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
A complete waste of time
Halla Bol is a complete waste of time. The script and dialogues are poorly written, the direction is lacklustre and the acting borders on hammy.This movie was clearly aiming for the Rang De Basanti crowd but it falls far short of the mark because it does not have even one of the elements that made RDB connect with its audience_great script, terrific acting, good direction and a powerful social message that was never preached but shown.
Compared to that near-masterpiece, Halla Bol takes a step backwards by resorting to scenes such as the hero taking a leak on the villain's Persian rug and the hero's mentor staring down bullets in a truck no less! All of this might have been acceptable in the 80s when there was a downturn in movie quality and bad movies like DivyaShakti and Phool Aur Kaante became big hits, but movie-making has become_should have become_more subtle and thoughtful of late.
Rajkumar Santoshi is a capable director and I appreciate that he wants to give a social message in every movie he makes but maybe he simply does not know how to do it! He resorts to sermonizing without a care as to the audience's intelligence in understanding what he is trying to say. Maybe he should just concentrate on entertainment and leave the social messages to the Rakeysh Mehras and Aamir Khans.
Even if you don't agree with everything I say, you will agree that throughout the screening you will be thinking that Rang De Basanti was much much better and Mr.Santoshi should have left the industry-bashing to Om Shanti Om. Industry-bashing? That's right!!Santoshi has depicted the industry as a place of back-biting, bitching and the casting couch which the hero happily indulges in with a starlet curiously named Sania. There are some people who will think that these portions show the real face of the industry. Don't believe everything you see!
All in all, raise your voice against movies like this and don't spend your hard-earned money on this bomb.
* 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
I expected to enjoy a romantic comedy featuring Hip Hop, but was disappointed on many levels. First of all, the story is so badly recycled as to make it almost unbearable. Second, the setting, acting and story are not very authentic or believable. Third, there are a lot more good black actors to choose from than these standard picks. How about some originality? Third, there were very few Hip Hop songs played in entirity - if any. None seemd really central. Overall, film was a great disappointment, but the editing style was very interesting and almost made the film worthwhile.


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 first of these "8 Films To Die For" collection that I've seen and it's certainly not made me want to see any of the rest...although I've heard at least a couple of them are decent. I don't know, this wasn't terrible but it didn't really do much for me. Your basic dysfunctional cannibal family in suburbia kind of thing, mom & dad died, the family sold the farm & moved to San Francisco (?) where they continued to bring home stray food sources whenever possible. The best part of this was the creepy Goth sister, who of course invites a friend over from school that never leaves. Anyway, of course we have a butcher shop in the basement and so on and so on. This family is sort of like the white-bread version of the Sawyer Clan, they're nasty & they do bad things but they ain't go no soul. I see a lot of reviews from people that liked this, and I guess I don't know what I missed, but I found it to be very mediocre & I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, really. 4 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
Like most of the festivals entries Hamiltons makes for an interesting watch a film thats all ideas and little execution. Although impressive for it's obvious low budget the film falters in it's final twist and becomes dreadfully long during it's drawn out and obvious conclusion. The film is about a family of murderous outcasts trying to survive after there parents have died. They kidnap people , drain the blood from them and feed something locked away in their basement. There's some nice darkly humorous performances from Mckellhar and Firgens and the rest are just so-so. The film never feels realistic or very disturbing for that matter. But for the first half taps into an oddly humorous and dark mixture which is a surprising accomplishment. The next half isn't so successful as it receeds into film oblivion with unrealistic twists into a ridiculously cocky finale that turns the entire film into utter crap. It's a shame though there is no doubt that some talent was involved with this production and although deeply flawed it remains original and creative. too bad that when it comes to the delivery it completely fails on every level.
**/5


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 first film of the Horrorfest I have watched and after Im almost thinking I don't need to see any of the others. I was told its a "thinking mans horror movie" and have to say that if this was supposed to make me think I shutter to think what the splatter/gore films in the collection will be like. Don't get me wrong not even the gore in this film is worth sitting through.
The plot is very washed out with way too much art for arts sake. The camera effects and music are out of place most of the time and the characters are banal to say the least. Several characters and scenes seem worthless in the end when they start to reveal some of the hooks of "The Hamiltons". I figured out who Lenny was about half hour in when I figured out the movie. I was so visually under whelmed and confused by the Lenny reveal that I completely felt ripped off. I expected what I got but they could have gone so much further, in fact all the gore falls completely flat. With movies out there like "Hostel" and "Saw" you need to come a little better for a film that is "considered to graphic or too disturbing for general audiences".


