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
Mmm, doesn't a big stack of pancakes sound good? Maple syrup and fruit preserves on top. Take a bite. Mmmmmmm. Take another bite. Another. Another. EAT. EAT it, you!!! Keep shoveling it down your throat until your face turns green with nausea. You have just had the Ally McBeal experience.
I stumbled on this show in the winter of '98 and was instantly hooked. Like that stack of pancakes, I gorged myself on it. But the enjoyment soon wore off, because the Ally McBeal character (whom we see to be cute & endearing at first sight) soon becomes the most annoying, insecure, whining complainer you've ever met. (Call me a feminist, but I prefer my female leads to have a spine.) The gags & gimmicks of the show also become hackneyed, the music of Vonda Shepherd (which is really shoved in your face) becomes grating, and the incessant character changes & rewrites make the show into a damn soap opera.
My advice to you is to take this show in small doses, and quit as soon as it becomes bothersome (and it will). I made it through 2.5 seasons before my enjoyment had totally soured. It was good while it lasted, but like a crazy, neurotic ex-girlfriend it just turned ugly after it had overstayed its welcome.
And next time you go to IHOP, skip the pancakes. Order something healthy like the fruit cup. It'll sit with you much better.


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


user
What the hell is this? "Kooky drama"? "Lawyers in Loony Tunes Land"? The world's thinnest, most duck-faced actress (even more duck-faced and anorexic than Michelle Pfeiffer) overacts her bony butt off, making cretinous grimaces that would shame Bugs Bunny, in one of the most animated non-animated TV series ever. This is also the most annoying one-hour-format TV show ever, hence the worst.
All the men act like pansies, and I for one refuse to believe that even hip big-city shysters are all as delta-male-like as this sorry (short) bunch. Wuss Peter MacNicol manages to be even more irritating than Calista Flockofducks with his fake Hollywood "shshshs" speech impediment: it's the sort of pseudo-inability to pronounce the letter "S" by turning it into a moronic "SH" that the likes of Jon Shtewart and Christian Shlater also practice with zeal. Watching MacNicol talk, I always wonder how come his jaw doesn't dislocate... Human facial anatomy was never meant to support the pronouncing of the "SH" sound more than three times per second. He is a medical wonder.
This badly conceived and written legal-drama/comedy hodgepodge also features some very 90s PC. It has POLITICAL CORRECTNESS written with huge, neon letters. Is there anything more unrealistic than a bunch of LAWYERS being full of ideals, high principles, and moral fiber? Laughable, but that's the way defense lawyers have been portrayed in Hollywood since its inception. After all, what is more noble than defending a murderer, a rapist, or a thief? When a TV series as retarded as "Ally McBeak" starts preaching to America about how it should run the country, then it must be time for Paris Hilton to become President. "Ally McQuack" is both a product of recent and large-scale Western dumbing-down and a perpetrator of it.
Those supposed touches of "eccentricity", like the UNBELIEVABLY annoying musical numbers, are unconvincing and embarrassingly unfunny. This is no Monty Python. Whatever "new" the talent-free makers of this garbage were aiming for, they failed with honours. "Ally McBeak" is a highly commercialized TV venture aimed at indiscriminating yuppies, bored housewives, and bipolar lawyers. It's yet another dull "objection overruled sustained your Honour may I call the witness" legalistic baloney that the American audiences seem to eat up with relish for some strange reason...


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


user
"Ally McBeal" was a decent enough show, but it was very overrated. The characters become boring after a while and the jokes begin to fall short.
I think it chose an appropriate point in time to leave - it was starting to outstay its welcome.


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


user
The only way this is a family drama is if parents explain everything wrong with its message.
SPOILER: they feed a deer for a year and then kill it for eating their food after killing its mother and at first pontificating about taking responsibility for their actions. They blame bears and deer for "misbehaving" by eating while they take no responsibility to use adequate locks and fences or even learn to shoot instead of twice maiming animals and letting them linger.


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


user
Gregory Peck's acting was excellent, as one would expect, and the cinematography quite stunning even when playing directly into some melodramatic "moment." But, the rest of the film was overacted and hard to watch, for me anyway. I tried to like it, but had to fast-forward through the last thirty minutes or so. I feel I wasted a couple of good hours. Had it not been for Gregory Peck, I wouldn't have lasted fifteen minutes. 4/10.


