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
It is true that some fans of Peter Sellers work may be disappointed with this, his last venture. But surely any fan of Sellers will find delight in all of his films, simply because of the man's huge talent. and The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu is certainly no exception. Unfortunately this would prove to be Sellers last film, (it was even released after his death), but it's still nice to see how the man had managed to keep his irreplaceable talent right until his untimely demise. And not only do we get one Sellers, but we get to, for Sellers plays not only the title role but also his nemesis, the equally bizarre Nayland Smith, the detective on the hunt for the crazed 168 year old Fu. The story is equally outlandish as we follow Fu's outrageous antics to make his age-defying elixir and also Nayland and his group of associates trying to prevent him. Just like any of Sellers greater films, the film comes with a guaranteed impeccable performance from him, as well as many of his familiar-faced co-stars - David Tomlinson, Sid Caesar, John Le Mesurier, Clive Dunn and Helen Mirren to name a few. It's also nice to see Pink Panther stalwart Burt Kwouk (Cato) enjoying a cameo with Sellers - albeit playing the same role, but still nice. The story is indeed pretty ridiculous, as are many of the characters involved, which classes this as a film strongly under the Goon influence. And, although it never reaches the heights of Goon comedy, there are plenty of amusing jokes that seem to point in the right direction. The film failed commercially on it's initial release due to the entire world mourning after Sellers' death (the film was released less than 3 weeks after)and there is always that sorrowful thought lurking in the back of your mind when viewing it that this was Sellers last film. It's far from a great film - it's often slow, too ridiculous, and sometimes the jokes simply aren't there - but it is nevertheless enjoyable - if only for another top rate performance from Peter Sellers.


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 no getting around it-- this movie is terrible. I've seen the old Christopher Lee/Fu Manchu movies, I'm familiar with the characters and it's serial origins, but it's still just godawful. However, Peter Sellers' genius still shines through with his portrayal of Nayland Smith, with echoes of sadness, tragedy, and strength simmering through a stoic facade; it's a performance I place on par with Peter Cushing's portrayal of Van Helsing but done in a tenth of the cumulative screen time of all Cushing's "Dracula" movies. If the movie was done in a more serio-comic vein like BUBBA HO-TEP by way of the 1960's AVENGERS TV show, this could've been something special. If you're a Fu Manchu or Peter Sellers completest, this is something you need to see, but it's a pass for anyone else.


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 one didn't realize that Sellers was in poor health at the time of filming and passed away before the film's release, THE FIENDISH PLOT OF DR. FU MANCHU would be painful viewing. It is supposedly a lampoon of Sax Rohmer's famous Oriental villain but it lacks any focus. The potential for satirical commentary on the anti-Oriental overtones of Rohmer's concept are ignored. Indeed, the movie employs racist insults. There are hardly any actual jokes or gags, just mostly actors behaving idiotically and spouting dreary lines. It is especially distressing to see Sid Caesar forced to spout curses and racial slurs for attempted laughs. Most of the other actors embarrass themselves as well.
And then there's Peter Sellers. He plays the dual roles of the sinister Fu Manchu, who is trying to concoct a formula to regain his youth and his stalwart British foe Nayland Smith. Sellers isn't one hundred per cent bad; he conveys a quirky warmth as Smith when he discusses his fetishistic attachment to his lawn mower and he's oddly moving as Manchu when he expresses his love for English music hall entertainment. But most of the time, he plays both roles with a weary grimness, thus further sabotaging any comical possibilities. Sellers' routines where he revitalizes his fading strength with electric shocks are particularly excruciating; he seems too convincingly agonized to be funny.
A few genuinely witty lines, an apt slapstick bit by Burt Kwouk (Cato in the PINK PANTHER films) as one of Manchu's minions, and Helen Mirren's amusing musical numbers cannot salvage this mess. If anyone wants to understand why Peter Sellers is considered a comedic genius, they won't learn anything from THE FIENDISH PLOT OF DR. FU MANCHU.


