empathielabs/imbd_dataset_v0 huggingface dataset:
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I saw this at an arty cinema that was also showing "Last Days" and some Charlie Chaplin films. Based on the quality of the other features, I decided to give "Immortel" a chance. I nearly walked out of this movie, and I LIKE science-fiction! The story is set in a futuristic New York city, filled with Blade Runner-style sky advertisements and some similar debates about cloning/synthetic humans. Unfortunately, the screenplay was not condensed enough for an hour-and-forty-five-minute movie. Three groups exist in this world: humans, artificial humans, and Egyptian gods. The artificial humans seem to have the upper hand and control the politics of the city. The humans are slaves and are used for eugenics and organ donation. The Egyptian gods have a floating pyramid (modeled on the Great Pyramid of Khufu, and complete with a deteriorated exterior, leaving a smooth "cap" on the pyramid. Wouldn't a floating futuristic pyramid be in perfect condition?). The pyramid rests above the city and nobody on the ground understands what it is or why it's there. I won't bore you with the so-called plot, but there is lots of unnecessary gore and many gross-out scenes. The film, as I said, looks to have been influenced by Blade Runner, and perhaps also by The Fifth Element and The Matrix. At the end of the film credits were listed thank-yous to the United Kingdom, France, and Italy. The film is FRENCH, but uses British actors who don't speak French. Hence, it is obvious that their French dialog has been dubbed. This is a distraction, and I also thought that switching back and forth between real humans and animations quite distracting. It doesn't help that the animations are poor--no better than a video game. Skip 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
I love science fiction, I am fascinated by Egyptian mythology and I appreciate digital animation. I figured a movie that combines these three would be at least enjoyable. I could not have been more wrong: The story (or actually the lack there of) was completely uninspired and lacks imagination - while imagination usually is the biggest component of any science fiction story. The dialogue and acting are even worse than in an average porno movie. Especially Thomas Kretschmann gives new meaning to the term 'bad performance'. Bad acting wouldn't have been such a huge problem if only 'director' Bilal didn't take himself so seriously; all the lines sound like they are supposed to be poetic, it looks like Bilal really thinks he has made a piece of art here. Well, there's no art or poetry to be found in this piece of junk, only pretentiousness! This man should really stick to making comics, since he fails on all possible accounts as a director. Worst of all is the terrible digital animation, which is so ugly that it actually turns watching this movie into a physically painful experience. The graphics look so fake they even make the werewolves in 'Van Helsing' look like live actors! And since half the characters are CGI-animated, it is quite a problem that the CGI-effects look so fake. If the Egyptian Gods actually exist then Bilal's a dead guy, since they will no doubt take gruesome revenge on him for the ridiculous way in which he portrays them in this disastrously bad movie.


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


user
This movie seems to start in the middle, introduces peripheral players as if they were significant and presents main characters without any substance and paper-thin and/or impenetrable back-stories. Almost nobody has a credible or discernible motivation for their actions in this film. The plot rambles and ultimately goes nowhere, the dialogue is clunky and trite and the director has little concept of how to get the best from his actors. It almost feels like there's a first half of this movie but it never got made.
We're told that a mysterious pyramid has appeared over New York City and that Central Park has inexplicably become an arctic wasteland. Yet none of this seems to have caused much of a stir amongst the general population and is only of minimal concern to the government.
We're presented with the "evil corporation" in Eugenics but that's really just a convenient conceit to populate the universe with a couple power-tripping minions. The whole "Eugenics-is-bad" double-entendre is heavy-handed and never really pans out here. We're supposed to care about the central characters but we never learn enough about them to know why. So much about this world is underdeveloped or completely undeveloped that it comes off as a 1-hour, 40-minute fatalistic rationalization for rape.
On the "ground-breaking" digitally animated world created here, all I can say is that at about the same time as this film was made several other directors did the same thing with more seamless and believable results.
After spending the time to watch this film the most burning question left in my mind was, "so what?"