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


user
...that seem to be fooling people into seeing qualities in this film that are just not there.
Near Dark covered the same territory but with much more class, and action.
why the script kept their 'big secret' so long was a total mystery to me - I guessed it at the breakfast scene at the start of the film. By the time it was revealed to the viewer it was just a case of 'big deal, tell me something I don't know.'
I found this to be pointless movie that may have challenged the genre conventions, unfortunately those conventions are that horror films are tense and packed with genuine sense of horror. This was woeful


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


user
Without effective indulgence of the supernatural or the poetic motivating nuances of humanity, all this creative team has to hope for is effective usage of its middling, unoriginal elements. 'Party of Five' gone maniacal then genetically unescapable there's little rooting interest because the singular non-homicidal element is a second-rate bland awful-acting 'Wes Bentley' mopester. In fact, all of the acting is skin deep. Even though the dark-haired women appeal, the salaciousness is kept to a minimum. No nudity here. Also lacking are sufficient buckets of blood. All sensations are kept at a teasing, safe distance...an unfortunate fact considering the given name of the directors is 'butcher.' Only the soundtrack, the droning angsty alt-country and the tense fluctuating score provide any palpable tension. Sometimes some static storyboarded compositions add appealing low-angles that adds to the malaise...but for a film that calls itself horror, I did not even get close to flinching once. Perhaps a greater emphasis on societal rejuvenation through blood intake, scenes directed with varying geometric shapes outside the square, and a sustained focus on playfulness through the family's maliciousness or traps sympathetic characters need to escape in order to escape their dilemma would have improved my opinion, but this was not a good start to my excursion through horrorfest.


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


user
I feel it is my duty as a lover of horror films to warm other people about this horrible and very very bad "horror" film. Don't waste your time or money on this film, the acting is bad, the story is just one of the worst i have come across and the script was just awful. Nothing about it was good, you end up thinking to yourself why am i watching this crap. The plot had so many holes in it and they never got cleared up in the end, it was just so bad, i don't know how a film so terrible could be made. As i said before i love horror films and i was so let down, it was an 18 but you see little blood and no scares or jumps at all. Also what annoyed me was how stupid things happened in the film that had no point to the plot at all like the brother and sister kissing, why? is all i can say. Just don't bother, there are far more great horror films out there, just don't waste your time life is too short.


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 so bad, so very very bad. The acting is the biggest joke in history. Don't even bother to see it, i did ff it after 20 min and it was just as disappointing in the end as in the beginning... I really don't understand peoples taste, I'm a horror movie fan and I'm not fastidious but I DO HAVE A LIMIT! Maybe it was a quarter of a star better then the beginning of The Hoast but that's it. So I recommend you don't waste the 15 minutes you'll be able to watch. I mean the acting is better done by monkeys. And the big brother with the parental role is just awful. Don't they pay characters in C-movies? No I must say it's not the first time I think a horror movie is bad but it's absolutely one in my down ten movies and it will be charing places with Portrait of a vampire, Cabin by the lake, The Hoast!


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


user
When a film is independent and not rated, such as the Hamiltons, I was expecting out of the norm, cut out your heart violence. I know that good movies don't always contain blood and violence, but I read reviews, I visited the website, and I even convinced a few of my friends to pay $9.50 to see this god awful movie with me. When there is a festival called Horrorfest, I am expecting horror, not Dawsons Creek with incestuous undertones. My expectations were extremely low for this film, yet the little expectations there was for the film were shot to hell once I saw that an hour had passed before we saw the first drop of blood come out of someones finger. There were too many plot holes and left too much to the imagination. I regret not seeing Happy Feet. I think there might have been more violence and gore in that movie than in the Hamiltons!