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 here's the basic plot. It is 1933, Peter Sellers is Dr Fu Manchu, a 168 year old Chinese man who has lived quite a long time. The film opens with his birthday in which he celebrates by drinking a special elixir that (even the film never mentions) prolongs his life. Well on this occasion the elixir is clumsily dropped by an assistant (Kato if you remember the Pink Panther movies) and he orders his minions to then go find 6 rare items to make the elixir. This creates a global man hunt in which his henchmen end up robbing museums of diamonds and venturing into London, to meet up with Dr Fu's nemisis, a retired Scotland Yard detective Nayland Smith, also played by Sellers who tries to stop him in what is suppose to be a witty comedic adventure.
This was apparantly Sellers last full length feature film that he made before he died. The terrible tragedy is that he was in it. Sellers who is such a gifted comedian and has had memorable 'funny' roles in the Panther movies and particualrly in the movie 'The Party', is anything BUT that in this film. This film was absolute torture to sit through and I couldn't even finish it. He completly DIES and I kept cringing while watching Sellers performance. After coming of the great work of 'Being There' a year earlier how, I mean HOW can he make this and HOW did this thing even get made??? Like one person mentioned the first 10..15 minutes are ok but then it is ALL DOWNHILL...
Avoid like the plague.
Rating 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
....shut it off. The prologue with Fu Manchu's birthday, and the opening credits of the assassins training, is amusing. Then it drops off faster than hair sprayed with Neat. Look for a cameo by Cato in the beginning, with a figurative wink at the audience.


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


user
It's one of the funny things about being young that one can be fooled easily by advertising. I have spoken before on another film,in which the commercial for the (comedy) film makes it seem funnier than it is. Seeing the ad for this in 1981 made me think this was going to be a wildly funny film. What I and my brother who went and saw it with me didn't know is that the scene used in the TV ad was the very last scene in the film!
Since this scene is the end result of all that came before in the film,I can only guess that there was nothing else funny to use! The last scene is,thanks to a youth potion,Dr. Fu Manchu turns from a long bearded old man,into a bright young Asian/Elvis like rock star! (With back up singers no less!)
Set for no real reason,in the 1930's,Peter Sellers does his best with the material at hand but he's not given any really good reason for his "comedic" moments. The rest of the actors were just plain dull and my brother and I sat all through this barely laughing at anything. It was only natural that we were expecting a "Pink Panther" type comedy,Peter Sellers was so great at that.
It's a pitiful shame this was his last film before he died. His appearance on the Muppet Show was more entertaining than this ill-conceived flop. Still,I don't fault him. I fault everyone else involved for not trying to make a better film of this. 2 stars is being generous!!


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


user
This may not be the very worst movie Peter Sellers ever did (I think that laurel goes to "The Prisoner of Zenda") but it is surely the most depressing. Sellers, especially sans makeup as Nayland Smith, looks like he has just undergone chemotherapy. As Fu Manchu, he looks hardly better and spends most of the film (with the exception of those strangely disturbing scenes where he gets jolted with electrical currents) on the verge of collapsing under the weight of all that makeup. The supporting players also look tired and run down, and Sid Caeser's presence is offensive even without his constant references to "Chinks!" (One bright spot: this would be one of the last times a major motion picture would portray Asians so insultingly ... or, for that matter, star a non-Asian as one!). The film seems surprisingly cheap, with soupy photography and drab sets - even the whiz-bang Elvis number at the end looks cut-rate. Only the stunning Helen Mirren and the tall, thin, nervous guy who get his pants wet add any sparks of life to this sad affair. All in all, this film provides an eerie premonition of a great comic's death, and an even eerier documentation of his dying.


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 have much to say about this movie. It could have been a wonderful tour-de-force for Peter Sellers, but it is one of the most tragic misfires in movie history. That it was Sellers final movie makes it all the more painful.
The terrible screenplay, direction and shockingly wooden performances all come dreadfully together to make this one of the most unwatchably awful movies ever made.
I wish so much that I could find even a snicker or a chuckle buried somewhere in this pile of putrid blubber, but it's a lifeless, humorless disaster. The truth hurts.
Peter, why couldn't you have stopped at BEING THERE?


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


user
An unfunny, unworthy picture which is an undeserving end to Peter Sellers' career. It is a pity this movie was ever made.


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


user
This is not an all-around terrible comedy, but it is very DULL. It has barely any laughs, and it wastes its lavish production values. There is one poignant moment near the end, when Fu Manchu offers a dose of his elixir to his "nemesis" and tells him that "You've been my one worthy adversary; and now we can start all over again". That scene, however, along with Burt Kwouk's amusing cameo in the beginning, are the only memorable parts of the movie. (*1/2)


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


user
The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu (1980). This is hands down the worst film I've ever seen. What a sad way for a great comedian to go out.


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


user
I actually saw this movie in the theater back in it's original release. It was painful to watch Peter Sellers embarrass himself so badly. The story was incredibly lame and difficult to follow, and the ending was ridiculous. It was just sad to see how the mighty had fallen. I won't say that I'm a huge Peter Sellers fan, but I did thoroughly enjoy the Pink Panther series and I felt that he gave a strong performance in Being There. But this film should never have been made. From what I've read, he pursued producing this film against the advice of the people around him. Fine, but that still doesn't excuse the studio actually releasing the film.