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


user
The Good:
Effective color scheme. Good costumes. Top notch set production. Well detailed CGI buildings and vehicles.
The Bad:
Horrible mixture of actors with all CGI actors mixes Fifth Element with Final Fantasy. The CGI actors look even worse than video games from a few years ago. Flawed logic. A giant pyramid shows up and no one researches it, no one really even questions it? And there is no explanation as to why the god Horus was even cast out, nor was there any reason why he must do something as trivial as impregnate Jill?
The Ugly:
Awful script. So many unnecessary subplots with too many ideas that are not fully realized. The dialog was almost laughable at some points. Random characters and events that are not needed. Dull characters. Jill is supposed to be this mystery, but apparently she was just a mystery to the writer. There is nothing to her. She is uninteresting and boring to watch. She has no substance, no texture. Her character has no redeeming qualities. In fact, there is not one character in the entire film who has any purpose, any goals (besides the obvious one of Horus), any motivation. They are weak and ill-conceived. There are no stakes - the key to screen writing. Horus will not become immortal, but, big deal, he is a bad guy. One cannot even decipher whether Horus or Jill is the main character. That is the problem: devoting half the movie to each character means the writer never fully explores one character, never brings one to fruition. They are cardboard cut-outs who walk around and talk and pretty much do nothing but explore the fine set pieces. First time director pacing. Slow, slow, slow. I am still watching the movie as I write this. I cannot pay attention because it is boring. Everything is flat. Even the action is not interesting because it is short-lived and sometimes unnecessary.
Overall:
Not worth a watch. Threadbare story, sub-par character development, corny CGI does not save the nice set production.


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


user
While others may contend that by viewing other works by Bilal, one will better appreciate this movie, it does fail in one major way. It does not stand on its own. The plot is a mishmash that is confuses symbolism with substance. Here's an idea start with a definite story. Then craft symbolism around it. We start with two different narratives, this female that is somehow turning human, a "god" that is for some reason being judged, but getting one last fling on Earth, and this mysterious John character who seems to be developing some sort of "resort" just beyond the bounds of the city. Why? None of these questions are answered. But do we care, no. There is no development to want us to empathize with any character in the story, the closest we get Jill and even then the development is spotty at best. Unfortunately the movie gets caught up in the the whole visually impressive (which it is,) but at the expense of motivic development. I would love to see this rewritten by someone who could distance themselves from the material a bit and not have to feel that every image has to be in the picture.


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


user
I love the comics. Although I do have problems fully understanding the stories  the visual style is unique with all its dirt, dust and decay. So I thought I knew what I was up for. Surprisingly I understood the main plot  but some extremely poorly decisions where made for its visual style.
I mean - really bad looking "CG human actors"-in close ups? Why?! It did not work at all!! Horus - and the other Egyption gods - was successfully made in CG and very close to the comic version.
I think with real actors this movie could have been a cult movie.
What a shame.


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


user
I sat through this film and i have to say it only just managed to keep my attention. The film would have been a bit more bearable if i did not have to watch the awful CGI, for future reference to the industry if your going to use CGI watch this so you know what to avoid.
Apparently this is supposed to be a graphic novel for the screen but all i saw was a bad movie which bears no resemblance to a graphic novel whatsoever.
All in all, the story was not as bad as the CGI, i was quite impressed with the acting and thought the casting was good and little more character info would have been nice as it did get a little confusing for me on occasion but that's not surprising as like i said it only just kept my attention, but in all honestly i wish i had given this one a miss.


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


user
The movie remains in the gray for far too long. Very little gets explained as the movie progresses, with as a result lots of weird sequences that seem to have a deeper meaning but because of the way of storytelling they become only just weird and not understandable to watch. It sort of forces you to watch the movie again but no way I'm going to do that. It is that I watched this movie in the morning, I'm sure of it that if I watched this movie in the evening I would had fallen asleep. To me the movie was like a poor man's "Blade Runner".
The movie leaves far too many questions and improbabilities. It makes the movie leave a pointless and non-lasting impression.
Also the weird look of the movie doesn't help much. The movie is halve CGI/halve real life but it's not done halve as good, impressive, spectacular and imaginative as for instance would be the case in later movies such as "Sin City" and "300". They even created halve of the characters of the movie by computer, which seemed like a very pointless- and odd choice, also considering that the character animation isn't too impressive looking. Sure the futuristic environment is still good looking and the movie obviously wasn't cheap to make but its style over substance and in this case that really isn't a positive thing to say.
Some of the lines are also absolutely horrendous and uninteresting. The main God of the movie constantly says lines such as; 'I'm going to do this but it's none of your concern why I want to do it'. Than just don't say anything at all Mr. Horus! It's irritating and a really easy thing to put in movie, if you don't care to explain anything about the plot. Also the deeper questions and meanings of the movie gets muddled in the drivel of the movie and its script.
The actors still did their very best. They seemed like they believed in the project and were sure of it that what they were making would be something special. So I can't say anything negative about them.
The story and movie is far from original. It rip-offs from a lot of classic and semi-classic, mostly modern, science-fiction movies. It perhaps is also the reason why the movie made a very redundant impression on me.
A failed and uninteresting movie experiment.
3/10