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


user
This movie was so bad I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I had high hopes for Horrorfest that year, which was also the first year I attended Horrorfest, and I have to say Horrorfest and all of its films take false advertising to a whole new level. Mad kudos to the advertisers because I'm sure they tricked a lot of people into spending money and seeing those movies that year. The Hamiltons was easily the worst one of the ones I've seen (the other ones I saw were Unrest, Dark Ride, and Reincarnation). The movie cover and trailer made it seem like a family of cannibals terrorizing the neighborhood which I thought was a rather interesting plot, only to be disappointed at the end discovering that it was some 'coming of age' tale about a boy's transition into being a vampire. Which is why drama prevails over any sense of horror in this film. And to make the plot even more ridiculous, they add in a set of horny twins who can't wait to take a 'bite' out of one another, and some deadly creature locked in the basement, which if I had discovered what 'it' was had the secret not been revealed at the very end of the film, I would have left the theater halfway into the movie.
Complete waste of money and time. Cut forty minutes out of this film, and make it into an episode on some show like Smallville or Charmed or Supernatural and it would have received more praise than this. Absolute rubbish! So bad that two years later, I have to come back to IMDb and write a review about it because it still stands out in my memory as one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Also, while you're reading this, steer clear from the rest of the Horrorfest movies in the future. The most you could do is rent them from Blockbusters or watch it online somewhere. Horrorfest features movies from independent filmmakers who can't make it onto the big screen, and all the crap about 'stuff they don't show you in theaters', they weren't referring to blood or guts, or horror...they were referring to the movies themselves. Because they're horrendous. Think of Horrorfest as a less renowned version of Sundance Film Festival, but for horror movies.
Sorry for all the 'hate', but next time think twice before you cheat costumers out of their money.


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


user
When I saw this at a shop I thought it looked really good and original. Like Wolfs Creek meets Texas chainsaw massacre, and I mean it only cost three quid (around $6). To be honest I don't think it was even worth that.
It seemed like the directors- the 'butcher brothers' couldn't decide whether wanted to do a artsy sort of horror or a gory slasher horror. It ended up with a cliché ridden gory sadistic hour and fifteen minutes with all the characters being one dimensional and you couldn't care less what happened to them but to try to make the audience care about the characters they added a useless monologue at the end and the beginning of the film which to be perfectly honest wasn't needed.
The only good part really was the middle/end- I won't ruin it for you. But that was the only "good "part.
Overall a pointless watch. It felt like a two hour film but was in fact only 75 minutes. If you want an artsy film-don't bother. If you want a slasher movie- don't bother- The film moves so slowly with nothing ever happening.


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 second movie I saw for Horrorfest this past weekend, The Gravedancers being the first. Gravedancers was better. I can only guess from watching this that the production must have been quite limited. I will admit the story started out interesting but really fizzled for me in the end. We weren't really given time to sympathize or understand any of the characters which only made each of their erratic characteristics even more annoying. I have to mention that there was also a bit of mis-casting with a 12-year-old boy acting as Sheriff. The only reason I sat through the whole film was to find out what the big secret was, which turned out to not be all that interesting. Some more background about the family would have helped but they didn't really seem like a family at all to begin with.
To me, this film is so amateur that I couldn't even see putting it on DVD. The four rating is for the initial potential the story might have had. This was one to skip for horrorfest.


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


user
Just okay horror film about a nice suburban family dealing with the death of their parents and the "thing" in the basement that they keep feeding people they pick up off the street. Of course there is more to it then that but to say more would be telling.
For me this just didn't come together as it tries to have it two ways both as a family drama and a horror film. the film tries very hard to walk the cutting edge between the two genres but seems more to stumble all over the place as it tries to be shocking, something it never really is. It doesn't help that the final revelation is less a scare then an "oh", as on "Oh thats it?". Maybe if I hadn't been watching so many horror films recently this might have been better or it may have just seemed it since I wouldn't have compared it to so much.
I'd take a pass


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


user
Wow, could have been such a good movie,Starts of with Brittany Daniels tied up, Im thinking cool we are going to get a flash back, but nothing, movie starts anew with the kid filming. This movie probably would have been better if it wasn't for the acting. I mean the acting was mostly horrible.. Although with the lines the poor actors had to deal with i guess they did the best they could..Still it really ruin the movie for me.. The twins were the only ones that seem to have some acting skills.. The movie drags to long for the supposed shocking conclusion.. All in all I have seen worse low budget movies but considering this was hype with the 8 films to die for I was very disappointed.. By the way, were did some reviewers say there was gore and stuff. Did I see the same movie.. Well this is 4 out of the eight, and so far only one has been any good..