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


user
This is, quite literally, the worst movie I have ever watched in my life. It may be the worst movie possible. Some movies are so bad that they're good; this movie is so bad that it goes past enjoyable camp and simply becomes unwatchably awful. It is the anti-enantiodromia. We bought it with the intent to heckle, and all of my family gathered around for a fun evening of clever remarks; instead, we sat in stunned silence, pitying poor Peter Sellers.
This is worse than the animated Lord of the Rings. It is worse than the Matrix sequels. It is worse than Krull. It is worse than any Batman movie.
Do not, under any circumstances, let this movie approach within ten feet of your television.


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


user
... or maybe it just IS this bad. The plot is a cheap rehash of the first, which is weird, since it's supposed to be a prequel, not a sequel. Pretty much the entire movie seems like a cheap remake of the first, with scenes mimicking the things that happened in the first, only a lot more ridiculous and unlikely. Where the first had a great cast, this one consist of B-list actors and rejects. The acting is mostly horrendously bad. Half of the good lines in the movie are taken directly from the first, as is nearly every major character, including the ones who weren't in the first movie. I realize this was made up by a TV series pilot episode, but that's no excuse. They didn't have to turn the (bad) footage into a movie. Only one thing is marginally good, and that's the erotic sequences. However, as these are nowhere near as good as the ones in the first, even this isn't raising it above a rating of 1. If you have a chance to see it for free, and you're a straight guy, it could be worth checking out, if you want something erotic that isn't porn. If not, avoid at all costs. 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
There isn't one decent scene.
Amy Adams gives one of the worst performances of all time. Proof that you a can start anywhere. The guy playing Sebastian sucks, too. He doesn't even look much like Ryan Phillipe. More like Joshua Jackson. The two other girls are terrible, as well.
Then the dialogue is also crap.
Sebastian (About to have threesome): If you cant beat them...
Virgin Girl: Who says you can't beat 'em?
Lame.
The ending contradicts the entire plot of the original. In the first film, it is clearly stated that Kathryn and Sebastian never had sex. One of the reasons Sebastian wanted Kathryn so bad, aside from the fact that she's played by Sarah Michelle Gellar, was that she was "the only girl he couldn't have and it killed him". She was a tease who liked playing with him. The fact that she never gave it to him increased his wanting. Then in this P.O.S., it implies that he CAN have her, along with a girl on the side. What? And we don't even see the sex, either. It's implied, making it not only stupid, pointless, and contradictory, but worthless too.
And in the first one, Kathryn rejects Sebastian because he fell in love, making him a loser. Even though he won the bet, that crumbled his chances. Then in this excrement, he looses AND falls in love. So she doesn't screw "losers", only complete losers? Another thing: it's stated that Sebastian has never been in love, so what do you call the thing with Virgin Girl?
Then at the end, virgin girl is all of sudden revealed to be Kathryn's evil lesbian lover (dun dun dun) and, like I said, they go into a lame offscreen threesome. Stupid.
There's several other plot contradictions. Did the writer even see the first film? A 5 year old can point his stuff out.
After the threesome, Sebastian has sex with the blonde virgin, corrupting her innocent mind in the back of a limo while Kathryn and Virgin Girl Turned Evil Lesbian In Lame Sudden Plot Twist sit in the front, listen, and smile evilly into the camera.
The end...
Seeing Sebastian become the ass hole he was in the first one could have made an interesting film. I guess all it took to make little Sebastian bad was a threesome with two hot girls. Interesting.


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 ask me the first one was really better one. Look at Sarah M. G., she is real, mean, cruel girl, look at Amy Adams she is just little fool hanging around. She is nothing! People don't adore her! Second, Sebastian was cute and hot in first movie, now he is "baby face". Story is not that good, and i do not understand. Why didn't they make this one first, it is the beginning. Loosy actors, nothing with story. This is not cruel, this is playing. First one has better actors, better story, and its mean. I think that the music is better in cruel intentions 1 and the music is better in cruel intentions 3. It is not the worst movie I saw, but in compaer with first one its one big, big, big nothing.