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


user
My first attempt at watching this ended in 8 minutes, roughly after the TV report scene, which I couldn't handle. It went approximately like this:
Reporter 1: Hmm, there's a pyramid in our skies. Reporter 2: I think it's aliens. *awkward silence* Reporter 1: In other news...
A few days later I watched it to the end, and it wasn't as horrible as I've imagined, but there are serious problems with this. About half of the plot can be easily discarded. And the other half should be expanded to explain the background story or something.
What use are the detective, the eugenics people, and the monsters which are disposed of momentarily by Horus? More amusing was the monopoly scene. "We're all powerful "Gods", who have lived for aeons, and of all the games in the multiverse we happen to play monopoly." Monopoly? Monopoly?! Even Erich von Dainiken looks coherent, compared to that.
The other half is terribly lacking. What did our protagonist do to get himself cryo-frozen? Why was there no big event when he was released at the end? He had those pesky followers, remember? What happened to normal humans? What's the deal with the masked guy? How did the blue-haired girl appear? What's with her eyesight? Etcetera, etcetera.
Visually it's OK, more or less, if you disregard the Egyptian Gods looking like walking turds with rotweiller heads.


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


user
Knowing Enki Bilal's comics for quite some time, I had to see this movie. I have thought this would be a good way for the artist as Bilal to spread his art and ideas to wider audience. I have also thought this would be a good movie to recommend, and I thought I will enjoy watching it... I was wrong! The movie was a true torture to watch. The idea has potential... but, movie leaves way too much to be desired, and basically everyone who sees this movie is left with impression that he could do it better. I will not make suggestion whether you should see this movie or not. Chances are if you're reading these pages that you have already seen it, or that you're gonna see it - but be prepared for very bad 102 minutes.


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


user
....CAUSE IT'S CRAP! The kind of movie that makes you want to go and smack the movie maker and say "WHY?". Horrible camera work...count the times the camera tries to remain steady on one person and can't. The dialog is ridiculous. The acting is comical. It looks like they took over a ghost town in the west to see if they could make a movie on the least amount of money possible. I'd bet $10 they used home video cameras to make this. Either that, or most of the cameramen were drunk. Truly the trailers are more entertaining than the movie. If you ever want to host a "Worst Movie Party", bring this one. Want more entertainment...stare at a wall.


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


user
Where do they get the money to make films like this? I mean, there's nothing redeeming about this film. None of the actors are known, the writing is terrible, the photography is blurry, the story wanders between being a bad version of Repo Man and a nicklodeon western and the acting is unbelievable. For someone who watches all kinds of film, good and bad, I must admit that this film is about the worst I've seen since Attack of the Eye People back in the 50's. I don't really like to trash the effort of people trying to create some entertainment or, heaven forbid, art but this film would seem to appeal to no one. The story bends on a mystical contamination of a person who's a bad version of the Celtic Soul eater, although he functions more like a male succubus without the sexual overtones. The bad guys have to team up with the good guys in a town where they are unable to escape from. Take it from there as that, alas, is the best part. My advice is that unless you are into bad mythology, amateurish writing, unconvincing acting and tedious settings, you will best be served by leaving this one on the shelf when you're out renting videos.


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


user
I still find it difficult to comprehend that a movie as bad as this could be made in Hollywood. The acting and story is simply pathetic & the direction is awful. I don't see any logic behind this trash except may be that the director had nothing good to do. I took me ten minutes to realize that i had wasted my precious thirty rupees. It filled me with dismay that i was going to waste some more time of my life on this crap. I bet the movie was made in less than a day. I don't know what category it falls into. Please, avoid this movie at all costs, just do anything, even bang your head against walls but don't go for 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
There is a scene near the beginning after a shootout where horses are running. If something red catches your eye it is because a white van is parked behind a bush by the trail. I thought I had seen bad but this is it. A white van in a western. Did they not catch this? Oh well, and I paid top dollar at the rental. It will make you want to grab your buddies and have them all put in 10 grand and make a better movie. The talking was so so slow, the acting was mostly OK but couldn't be taken seriously due to the poor nature of the filming. There is a door at the sheriffs that looks like a door today with the particular trimming. I say watch this movie, and move Cabin boy into #2 on the worst of all time.