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


user
WARNING:I advise anyone who has not seen the film yet to not read this comment.
Although I haven't seen them all,The Hamiltons sure did deliver one lowsy piece of entertainment,which it did not entertain me at all!!!!I thought that in common with the semi-bad acting,stupid plot scheme,and the twist at the end of the movie,which was very retarded,this movie sucked!!!Okay,so supposively these are people who eat other people.Yeah......notice I said people not humans,not because they aren't human,or wait I think they are,OH NO WAIT,THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU!!!!!So okay,are these people cannibals,or are they imbreds,or what are THEY!!!!I mean,maybe they're just "THINGS" that came here to see what people taste like or,are they cannibals who have eaten people for a long time now,or maybe this movie was HHOORRIIBBLLEE!!WHICH IT WAS!!!So if you think The Hamiltons is good,I ask of you,why,why,WHY,WHY,why was it so awesome,because to me it was just flat out terrible!!!One big BOOOOOOO for The Hamiltons!!!Go see The Gravedancers,Tooth & Nail,or Borderland for a piece of entertainment!!!!!


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 going to attempt building tension in a film it is always a good idea not to build it beyond the point of total tedium.
Unfortunately the Butcher Brothers haven't grasped this yet.
This film sucks, unlike the majority of its characters who (if you didn't work out they are vampires in the first few minutes then shame on you) preference stringing up the plentiful supply of 'no one knows where I am' cheerleader types and homosexual drifters that waft conveniently and with a fast food swagger, past their isolated door.
The only tiny bit of originality in the plot is how these vampires come to be vampires in the first place but the rest of it is ludicrous and sloppy.
Forced to up sticks (as opposed stakes) on a regular basis due to their penchant for filling their basement with bloodless corpses, they really are none too bright. If they fed their victims they could run their own little blood farm and it would cut down on the mortality rate, thereby allowing them to settle down and get chintzy.
Why the producers felt it necessary to introduce the incestuous twins and the homicidally gay older brother I am not sure. It added zero to the plot, which was unfortunate given that there wasn't a great deal of plot to start with and had no shock value at all.
One was never told why the parents had died, unless of course that was explained during one of my frequent tea breaks. Clearly the social worker must have been alerted to the family for some reason or other but again, it was for the viewer to write their own reason.
The only well rounded character was the youngest brother who emerges looking like Pugsley from the Adams Family. Indeed he was way too rounded, having the appearance of a child who has inadvertently wandered from a Weight watchers' class in to a very bad horror film. Oh heavens, he had. Never mind dear, have another doughnut with a yummy blood centre.


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


user
i rate this movie with 3 skulls, only coz the girls knew how to scream, this could've been a better movie, if actors were better, the twins were OK, i believed they were evil, but the eldest and youngest brother, they sucked really bad, it seemed like they were reading the scripts instead of acting them.... spoiler: if they're vampire's why do they freeze the blood? vampires can't drink frozen blood, the sister in the movie says let's drink her while she is alive....but then when they're moving to another house, they take on a cooler they're frozen blood. end of spoiler
it was a huge waste of time, and that made me mad coz i read all the reviews of how this movie was great, how many awards this movie won, and this movie was f****ing s**t!!!!


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


user
Terrible acting, lame plot, stupid story and just all around terrible movie sums up this piece of junk. It was excruciating to sit through. Just awful. Do not waste one penny on this. The movie theaters should feel bad about actually putting this movie out there for people to watch. This "horror" film was not even in the least bit scary, creepy or disturbing. It was in no way visually appealing. The acting was so terrible by all of the actors that any attempt to draw you into the movie through dialog are completely destroyed within moments of the actor/actress opening their mouth. Plus the entire story, i don't know why someone would make a movie with this story AGAIN. Do not waste your time or money. Even if it's a free ticket don't waste one moment viewing this movie. You will feel dumber for watching 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 was looking forward to this ride, and was horribly disappointed.
And I am very easily amused at roller coaster and amusement park rides.
The roller coaster part was just okay - and that was all of about 30 seconds of a 90 second ride.
It was visually dull and poorly executed.
It was trying desperately to be like a mixture of the far superior Indiana Jones and Space Mountain rides and Disneyland, and failed in every aspect.
It was not thrilling or exciting in the least.