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


user
Because 'cruel' would be the only word in existence to describe the intentions of these film makers. Where do you even begin? In a spout of b*tchiness, I'm going to start with the awful acting of nearly everybody in this movie. Scratch that. Nearly does not belong in that sentence. I can't think of even one character who was portrayed well. Although, in all fairness, it would be nearly impossible to portray these zero dimensional characters in a successful way. Still, the girl who played Katherine (whose name I purposefully don't include - I'm pretending she doesn't exist) remains one of the worst actors I've ever seen, only eclipsed by the guy who played Sebastian. The story was God awful. It attempted to mirror the brilliance that was the first one but failed in so many ways. Pretty much every part of it was pointless - though I will admit (grudgingly) that the plot twist was quite good it its surprise. And the ending was at least slightly humorous. But this film is up there with the worst I've seen. Don't watch it. Just don't. There is absolutely no value in watching it. None. It only takes away the enjoyment of the first.


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


user
They had such potential for this movie and they completely fall flat. In the first Cruel Intentions, we are left wondering what motivated the lead characters to become the way they are and act the way they do. There is almost NO character development whatsoever in this prequel. It's actually a very sad story but this film did nothing for me. It was as if they left out good writing in place of unneeded f-words. And the end makes absolutely no sense and doesn't explain anything. The writing was just terrible. Another thing that bothered me was that they used at lease 3 of the EXACT SAME lines that were in the original. Such as "down boy", or the kissing scene, and a few others I can't remember. I was not impressed at all by Robin's acting, but Amy did a great job. That's about the only thing that reconciled 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
Basically, Cruel Intentions 2 is Cruel Intentions 1, again, only poorly done. The story is exactly the same as the first one (even some of the lines), with only a few exceptions. The cast is more unknown, and definitely less talented. Instead of being seductive and drawing me into watching it, I ended up feeling dirty because it compares to watching a soft-core porn. I'm not sure whether to blame some of the idiotic lines on the actors or the writers...and I always feel bad saying that, because I know how hard it is to do both...but it was basically a two-hour waste of my life. It literally amazes me that some movies get made, and this is no exception...I can't believe they'd make a third one.


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


user
Cruel Intentions 2 is bloody awful, I mean uber-bad. Words can not explain how bad it is, but I'll give it a go anyway.
The plot of Cruel Intentions 2 is very similar to the first film. Sebastian (Robin Dunne), is kicked out of a private school and is forced to move to New York. There he decides to make a fresh start and just a life a normal life and settle down. Unfortunately he has to deal with his step-sister Kathryn (Amy Adams) wants to drag him down. Sebastain starts to fall in love Danielle (Sarah Thompson), the innocent daughter of the Headmaster of the school. Kathryn wants Sebastain to just sleep around with the whole school which had been describe as a 'whore-house'. Kathryn also wants to get revenge with Cherie (Keri Lynn Pratt), who humiliated her during the school assembly. Kathryn wanted to make the freshman into the biggest slut in the school, a similar sub-plot to the first film.
Cruel Intentions 2 is basically a cancelled TV-show, which was turned into a prequel. There are so many problems with the film. It is poorly written, unfunny, and badly acted. Luckily for Amy Adams that the show never took off because now she is a fairly big actress. Whilst Cruel Intentions had a sense of realism and can been seen to be set in the real world, Cruel Intentions 2 is set in sitcom land and as described on amazon.co.uk 'a randy version of Saved by the Bell'. There were some dark themes involving sex and drug use in the first film, but in Cruel Intentions 2 tried to make it funny and some of the ideas in the film shouldn't be, such as Kathryn having an affair with a teacher. Other ideas also don't work such as the secret society where all the popular kids meet to discuss the downfall of other students. The film also had a major problem of sexualised 15/16-years-old. I know that teenagers do have sex, sometimes a lot, but when done on film or television, is treated very seriously. One famous sense was when Daneille encourages Cherie (who is around 14/15 in the film) to simulate sex on the back of a horse to the point where she has a orgasm. The idea of turning a girl around 14/15 into a slut is just very wrong with me, and shouldn't be made into a subject of comedy. The jokes in the film fall flat, whether if it's a verbal gag like 'she goes all moist when she sees you' to a visual gag where Sebastian pushes Kathryn face first into mud.
There is a lot wrong with this film, which I don't have time to go into, but I say it should be avoid. Just watch Cruel Intentions, whilst not a classic, still is a decent film and treats the subject matter well.
This film is just a pervert's wet dream, having school-kids having lots of sex with each other.