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


user
I just got through watching this DVD at home. We love Westerns, so my husband rented it. He started apologizing to me half way through. The saddles, costumes, accents--everything was off. The part that made me so mad is where the guy didn't shoot the "collector" with his bow and arrow as he was taking the fat guy's soul. His only excuse was "he only had 2 arrows left." We watched it all the way through, and, as someone else said...too many bad things to single out any one reason why it sucked. I mean, the fact that the boy happened to snatch the evil stone from the collector on the same month and day it was found, what's the point of that? And why were there a grave yard where everyone died on April 25 but the people whose souls were taken by the collector were still up walking around? If you want a movie to make fun of after a few beers, this may be your movie. However, if you want a real Western, you will hate this movie.


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


user
I love Westerns. I could watch them all day. "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" is my all time favorite. I watched "Silverado" for probably the 8th time just the other day because it was being featured on CMT. However, this movie, Shiloh Falls is without a doubt the worst Western I have ever watched. The acting was terrible all around. They explain nothing at the end of the mysterious compass looking thing. The only good part I can think of is the good-looking cantina girl. The very noticeable long pauses between the dialog seemed intentional just to make up time to make the movie of acceptable length. This movie wasn't even worth the new rental fee I paid at our local movie rental store. I felt like I was robbed and deserving of a rental refund if there was such a thing. Only reason I finished it was because I hate to not see a movie through to the end. I turned it off half way through because it was so bad. To the director, please do a better job if you decide to make another. This is the kind of movie that has the potential to turn people off to Westerns.


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 a stupid piece of crap. Bad everything. Why is it that we who love western movies get jilted nine out of ten times when renting westerns. It seems that if you don't see names like Robert Duval, Kevin Kostner, or Tom Selleck attached to the cover, it isn't worth messing with. For the most part the main action of Shiloh Falls was taking place in 1892, yet the revolvers used were 1860s models. Even the shooting was bad - in one scene the Marshal fanned his six-shooter about nine times and couldn't hit any of three large men who were only about twenty feet away. I had to turn it off after about 15 minutes of this inanity. Perhaps those who participated in this movie could have taken some lessons at the Sunset Carson School of Acting.


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


user
While I certainly consider The Exorcist to be a horror classic, I have to admit that I don't hold it in quite as high regard as many other horror fans do. As a consequence of that, I haven't seen many of The Exorcist rip-offs, and if Exorcismo is anything to go by, I'll have to say that's a good thing as this film is boring as hell and certainly not worth spending ninety minutes on it! In fairness to the other Exorcist rip-offs, this is often considered one of the worst, and so maybe it wasn't the best place for me to start. It's not hard to guess what the plot will be: basically it's the same as the one in The Exorcist and sees a girl get possessed by a demonic spirit (which happens to be the spirit of her dead father). The village priest is then called in to perform the exorcism. Like many Spanish horror films, this one stars Paul Naschy, who is pretty much the best thing about the film. Exorcismo was directed by Juan Bosch, who previously directed the derivative Spanish Giallo 'The Killer Wore Gloves'. I haven't seen any of his other films, but on the basis of these two: I believe that originality wasn't one of his strong points. There's not a lot of good things I can say about the film itself; it mostly just plods along and the exorcism scene isn't worth waiting for. I certainly don't recommend it!