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


user
The basic plot in this movie isn't bad. A lady makes it big and comes back to her alma mater to be adored. But, despite good acting by Robert Young and Eve Arden, the movie is a mess. The blame for this I place on either Joan Crawford or the director or both, as her performance is just awful. Instead of being a real person, she does a wonderful impersonation of a deer caught in the headlights. In other words, she stares off into space and has a "golly I am SOOOO stunned" expression. After just a few minutes it really became annoying for me. Now this is certainly not the only Crawford film I dislike for her performance, as she had done more than her share of overacting--in films such as JOHNNY GUITAR or many of her later films, such as BERSERK! My advice is to try a different Crawford film--there certainly were better.


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 reminded me so much of "A History of Violence" which pretended to be a close study of violence and violent behavior but ended up just being nothing short of a cheap action movie masquerading as some thinking film on violence. Dustin Hoffman and his new British bride move to a small English town and encounter endless harassment from the local drunks who do nothing but hang at the pub all day and make trouble. Don't these men have a job? Anyway, Dustin takes all he can take and by the end of the film he holds up in his house and fights off each one of the drunk attackers by such gruesome means as boiling whiskey poured over someone, feet being blown off by a shotgun and someones head getting caught in a bear trap. Funny that someone would have a need for such a large bear trap in a small British town except maybe put a mans head in it.
Sam Peckinpah who made the "Wild Bunch" which also covered the topic of blood letting violence in which no one was spared. But it was done with style, and you believed it. Straw Dogs is not believable. First of all the location is wrong and does not work. Why place it in England? I would think maybe in some inner city location or a small town in the American South in the 1930's or something. Second it is not in my view ever really explained clearly why these men are so quick to violence except maybe they got drunk and felt a need to kill Hoffman and rape his wife.
Sam Peckinpah missed the mark on 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
My life is about saving animals. I do volunteer work with a cat rescue organization. I am a vegetarian because I couldn't kill an animal even to sustain my life. I can't even kill a spider, I put it outdoors. The scene where the children throw rocks at the bird until it dies, with Sooner participating in an attempt to be accepted by the other children, made me sick and has haunted me ever since. It simply convinces me that human beings are pathetic in their need for acceptance. The ending - the foster parents adopt Sooner - does not redeem the depiction of animal cruelty. Why would anyone want their child to see this film?


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


user
You get a gift. It is exquisitely wrapped. The box it is in is hand crafted out of the finest wood and shows skill down to the smallest detail. That is then wrapped in gorgeous paper, handmade and hand-painted by the most talented of artists. The whole thing is wrapped in ribbons made from fine silk lace. It is a sight to behold.
Then you cut the ribbon, rip off the paper, open up the box, and find...nothing. That's TOYS. You either enjoy the packaging, or forget about it.
The film isn't without its point and purpose: War is a not a good thing. Well, isn't that original! The moral is so obvious that it is almost embarrassing to even point it out. And even that feeble insight is undercut by a story in which elements of war -- war toys in particular -- are clearly a bad thing, until they need an exciting climax and the film simulates a war using innocent toys. It's like someone preaching a stern, condescending sermon, only to end by saying "Just kidding."
But even as an empty box, the film fails close scrutiny. Yes, it is a sight to behold with some remarkable, striking images. The sets are imaginative and the cinematography catches the colorful scenes with skill. But the images are cold and emotionally sterile. Like the screenplay, the look of the film is joyless and at times aesthetically barren and surreal. It is a film that wants to praise toys as wonderful and special things, yet shows them to be creations of a world that is empty and cold. The film strives to be funny, in a morose sort of way, but the humor is forced and artificial. Robin Williams, as the beleaguered heir to a toy manufacturing empire, tosses in his ad-lib shtick, which only seems alien to the bizarre, coldly structured world he is inhabiting. Indeed, the topical references and tasteless sexual innuendo that are scattered throughout are jarringly contradictory to the childlike fable the film is vaguely trying to be. For this film to work, or make sense, it needs to be set in its own universe, an Oz far removed from Kansas. Every time the jokes jerk us back into reality, the toyland of the film increasingly becomes an obvious sham.
It is said that this was director Barry Levinson's pet project, one that he had been striving to get made for ten years. It is sadly obvious why he had trouble getting backing. Like most pet projects that finally get made (RADIOLAND MURDERS, RADIO FLYER & BATTLEFIELD: EARTH being great examples) it seems to be a blind spot in the filmmaker's field of vision. Perhaps Levinson directed and redirected TOYS so often in his head that he no fresh vision for it when he finally got on the soundstage. He had already perfected it to death.
Many of the toys featured in the film are clumsy, mechanical, wind-up monstrosities. So is the film itself.