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


user
I watched this movie at 3'o clock in the morning, a time in the day where I am usually very open when it comes to movies. But still I think it wasn't good, this movie wasn't good at all. The reasons why are many.
The acting isn't all that good, and time after time situations occurring in it reminded me of a poor 90's Chevy Chase comedy. I mean, come on, like the handcuff situation, and the poker situation amongst the servants... This movie was so obviously based very much on the first one, and thats OK. But if I hadn't seen the first one before seeing this, it would have sucked even worse. Like the ending, it came very suddenly, and I felt like I got no closure what so ever... Sebastian changed very suddenly, and this This movie seems like it was made solely to explain nr 1, and like no time or effort was used on making anything else good. The score is the same as in the first one, and it didn't feel like a movie at all...
They should have handled the situations with more style and class, but they didn't, and therefore, this movie turned out bad...


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 Cruel Intentions, the original, is my favorite movie of all time. It was an absolute masterpiece. So how on earth could they make a sequel so downright bad. Sarah Michelle Gellar was perfect in the first movie. In this one, Amy Adams sucks. She is terrible. And couldn't they have found a chick who actually looked like Sarah Michelle Gellar? At least the same hair color!!! i mean come on. Robin Dunn isn't as bad as Adams, but he is absolutely terrible when compared to Ryan Phillipe. The Sebastian in the first film is devious, deceitful, and much more evil than the Sebastian in the prequel. And what is up with the story line. It basically goes like this...
1- Sebastian has a bad rep at his first school, so the movie says, although it mentions nothing about him and his dating life, and how he has been with girls 2- Sebastian moves to New York, and just suddenly decides he's going to turn himself around. He "falls in love" with Danielle (might i remind you that in the original, Sarah Michelle giller says quote "you broke up with THE FIRST PERSON you ever loved because i said to- so how can he have been in love in the prequel???). And he's all nice and charming, and all "good person", as he turns down sex from the chick his dad was doing.
3- He does a complete 180, and ends up in a threesome at the end of the movie, and then seducing Cherry.
I mean, its terrible. And i loved the first one so much. I haven't even seen the third one yet. I hope to god its better than this prequel.


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


user
This so-called prequel is just a badly made remake to to a better version of Dangerous Liasons. The plots are identical as is most of the script. I loved the book its based off of, and I loved the first movie, but I'm not even going to bother with the 3rd movie. The pointless banter between the two main characters in the prequel was completely predictable and unoriginal, and...I just can't stress how bad the movie was. If you don't want to take my word for it, just watch it, and you'll see what I mean. If you've read a review that says that 'If you likes the first one, you'll like the second one' the only reason that is is because IT IS THE EXACT SAME MOVIE! Although the plot is not even as good. They took so many lines from the first movie, Its hard to tell which movie you're watching.


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 mad anyone made this movie. I was even more angry I lost valuable minutes of my life sitting still to watch this. I could have had a wax job and been more entertained. At least Cherri makes me laugh before it hurts. I was a bit confused at first but then I caught on and realized what was going on. By this time the film was half way through, and Yes I am a procrastinator but I always want to see things through until the end. So I stuck it out I watched it all. Not only are the actors not as attractive as in Cruel Intentions, they just aren't convincing. I've seen my nephew cry for attention more convincingly than the supposed lust portrayed on screen in this movie. If you like bad movies with bad acting watch this.


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


user
From the very opening scene you will notice just how hard they tried to mimic the very smart and powerful 'Cruel Intentions', and how flat it landed. You'll also notice what a terrible choice they made by casting Robin Dunne as Valmont... Then in the second scene, you meet the two best things in this movie, Amy Adams and Mimi Rogers as Kathryn and her mother. That is, if you can get past the fact that Kathryn wasn't blonde in the first film... Then the movie goes on, you see the cheap romantic story from miles ago, and you notice Sebastian has already met an Anette in the past, here called Danielle, and a Cecile, here called Cherie... How original is that for a prequel. Then it turns into a low budget 'Wild Things' type of film with lots and lots of oh-my "twists". As I mentioned, Robin Dunne was a very bad choice. Not that he is a bad actor, he's good.. He just doesn't have the charisma Ryan did. Amy Adams, who is in my opinion one of the most talented young actresses of our time, once again delivers. But with all the talent in the world, there is no way one could save this trash. As a whole, this "movie" feels like a 'Beverly Hills, 90210' episode. The score has been stolen from 'Cruel Intentions' and 'Jawbreaker'... Yes, they used the score from JAWBREAKER... Couldn't they at least leave that one alone?! You'll want to pass this one. If you want more Cruel Intentions, watch Stephen Frears' Dangerous Liaisons.