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


user
Why every horror director wants to imitate "The Exorcist" is a complete riddle to me, as William Friedkin's "classic" is a very overrated film and, in my opinion, not all that tense or shocking. And yet here's another clean rip-off, a Spanish one this time, that shamelessly repeats the story of a young girl that gets possessed by pure evil and turns against her own family. Paul Naschy (who I must admit looks quite hot here) plays the honorable priest who gets approached by John Gibson because his sister Leila's behavior changed drastically since she met her new boyfriend. At first the priest doesn't believe it but when John's body is discovered with its neck twisted, Leila's demonic behavior becomes more noticeable... "Exorcism" is not only very unoriginal, it's also an insufferably boring film! Here Naschy and director Juan Bosch had an open opportunity to make a religiously themed exploitation flick full of shocks and gore, and yet the result is a tame and overall bloodless drama that'll nearly put you to sleep! The last twenty minutes contain some atmospheric moments, albeit very stupid, and there's quite a lot of stylishly filmed female nudity and sleaze. The absolute lack of budget is no real excuse since Paul Naschy already proved before that he has enough imagination to make up for a shortage in money. This is just an awful film, end of story. Other European "The Excorcist" rip-offs are "The Antichrist" and "Beyond the Door" and they suck as well!


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


user
I grew up watching Inspector Gadget. It was, and still is, one of my favorite cartoons, if not my absolute favorite. I learned a lot of geography and history from the spin-off Inspector Gadget's Field Trip. I wanted to slip on a banana peel and become the greatest detective ever.
But the film has ruined the reputation of the wonderful cartoon.
Matthew Broderick, an actor with potential, was definitely NOT the role for Inspector Gadget. First thing- in the film, Inspector Gadget is smart. Not so in the cartoon. In the film, Gadget solves the mystery mostly by himself. In the cartoon, it was almost always Penny, Brain, and the awesome book (I still want her book!). If Gadget solved the mystery, it was by accident. Gadget in the film seems to be a competent detective, but in the cartoon was pretty dumb, which was where the humor came from.
Another thing is that it's too much "Good Guy v. Bad Guy" in the film. It's not just meant to be a silly Saturday morning cartoon. Also, Gadget never should have a love story, but Disney Corporation is filled with idiots.
Also I miss the true gadgets that Gadget had, and especially the Gadget car. In the movie it was a chic convertible. In the cartoon it was a sedan police car and could turn into a van. It also barely had any gadgets and was mainly there to get him from place to place.
But if anything, the one thing that was terrible about the movie was that it was a feature movie. Inspector Gadget was a silly Saturday morning cartoon. The movie was too serious, too overdone, had too much of a plot and wasn't even remotely as funny.
Tip for those who haven't seen it: NEVER see it. EVER. Watch the cartoon, it's a true classic.


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


user
Once again, Disney manages to make a children's movie which totally ignores its background. About the only thing common with this and the original Gadget cartoons is the names. The most glaring errors are the characters - Penny does not have her book, Brain has been reduced from a character to a fancy prop, Dr Claw is more a show-off than an evil villain, etc. but there are more than that. The horrors start from the first minutes of the film - having Gadget as a security guard called John Brown doesn't help identifying him as the classic Inspector Gadget. And right in the beginning we see Disney's blatant attempt to turn every story ever into a love affair between a man and a woman - they introduce Brenda, who only serves to make this movie Disney-compatible. Add to this the fact that the "Claw" seen in this film and the classic Dr Claw are almost diagonally opposite and you'll see this is going to be nowhere near the original storyline. What would help would be a better storyline to replace it - but as you guessed, Disney failed in that too. The whole movie is just Gadget acting silly for silliness's sake and lusting after Brenda. As if to add insult to the injury, Disney introduced the "new" Gadgetmobile - it doesn't look, function or think like the old Gadgetmobile at all, it's just the canonical "comic relief" figure. Disney obviously recognised that the Gadget cartoons were a comedy, so they made the film a comedy too, but they took out all the clever running gags (like the assignment paper exploding in the Chief's face) and replaced them with Gadget being a moron, the Gadgetmobile being a wise-ass, and "Claw" showing off. Someone should tell Disney that "children's movie" doesn't imply "total lack of any brain usage". Gadget should be targeted for children of 10-12 years... not children of 10-12 months like this movie. Whatever this movie is supposed to be, it is NOT, repeat NOT, the real Inspector Gadget. Because I love the old Gadget, I hate 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 used to have a fascination with the cartoon back in college when it was being made. It had much the charm of "Get Smart". While it admittedly had its faults, it was rather enjoyable.
Naturally I was very interested in seeing the film version. That was before I saw it. Afterwords I wished it had never been made.
Besides being miscast all around (who on Earth though Broderick was even close to the role?) it just didn't make the grade.
The effects were reasonable and perhaps the ONLY thing I liked about the movie; seeing a live-action version of the gadgets in action! What was missing was a story and treatment which made it funny or charming or interesting.
The original was a wacky cartoon with a very lighthearted attitude. It was FUN. The motion picture became murky and took itself FAR too seriously. If it had seriously had a great plot or went crazy enough to make it seem like a "cartoon on film" it might have been enjoyable.
As it exists it doesn't deserve to be considered part of the "Gadget Legacy".