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


user
Watching this movie is like eating a banquet of nothing but meringue. It initially looks great but ultimately provides NO satisfaction--none.
The plot is a muddled mess about a toy factory and the forces of evil. So, how is it possible that with this basic plot AND Robin Williams that the movie still turns out so badly?! It's because the picture is all appearance with no substance whatsoever--much like the terrible Popeye picture Williams did at the beginning of his film career. The film must have cost a fortune but perhaps there wasn't enough money left over to hire writers who had graduated grade school.
The film is one unfunny joke that goes on and on and on and on. I really am unsure why it was made in the first place--it certainly wasn't made to provide any sort of entertainment.


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


user
Sometimes, making something strange and contemporary doesn't always work to everyone's advantage. While I will admit that the set design and concept of the film was rather interesting, the execution of these ideas into one congruent story just didn't work. This film was so hideously slow and pointless, not even Robin Williams could save this garbage. It's obvious Barry Levinson's dream fell flat on its face, but he should have warned the rest of the world about this slop.


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


user
I truly despised this film when i saw it at the age of about 6 or 7 as I was a huge fan of Robin Williams and nothing he could do was bad. Until this. This complete trash ruined Robin for me for a long time. I'm only recovering recently with his funny but serious part in Fathers day but then he went on to create another mistake, Bicenntinial Man i think it was called but the point is. Robin should be getting much better jobs by now and now he has returned to performing the slime that originated with this 'classic'.


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


user
"Laughter is a state of mind" says the tag, and I hesitate to comment on Barry Levinson's. What could he have been thinking during the making of "Toys"? When he watched the rushes, did he see a successful, funny fantasy? If so, then he's working on a different plane than I. This is an excruciating picture, one in which the production design is 90% of the thing (and even the cartoon colors are a disappointment). Robin Williams and (most especially) Joan Cusack are humiliated as brother and sister of a toy mogul who are bypassed as inheritors of the factory when their dad dies. There's nothing remotely funny (satirical or slapstick-wise) on display here. It is uniformly draggy, ugly, and one of the very worst "big" movies ever made. NO STARS from ****


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 planning to rent or buy this movie don't. It's the worst thing I have ever seen. I would comment on it more but It has been 10 years since I saw it and have blanked all of it from my mind. Save yourself some time money and well being and stay far far 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 is the only movie i have ever walked out on. bad acting-- bad plot-- bad casting-- bad directing-- bad cinematography-- if they had set out to make a bad picture they couldn't have done a better job. i hope they are proud of his turkey. i'm surprised anyone associated with this film was ever hired again in hollywood. don't waste your time!


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


user
Bad movie. It´s too complicated for young children and too childish for grown-ups. I just saw it because I´m a Robin Williams fan and I was very disappointed.(


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


user
The worst movie in the history of cinema. I don't know if it was trying to be funny or sad, poignant or droll, but the end result was unwatchable. Everyone from Key Grip, to Robin Williams, and back down to Best Boy should be ashamed to be a part of this film!


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


user
I thought this was a great idea but, boy, was it poorly executed. We do get a broad sense of how complex and challenging the backstage operations of a show are, but virtually no specifics about any of it works. The producers don't seem to have found any way to tell a story or give the viewer a "through-line." (Which is not to say they didn't try, but having the stagehands relate a synopsis of the Ring cycle as the program's narrative does nothing to tell us about the job of physically mounting an opera.)
We see lots of things happening, but are told little about what it is that the people are doing and why. There's little sense of who is who, or how the various production departments fit and work together. For instance, several times we hear about a problem of some sort -- one expects then to see the problem and its consequences and/or how it gets resolved. But instead the filmmakers generally just cut to something else (generally, pretty generic footage of people pushing stuff or talking into headsets.)
Overall the film ends up feeling more like a pastiche of images that you'd see run under the closing credits of a show, rather than anything worth watching for its own merit.