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


user
What can I say about Cruel intentions 2? Well, I can say in all honesty, I will only watch this film again if I am fastened to a chair and have my eyes opened clockwork-orange-style.
The film 'stars' Robin Dunne (No, I never heard of him either), whose awful impression of Ryan Phillipe made me cringe throughout. In a case of terrible casting, Dunne attempts (and fails) to carry off playing a handsome charismatic, charmer. Since the actor is not handsome, nor charismatic nor charming, the character is left wholly unbelievable. Amy Adams, (she was in an episode of buffy one time), tries to pick up where Sarah Michelle Gellar left off and bring scheming Katherine to life... However, Adams is not that good a an actress and her performance was flat and lacking in any real emotion, often she looked like she was reading cue cards just off camera. There were two good actors in the film however, Barry Flatman (Saw 2 & Saw 3) and Mimi Rogers (Mrs Kensington in Austion Powers), made very good and entertaining performances as the parents of Sebastian and Katherine and are the only reason why I rated the film as a 2, not a 1.
The film itself is a poor version of the original, with such lows as carbon copy's of dialogue and mimicked scenes which lacked the originality of the previous film.
I think that as a TV show, it might have worked, but if it had been recasted with people who could actually act in the main parts.


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 first started watching this movie last night on Cinemax, I was shocked that it had been made. Cruel Intentions, in my opinion, was one of the best teen-oriented films made in years. This prequel had certain things incongruent with the original. (Sebastian's father married into wealth, then why does he have a rich Aunt on long island?)
Then I found out today that it was not really intended to be a new movie, but rather a television series, Manchester Prep. After hearing that, it made sense to me that it wasn't the same as the movie, just as Buffy the Vampire Slayer is different in TV form.
I think that Roger Kumble most likely added the ending that this movie had, AFTER the series wasn't picked up by Fox. It just seems like something that would happen too fast (Sebastian becoming the male version of Katharyn) and I just don't know where they would go with the next episode, since it wouldn't be leading to the 1999 Film (Which the newer ending is directed right towards.)
One thing I didn't like was that it suggested Sebastian and his father had married into the wealth, which isn't typically looked good upon in this area of new york, and sine Katharyn's mother was just an adult version of her, it didn't seem like something a woman in her position would do, marry a man not of her social class.
As a prequel this is fairly lame. But I would have been interested to see where this had gone as a series.


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


user
Alright normally i am not as harsh on sequels especially if the first film is done well and was ultimately a good movie. As for 1999 i feel that one of the top five films was Cruel Intentions. It had everything a great movie should have except for an original story, being adapted from a novel it was still damn good. On to Cruel Intentions 2 which was supposed to actually just be the opener for a series based on the film called manchester prep. Which must not have happened. Actually after seeing this trifle of a film i can understand. Before the thing started i was like at least the writer and director Roger Kumble did this one also. Well 1 minute into this movie i was disappointed. It starts off with a rehash of the opening of the original with a different twist sebastian instead of putting the shrinks daughter's naked picture on the net he puts the schools principals wife in the school directory naked. This would have been alright if the lady was not like 50. And basically the rest of the movie is a wannabe carbon copy of the original. Which i understand the if there is nothing wrong with it leave it the way it was. But you can not do that with a movie. This actually being a prequel i gave it a chance just to see how they turned out like they did in part 1. But with Sebastian being more or less just a prankster and Kathryn being a herself and turning sebastian into the sexual predator he was in the real story, this movie had no foundation to it. Whoever did the casting on this thing was way off. They could have at least tried to get people who looked like the original cast but no, they just hired a bunch of not even really good looking actors. I am using this term although i dont know why. They for sure didnt do any in this movie.
All this movie is a bunch of one liners that dont even match the wit that the original had, well some of them did but that was just because they were from part 1. Another bad point was in part one you could understand the need for them to act out for attention because there was no involvement from teir parents this one had them in it and they were poorly used, as if to show why the kids are like this. It didnt work though. The best thing though about the original was that the cast had chemistry they took you into this world. The on screen tension that was there made the film what it was. This thing Really ruins the experience of the first one stay way from this.


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 willing to go with the original _Cruel Intentions._ It went along with the plot and stayed true to the characters of one of my favorite stories. However, this movie was, in my opinion, a crummy rehash with essentially the same story line and no clear character choices. I didn't honestly care what happened to any of them. The strongest part of the original story (Les Liasons, not CI) is the characters and their interactions, not the events themselves. I wasn't clear until I read the IMDB that this movie was meant to be a prequel, especially since the title includes a number "2," I expected a sequel, but then determined that it must be a companion piece. Over all, I must say that this movie read, to me at least, like a soft porn version of Les Liasons. I was not impressed.


