom and Barry Howe, conjoined twins who are plucked from their family by an impresario in order to form a rock band.
Almost deliberately gimmicky, the film is also too clever by half (if you'll pardon the pun). By mixing genres, styles and moods, the directors (whose previous film was the excellent documentary Lost In La Mancha) lose their way pretty quickly. I was never sure whether I was meant to take it all seriously or not. Flashbacks, dream sequences, it was all just a bit much. Plus, the promised rock and roll just didn't move me. I was reminded a bit too much at times of Hedwig and the Angry Inch, a film I found original and moving. But in this case, the songs just weren't as good, nor were the main characters sympathetic. A more unfavourable comparison would be the similarly disappointing Velvet Goldmine.


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 offers nothing but the dumbest conversations possible. as a matter of fact i most probably could not have imagined how meaningless a film, how synthetic the dialogs could be until an hour ago, but then again i saw this video. in a movie that does not depend on a powerful script, one expects to see at least good acting and tasty conversations and even some humor maybe, yet this movie lacks them all. you heard me it lacks them all. there is not a single point i like about this movie, none. i hate it. i'm sure anyone will do so too. the name is intended to give the target audience some thoughts of nudity and stuff, yet it fails even at the nudity. i don't know how but i beared to watch this thing for an hour or so, and i definitely recommend you don't do so. worst movie i've seen in my entire life. if someone offers you to watch it, ruuun awaaaaay saaaaaave your liiiiiiiiife


assistant
0