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


user
I grew up watching the old Inspector Gadget cartoon as a kid. It was like Get Smart for kids. Bumbling boob can't solve any case and all the work is done by the walking talking dog Brain and his niece Penny. I had heard the live action movie was decent so I checked it out at the library. I rented this movie for free and felt I should have been paid to see this.
Broderick comes nowhere near the caliber of acting Don Adams had as the voice of gadget. His voice was all wrong. The girl who played Penny looked nothing like the cartoon Penny. She is brunette where the cartoon version was blonde with pigtails. But she does do a decent job given what she had to work with. Dabney Coleman gives a good performance as Cheif Quimby. Saldy he never hid in any odd place or had exploding messages tossed at him accidently by Gadget.
The gadget mobile was wrong. It never talked in the series and it did fine. Why did they do this?
Gadget was too intelligent in this film. In the show he was a complete idiot. Here he had a halfway decent intellect. It would have worked better if he was a moron.
Also the completely butchered the catchphrase. Borderick says "Wowser". It is and should always be "Wowsers". It sounds lame with out the 's'. I got upset when they showed the previews and they didn't have the correct phrase.
The ONLY decent gags were during the credits. The lacky for Claw is in front of a support group for recovering henchmen/sidekicks. Seated in the audience is Mr. T, Richard Keil aka Jaws of Bond movie fame, a Herve Villacheze look alike, Oddjob, Kato and more. This is about the only part I laughed at.
The other is at the end where Penny is checking out here gadget watch and tells brain to say somethin. Don Adams voices the dog saying that "Brain isn't in right now. Please leave your name at the sound of the woof. Woof." of course this isn't laugh out loud funny, just a nice piece of nostalgia to hear Adams in the movie. He should have at least voiced the stupid car.
Kids will like this, anyone over 13 won't.



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


user
I was a huge fan of the original cartoon series, and was looking forward to finally seeing Gadget on the big screen -- but I never in my wildest dreams expected something so extremely extremely terrible. The pace was WAY too fast, there was no plot, and 'wowser!' - what the hell is that?? It was 'WOWSERS!!'.


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


user
Well. Where to begin. Let's just say this; avoid this movie at all
costs. It's based on a cartoon series. The movie makes the cartoon look
like Hamlet. Filled with emasculated actors who seem embarrassed to be
here, lousy camera work, terrible music, and enough product placement to
make you want to never visit Yahoo! again, this movie is really the
bottom of the barrel. To quote the New Yorker, Matthew Broderick and
Rupert Everett mug their way through this picture with the gay abandon
of men who have spotted a rare species of paycheck in the distance."
They should pay us some of the millions they earned for watching it.
Awful.


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 enjoy seeing what must have started as a 2 hour movie in unconnected bursts of unwatchability, you'll love this film. Otherwise, you'll just wonder how they could have made such a film from something so simple to translate to the big screen as Inspector Gadget.
In the previews for the film, many scenes were shown which were not in the film, and within the film, some scenes just don't make sense. While the movie is slightly less than 1 hour and a half, I can only think of one truly memorable moment, and that is just before or during the credits!



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


user
This is one of those movies you think that the makers would refuse to release it because it is so terrible. Obviously they were thinking that children are stupid and are excellent for absorbing endless ads and would think they are entertainment because it is slapstick funny. What is it with the talking car with buttons that say Wendy's, McDonalds, M&M's and Skittles? There was no talking car in the cartoon. (Dr.) Claw is supposed to be evil, not handsome and charming. Why is Rupert Everet 'Claw' anyway? Were the writers on drugs when they wrote these scenes? It looks like they were (badly) lampooning Robo Cop, with the turning a man into a crime fighting android thing. I tried to get my money back but there was a policy where if I watch more than 30 minutes of a movie, you don't get a refund. I'm sorry I watched more than 30 minutes of that pile of crap. After I was told the no-refund policy, I decided to watch the rest of the hideous garbage called Inspector Gadget.