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 from the library in the expectation of getting a good idea of how things go on in the background at a major opera production. I have to say, I was very disappointed. The subject had so much potential. The sets in a Wagnerian production must, of necessity, be elaborate and impressive and the story behind their creation and use could have been an excellent educational experience. Instead, what we get it a hodgepodge of clips of people moving around big items of scenery, vaguely help together with a commentary which failed to hold my attention. I found myself listening primarily to the background clips of music from operas. I was impressed by the sheer enormity of the effort required to put on such a production - that did come across fairly well and next time I am at the opera I am sure I will remember that part if this video - but was left feeling somewhat cheated by the lack of detailed commentary and explanation.


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 about a female rape victim/comic book writer from New York that decides to get away from all that awful big city glamor and move to a dirty, run down small town where she finds refuge in a single-wide trailer on a dirt lot in the middle of 12th and nowhere. The townspeople are mentally ill, yet so is she for inviting crazy men into her trailer. Annoying is the fact that she has the ability to do exactly the right thing to place herself in dangerous circumstance after dangerous circumstance. DB Sweeney's performance was high school at best. He's one of those kinda-cute young actors with a sweet grin. Unfortunately career has not been kind and mother nature has been right in tow. To the previous commentator stating that the acting was "so real", well I agree. Actually it wasn't acting. The two main characters really are pathetic, weak and incapable of making mature, healthy decisions. In brief, this movie sucks like no other, rent it to laugh at it. The real crime scene? The atrocious Wood paneling in the trailer - enough to make ME commit murder. And lastly, she's a artist/writer, so couldn't she afford a double-wide trailer and something other than a sun-yellow Chevy Chevette for love of god!


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


user
There is an awful lot wrong with this picture, beginning with a script that is both obvious and redundant. Courtney Cox plays a comic book artist who escapes to a small desert town after being raped twice in the big city. She immediately is stalked by a local who appears quite unhinged (Craig Sheffer), and who seems to be attempting a third rate Mickey Rourke imitation. D.B. Sweeny is a local cop, who is supposedly there to protect and serve. Meanwhile, the script manipulates the audience as to who's really the good guy? Logic flies out the window after the first ten minutes and never returns, and there are more unanswered questions than there should be. If you think "Blue Desert" might be saved by the wonderful Philip Baker Hall, you will be disappointed. His part is insignificant, just like the entire movie. - MERK


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


user
'Blue Desert' may have had the potential to be even a half-way plausible and more enjoyable thriller had the main character, Lisa Roberts (Courtney Cox) not been so stupid. When she is the victim of another attack on the streets of New York, comic book artist Roberts moves to a small town out West. In her first days there, she meets the suspiciously crazy Randall Atkins (Craig Sheffer, playing this part well) who will eventually not leave her side. Fearing for her safety after having been in the situation already twice before, she strikes up a friendship and relationship with the suspiciously amicable town cop, Steve Smith (D.B. Sweeny, who's character does not seem convincing enough, leaving disbelief among viewers who should otherwise be convinced of the red herrings thrown by the writers). Smith needs Roberts cooperation because, as he tells her, Atkins is an ex-con and guilty of sexual assault. But, the cops have lacked the evidence to put him away before.
The movie had enough ploys to at least make an interesting movie because soon enough, there is such confusion as to whom Roberts should trust. However, much of the intended suspense appears too forced because Roberts character never seems to react to simple things as we think any reasonable person might. And her delayed responses allow much of that suspense to occur to easily and unconvincingly, particularly in the finale. Perhaps Sweeny was the wrong choice for this role; too baby faced in ways that kind of recall Kevin Anderson's persona evident in his character in 'Sleeping With the Enemy.' Or, if Lisa Roberts was written as a stronger character, this might suffice as well. In the meantime, the film is not all that great, even as a low-budget B-thriller.


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


user
for a lot of time I was looking forward to see this movie, here in Latinamerica japanese or any oriental movies have no distribution in theaters, we can find some of those movies in some underground stores, and I just found Avalon, I was expecting something good, but the only good thing in this movie is the first scene, the rest of the movie is boring and senseless, just plain stupid, with a lot of useless scenes, and a boring story. I am wasting my time even writing about this film. Sorry but is the truth.


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


user
I must say, when I read the storyline on the back of the case, It sounded really interesting, but when I started to watch the movie seemed boring at first and even more at the end. Some scenes are way too long and the story has not been worked out properly.