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 like "The Disney Channel after Dark." Take out the "aren't we naughty" language and themes and you are left with dialogue and plot devices that insult the intelligence of anyone who doesn't describe "Saved by the Bell" as quality television. The dialogue so laughably cliched and knowingly dirty, one might think the screenplay was the product of locking Aaron Spelling and Joe Eszterhas in a room with orders to produce an amalgam of every bad script each had ever had a hand in creating. If that was Roger Kumble's intention, mission accomplished.


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


user
Christ, oh Christ... One watches stunned, incredulous, and possibly deranged, as this tawdry exercise in mirthless smut unfolds with all the wit and dexterity of a palsied Galapagos tortoise. Can such things be? Does this movie actually exist, or was I the unwitting guinea pig of some shadowy international drugs company, sipping my coffee unaware that it had been spiked with a dangerous hallucinogen? I've seen a lot of films, and a lot of bad films, but nothing prepared me for this; by the end of it I was a gibbering, snivelling wreck, tearing at the carpet with my teeth like a dog, clawing at the walls, howling till my lungs were sore. I pleaded desperately, frenziedly for mercy (to whom this appeal was made, I don't know), and longed with burning desire for the soothing balm of Ozu Yasujiro. Sweet Weeping Jesus, the memories... sometimes they come back to me. When I'm at my most vulnerable, when I'm least able to handle them. I shudder, I break down in tears, I bite my fingernails till my hands are slathered with blood, but I can't quite banish the awful flashbacks from my mind. I'm haunted. I'm damaged. I'm a shell of a man.
The other user comments here suggest that I am not alone in having undergone this terrifying experience, which can only mean one of two things: a) the film does, in fact, exist, or b) I am but one victim among legions of an international conspiracy of truly sinister proportions. What is quite mind-boggling is that some people seem to have enjoyed their ordeal, or at least have not been left traumatised by it. Perhaps they're part of the operation. God damn them, the maniacs! God damn them all to Hell!!!!!!


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


user
This review also contains a spoiler of the first movie -- so if you haven't seen either movie and want to but don't want the spoilers, please don't read this review!
While this movie is supposed to be about Christian and Kathryn meeting for the first time, the movie is a poor copy of the first Cruel Intentions. The actors that they had portray Ryan Phillippe's Christian and Sarah Michelle Gellar's Kathryn are very poor substitutes indeed. Neither can pull off the smarmy, snooty rich-kid attitude that the original actors did. It's absolutely appalling that some of the dialog was verbatim -- not so much between Christian and Kathryn, but if you listen closely enough you'll recognize it. There are also inconsistencies in the plot - if this were truly the first meeting of Christian and Kathryn, then why is it that Christian fell in love with a girl at the end of the movie? He supposedly was supposed to be in love for the first time in the original movie (with Reese Witherspoon's character).
Also, the tie-in with the photography/"You could be a model" comment at the end was totally lame and didn't add anything at all. Overall, this movie was a waste of time. I can't believe they made a Cruel Intentions 3.


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 a reason why certain films go straight to video and of course the obvious reason is that if its too naughty for theater audience then release straight to video. Of course it really wouldn't be fair to the films that are good and yet they are also released straight to video. This one is not an exception although the film has good actors or at least actors with potential: Amy Adams (am Oscar nominee and talented actress), Robin Dunne who deserves better or at least a better agent, and Sarah Thompson who deserves roles that are a departure from teen melodramas. The film is also misstated: this film takes place before Cruel Intentions so therefore this film is actually a prequel and rather stupid one at that. This was a waste and its really a film that is in the same level as soft core porn and pay-per-view masturbation films. Fortunately for the actors, hopefully they will be able to erase this from their resumes. So if you are looking to see something naughty, but don't have the courage to buy porn then rent this film as a starter.


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


user
Who actually created this piece of crap this is the worst movie i have ever seen in my life it is such a waste of time and money. I hate it how they create low budget sequels featuring D-Lister actors and a storyline so similar to the 1st one.
I found this movie in the bargain bin sitting right next to Wild Things 2 and Death To The Supermodels for $2.99 what a fool i was to actually think that this could be good instead i watched in disgust as poor acting stereotypes ripped of the storyline and script from the 1st one.
Whoever thought that this straight-to-video production was actually even a half decent film you must be on crackd or something because I think what pretty much most of the people who've seen this film thinks WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!!!!