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


user
I'm not quite sure why, but this movie just doesn't play the way it should. It should be humerous and fun, but instead is just boring. I think a large part of it is because they way over played the "gadgets." The old cartoon it is based on is much better.
3/10


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


user
Since I had loved the Inspector Gadget cartoon in the 80's, I went to see this movie. I wasted my money. The plot was very thin. Also, the movie could not keep me interested for long. I was glad it was over.
If you want to see Inspector Gadget, watch the cartoon instead. It was much better than the movie.


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


user
Luckily I did not pay to see this movie. Also, I cannot even reveal any spoilers because I willingly WALKED OUT after forty minutes of the movie. It was that bad. I laughed once, when the Yahoo! billboard fell on the guy, and the theme song came on. However, that was only because I thought it was making fun of it, but then I realized it was yet ANOTHER product placement.
I loved the cartoon. I used to watch it almost religiously. (although i missed the last episode. I heard that they show Dr. Claw and it was nothing more than a Claw, somebody comment on the show's page) The cartoon had Penny and Brain alot more than the movie had, as to that point. I hated the setup of the whole thing, reminiscent of Robocop. Then Broderick screws with the whole feeling of Inspector Gadget. He is not nearly as clumsy as the cartoon was. Another fact is his gadgets actually work to the point I saw, except for the oil slick. He also screwed with the tone of "Wowsers" which used to be in an excited tone. I felt so disappointed that they slaughtered the cartoon so badly. Everybody else felt that way too. Us 14-17 year olds remember the cartoon fondly and we loved every minute of it.
I went into the movie with an open mind, knowing that they would have screwed with the cartoon. I was taken aback at how retarded the movie was. It relied on sight gags, and stupid dialogue for humor. Disney relies on pain and physical humor to push a kids movie along. Product placement is pointless in this film, and it shows. The wise-cracking car is not that good at cracking wise. The gadgets look nice, but they were almost overly glossy. The cartoon was a better look. The silly scenes were crap. In the 40-45 minutes I watched the movie, not one laugh was heard, and they laughed at the Dudley-Do-Right preview. This movie should not be watched by people who want intelligence in their family entertainment. I highly recommend "The Iron Giant," which was sad, but very very good. This movie is a travesty to the whole family drama.------------1


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


user
I really wanted to like this movie - the location shots were mostly filmed in Pittsburgh and the trailer had some wonderful photography. But, even for a filmed cartoon, it was a really badly-made movie. The continuity and pacing were both simply awful. The best bits in the movie are under the ending credits, so it's (almost) worth sticking it out to the end (though, oddly, it does pick up a little over the last half hour or so).
When the best performance in a movie is by Andy Dick, you know there's got to be a problem...


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


user
Why?!! This was an insipid, uninspired and embarrassing film. The embarrassment comes from being from the city where they made it...Pittsburgh PA! Why did they let these people do such a BAAAAAD movie there?
When this movie was originally to be released...it was more of a romantic comedy...and no ROBO-anything. That all got changed along with cuteness courtesy of Disney. WHY???? They did a terrible interpretation of this classic comic character. Seeing Matthew Broderick make fun of his own movies was not fun either. Sheesh!!


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


user
After Disney's witty live-action George of the Jungle, I had high hopes for this flick. Major disappointment. Thread bare plot, bad acting, bad visual effects. This film relied on lame one-liners, idiotic ( and pointless) product placement, and the lamest most annoying side-kick in that gadget car thing. I took two young kids to see it and they where bored out of their mind. The only laugh received from this movie was bad standby of when needing a laugh show a guy getting it in the groin!


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


user
OK. I think the TV show is kind of cute and it always has some kind of lesson involved. So, when my kids decided they wanted to see this movie, I decided to tag along. I wish I'd stayed home and watched the TV show instead.
The fact that the humor is silly and unoriginal is the least of the problems with this movie. The plot is next to non-existant, the characters seem to exist in a vacuum, and, worst of all, Gadget does not carry any lesson whatsoever. It appears that Disney took all of the things that make Inspector Gadget work on TV and tossed them all. To be fair, my younger child (8 years old) liked the movie but the older one (10 years old) came away thinking it silly (he was too old for the youth humor but too young for any of the adult humor).
Generally, I like Disney films but this one misses by a mile. It is OK for a very narrow age band (say 7 to 9) but a must miss for everybody else.