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


user
Even if 99,99% of people that has seen this movie is Brazilian, I'll keep up with the English since it is the language of this website.
This movie is a piece of cr*p. Worst acting I have seen for a loooong time. The kids are terrible. Specially the boy. This was the first time I saw someone with less facial expression than Arnold Schwarzenegger, and one single voice tone, like a 5 years-old kid reading in front of the class. How can someone so bad be the main actor of a movie ? The storyline is so shallow my daughter could have done better (she is 3 yrs old). It is so simple it could be written in a napkin and told in 3 minutes.
There are only three possibilities for someone enjoy this movie: 1) you are a pre-teen; 2) you have been so brainwashed by Globo's stupidities that you think that anything that has the Globo's seal is awesome; 3) you have a serious brain damage.
Avoid at all costs ! A shame to the Brazilian movie scene.


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


user
After Chaplin made one of his best films: Dough & Dynamite, he made one of his worst: Gentlemen Of Nerve. During this first year in films, Chaplin made about a third of all his films. Many of them were experimental in terms of ad-libbing, editing, gags, location shooting, etc. This one takes place at a racetrack where Chaplin and his friend try to get in without paying. Mabel Normand is there with her friend also, and Chaplin manages to rid himself of both his and Mabel's friends. He then woos Mabel in the grandstand with no apparent repercussions from his behavior. Lots of slapstick in here, but there is very little else to recommend this film for other then watching Chaplin develop. The print I saw was badly deteriorated, which may have affected its enjoyment. Charley Chase can be glimpsed. * of 4 stars.


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


user
1914 was an amazing year for Charlie Chaplin. It was his first year in films and he appeared in more than 30 films! While most of these films weren't particularly good, they did give him a chance to slowly evolve his screen persona. However, by this film, the familiar "Little Tramp" character was still in development. Sure Charlie looked the part, but his character still lacked the sweetness and decency that he later developed. Instead, Chaplin often hit, kicked or did other nasty things to people for seemingly no reason at all.
As for this very slight film, it is interesting to watch for the cast. While they are not familiar today, Chaplin stars along with Mabel Normand, Chester Conklin and Mack Swain--all exceptionally popular stars with Keystone Films. The problem with this film is that while it has a few nice scenes, the plot seems very vague and improperly developed. Chester and Mabel got to the race track (a very common theme in Keystone productions--it must have been located near a race track). Charlie and Mack show up and sneak in. Mack is chased by the police for doing this while Charlie slaps Chester around and steals his girl. In the end, for no apparent reason, the cops take Chester and Mack away--leaving Charlie with Mabel (who, oddly, didn't seem put off by Charlie's boorish behaviors).
Unless you are a huge silent comedy buff or film historian, this is a very forgettable film that is only important in the evolution of Chaplin. What he and the other actors actually do on stage, while not unusual for a Keystone film, isn't particularly funny when seen today.


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


user
Demer Daves,is a wonderful director when it comes to westerns and "broken arrow" remains in everybody's mind.As far as melodrama is concerned,he should leave that to knowing people like Vincente Minelli,George Cukor or the fabulous Douglas Sirk. The screenplay is so predictable that you will not be surprised once while you are watching such a tepid weepie.Natalie Wood 's character was inspired by Fannie Hurst's "imitation of life" (see Stahl and Sirk),but who could believe she's a black man's daughter anyway?Susan Kohner was more credible in "imitation of life")and Sinatra and Curtis are given so stereotyped parts that they cannot do anything with them:the poor officer,and the wealthy good-looking -and mean- sergeant.Guess whom will Natalie fall in love with?France is shown as a land of tolerance ,where interracial unions are warmly welcome.At the time(circa 1944) it was dubious,it still is for narrow-minded people you can find here there and everywhere.


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


user
A lot of horror fans seem to love Scarecrows, so I won't be very popular in saying that I found it to be rather boring. The idea behind it was interesting, but it seems to drag so much. I think the main problem is that it is all set in darkness. Sometimes horror films set in darkness can work (such as Humongous), but Scarecrows is in darkness for the whole film. A lot of the time it's hard to figure out what's actually happening, and although some shots of the scarecrows were creepy, most were hard to even see. If a little more lighting had been used, perhaps it could've been better.
There's not many films involving killer scarecrows to my knowledge, apart from Dark Night Of The Scarecrow, which is much better. I would recommend that over Scarecrows any day.


assistant
0