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


user
I think this is probably one of the worst movies I've watched in a long time.
Trying to get the 'same characters' with different people is *such* a bad idea. If they couldn't get Sara Michelle G. and Ryan P. in this one, they should have just cut their losses and said to heck with it. Instead they get NEW actors that are horrible at what they did. I seriously felt like I was at a High School or (bad) College play with the lever of acting these people put forth.
Where do they get some of these people? Was this their first movie? It sure seemed like it.
This movie also parallels the original in a few lines of speech. I had just got done watching the first one and popped #2 in. I was all excited to get to watch the second one and it ended up being the worst show I've seen in a while. I don't hardly EVER *EVER* turn off a movie, but this one definitely went off after about 30 - 40 min.


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


user
Okay, let me break it down for you guys...IT'S HORRIBLE!
If Roger Kumble did such a fancy job on the first Cruel Intentions then why did he do such a bad job on this. I'm sorry but this movie is stupid, true it may have improved if its series was ever aired but lets be realistic...this movie a crock! A lot of bad acting *NOTE The Shower scene* "Kissing Cousins" ?????? What kind of line is that? "Slipery when wet" ?????????? Can we say DUH-M! This movie had effort, I'll give you that, but it was too stupid! They even tried to make it funny by giving the house servants stupid accents which actually....WASN'T FUNNY! It was pathetic. Not to mention that they made everyone in the this one look Absolutely NOTHING like the original cast. It's as if they made them look different on purpose or something! I like watching it when I'm really really really board which doesn't happen occasionally. For those of you who did like it...Okay, what were you thinking? Could you possibly choose this movie over the other one which had great acting and the fabulous Sarah Michelle Gellar? A movie is gold if it has Sarah Michelle Gellar in it, DUH! But this movie doesn't, no offense Amy Adams. Oh, yeah since when does Sebastain have a heart????? UGH!


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


user
I've seen this movie today for the first time and I never heard of it before, probably because of it's poor message.
First of all, the directing itself is quite good, the actors played well and the CGI (I'm not a fan of CGI) is magnificent. But that alone doesn't make a movie. No story at all, no message behind beautiful exploited talents.
Or do I have to make people remember, the art of a director is not only your vision but to know how to tell a story. And this is what's missing the whole 7 minutes.
There for a simple 4 rating.


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


user
Friz Freleng's 'Speedy Gonzalez' was the second cartoon to feature the title character after Robert McKimson's 'Cat-tails for Two'. In that cartoon, Speedy has been an ugly little creature with a big gold tooth but by his second appearance the famous design had already been adopted. Despite looking significantly more handsome, Speedy never developed into much of a character. A big hat, tremendous speed and a bad Mexican accent do not a classic character make and that's pretty much all Speedy ever had going for him. Nevertheless, the cocky little mouse proved enormously popular and went on to star in many shorts including some truly abysmal films from the studio's latter days. While these early Speedy shorts are better than those later atrocities in which he was frequently (rather oddly) paired up with Daffy Duck, they still leave much to be desired, relying on predictable gags usually based around a similar chase formula. In this self-titled episode, Speedy is recruited by some other mice to steal cheese for them from the local factory which happens to be guarded by Sylvester the cat. Although he brings the extra weight of a star turn to the cartoon, Sylvester's role here could just as easily been filled by any other generic cartoon cat. His personality is sapped by his being forced into the predictable. undemanding role of pursuer. This was always a problem in the Tweety cartoons too but Speedy makes an even duller adversary thanks to his detestable cockiness and the blatant impossibility of his capture. Poor old Sylvester would be forced to appear alongside Speedy for many years to come. Despite it following a pretty basic formula and featuring minimal laughs, 'Speedy Gonzalez' won an Oscar and a thoroughly undeserving star was born.


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


user
Seriously, I've read some of the reviews on this film, and I have to ask, were you people watching the same movie.
Yes, I give the set directors a lot of credit for being able to recreate 1930 vintage Los Angeles, but so what?
None of the characters are likable, the story seems aimless, Karen Black is simply not a very good actress. Donald Sutherland is just icky. (and his character "Homer Simpson" makes me wish for the animated version. D'oh!) Then you had the creepy child actor, the creepier Billy Barty, and so on.
This is one of those films cinema buffs love and the rest of us look at each other and go, "What the heck!"


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


user
A propaganda film for the Palestinian "cause". If you were expecting an unbiased documentary on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you will need to look elsewhere. If you are an anti-Semite (or merely an anti-Zionist---nothing wrong with advocating the destruction of a country, right?) or uncritically in support of Palestinian goals (e.g., mass murder, the destruction of Israel), this is the documentary for you. Should make for an entertaining evening on college campuses around the UK and US. However, any informed and intellectually honest person would be outraged at the sheer number of lies presented in this video. I just hope those who truly are unaware of the situation aren't corrupted by this anti-Semitic filth.


assistant
0