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


user
Disney's done it again. The company that made "Mr. Magoo" and "George of the Jungle" has made another movie that barely resembles the cartoon on which it is based, and keeps none of the spirit of the original.
"Inspector Gadget" was one of my favorite cartoons when I was a young one, and for a movie of it to exist may have been a dream come true back then. Now that that movie does exist, I was severely disappointed, even outraged.
First we have the characters.
Gadget himself has the gadgets that made him such a fun character in the original cartoon (with well-done special effects accompanying them), and he even has some of the naivete of the original Gadget, but he is now more competent and is expected to solve the crime himself while Penny and Brain just watch.
Penny has little to do; while she played a major role in the cartoon, discovering the crime and halting it, and occasionally getting captured by the MAD agents, now she is simply introduced and then forgotten, although she does at least sneak into Claw's base.
Claw is the movie's version of Dr. Claw, who was a rather sinister, raspy-voiced man who wore metallic gloves and sat in his chair, his face hidden from view, as he stroked his cat and oversaw various crimes. Now he is simply a man with a claw for a hand, with no mystery behind the character.
Brain and Mad Cat exist in the movie, but are rather insignificant to it.
Even small parts of the cartoon aren't spared in this butchering. The famous expression "Wowsers!" was mysteriously changed to "Wowser", and Gadget's Gadgetmobile now looks different and talks.
There is even product endorsements everywhere. Why is "Yahoo!" advertised on a sign? Why does the Gadgetmobile have buttons for M&M's or Skittles?
Fans of the cartoon will hate it, others might will likely find the movie below par, and when all is said and done, this movie is another attempt to make some quick bucks off another old show.


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


user
In keeping with Disney's well-known practice of stealing.. I mean.. buying out known properties and bastardizing them, this live-action version of the venerable cartoon classic has got to be one of the worst re-makes in a year of bad re-makes. I grew up on the original cartoon TV series. Any episode of the original cartoon series will give you more laughs than this entire movie. Not present is Penny's cool computer book. Also not present is the gag with the self-destructing orders that always ends up detonating on the Chief. New are a smooth talking Gadget convertible (the original cartoon had a cooler vehicle that could turn into a van or a car) and an element of a typical, unrealistic Hollywood romance. Don't fill the coffers to pay for Disney executives and even their _ex_executives - don't see this movie.



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


user
I had absolutely nothing to do the past weekend, and tagged along with my friends to check out a movie...any movie. And since the only movie we'd not seen was Inspector Gadget, we decided to go in for that.
BIG MISTAKE. This is a movie that might appeal only to kids. Oh, and it's not like I don't enjoy movies targeted at the younger audience. But this movie had absolutely nothing to hold my attention. If you have nothing to do at home, go to sleep. Better than wasting hard-earned cash on this. Go check out the film if you're a kid or if you're a parent with a kid :)


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


user
5 minutes into this movie I was hyperventilating, shaking, and writhing in pain. And not in the good way. The story is about a troupe of idiotic children making prank phone calls to a psycho which is always a good idea. Turns out psychos don't like prank phone calls because in 2 minutes time he's at their door killing poor Williams mom and dad. Well skip ahead 15 years and guess what? Still prank phone calling people. Yep you would of thought that a horrible murder would of deterred them from doing that ever again but no. So after about two hours later and way too many scream ripoffs I realized that this movie gave me nothing but a terrible taste in my mouth and a severe urge to take my own life. This piece of crap isn't even worth laughing at the shoddy production, the "acting", or Rutger haurs dwindling career. I love crappy horror movies but this is the most unsatisfying piece I've ever seen. Just don't.


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


user
Saw it yesterday night at the Midnight Slam of the Festival des films du Monde in Montreal. What a disappointment. This movie is clearly over rated by IMDb fans. The acting was only but regular. The directing didn't bring anything new or interesting. The plot lacks considerably : the movie is all about those college grads and the game they play making prank calls(7eventy 5ive). And on top of that, you can predict the movie's end in the first five minutes. If you like prank calls and a slasher with an axe that makes you jump only once or twice during the whole movie, you might like it. If you don't, this movie is not worth it.


assistant
0