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


user
This is the most depressing film I have ever seen. I first saw it as a child and even thinking about it now really upsets me. I know it was set in a time when life was hard and I know these people were poor and the crops were vital. Yes, I get all that. What I find hard to take is I can't remember one single light moment in the entire film. Maybe it was true to life, I don't know. I'm quite sure the acting was top notch and the direction and quality of filming etc etc was wonderful and I know that every film can't have a happy ending but as a family film it is dire in my opinion.
I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who wants to be entertained by a film. I can't stress enough how this film affected me as a child. I was talking about it recently and all the sad memories came flooding back. I think it would have all but the heartless reaching for the Prozac.


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


user
I don't know if the problem I had with this movie is that I was not able to capture the way movies were done in the past but I believe that this one did not miss to make use of any of the the fashionable conventions available in the 40s to make a film. If you don't have anything better to do my advise is not to watch this movie but to read a book or to go out for a walk.


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


user
At first glance, this movie has got everything a psycho wants: a vampire story with a "not under 18" restriction, filled with hyper-violence, drugs, gore, sex (including lesbian sex), some fanatics zealots and even a gay necrophiliac cop! But then, this movie is a succession of bad story (so thin), bad acting -with a ridiculous english accent making you believe you're watching a bad Monty Python -, bad music ('80s hard rock), the videotaping is awful, the ending is a real shame... Plus the scenes of sex are ridiculous, the gore not very impressive. And those vampires reflect in a mirror, and don't even fear daylight! You get to be very disappointed, unless you see it as a "Space Mutiny" or "Troll 2". I hope Bloodlust will one day reach the bottom 100, because that's its real place.
I'd say it can still be fun to watch, if you have friends and enough beer.
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
I didnt think it was possible, but i have found film worse than 'Body Melt'. This film is really really bad! And what makes it worse is that its another Australian film...
Shot on what looks like VHS, and with a terrible 80's rock soundtrack, it just keep getting worse and worse, which is hard to believe seeing how bad the beginning is (skinned male hanging up-side-down in a white tomato sauce sprayed room anyone?).
And why do their accents keep changing? From bad New York drawl, to prissy english, then pure Aussie! And it happens to the whole cast!
This film also claims to have won some film festival on the cover (i believe it was the Utah Film Festival). This has to be a lie because no-one in their right mind would nominate this for anything (perhaps the Golden Rasberries but i thinks its too bad for that aswell).
Come on guys! This film has to be number 1 on the bottom 100!!! It has to be ten times a bad as those films already on there.
Well done to the "film" makers of this trash, for proving there is a reason not to see films..... 0/10


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


user
First up this film, according to the slick said it won "best film" at "Worldfest" Film festival in Houston, Texas. Hmmm must have been a quiet year.
Wouldn't call this the worst film ever but it certainly sucks, is pretty much just as terrible as other Aussie B grader "Body Melt", but at least that film didn't look like it was shot on HI 8 video.
My guess is the film makers, watched a lot of Troma films, and really bad B grade gore films, thinking that they too could crack into the business releasing this film.
Don't get me wrong, I love really low grade films, Just the fact that some of the characters put on fake American accents, almost as if doing so would give them more chance to sell it in the states or something. Really disappointing ending as well, the showdown could have been way more exciting, and some good fight scenes. You can completely see that the film makers are trying to copy "Bad Taste" with the whole, car explosion, rocket launcher, and endless amount of people being gunned down, yet the finale lacks any over the top humour, or style like "bad taste".
If you like watching really bad gore films, or are interested in no-budget film making, watch it, otherwise stay away.


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


user
Big Bad Ralph is also on the not so squeazy truck commercials, and can be found at numerous brothels around Melbourne any given night.
Terrible Film by the way, wasn't shocking just bad, uninteresting
The main guy was in charge of the metal section on countdown , and was the lead bouncer at a gay night club in Melbourne.
I dunno who the women where? probably pros's that Ralph knew?
No story of interest, its one of those fast forward jobs
Please look up Big Bad Ralph at brothels around Melbourne
hes famous in them.
i wish i could give 0/10 but ill give it 1. Only cos i cant give 0


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


user
the characters at depth-less rip offs. you've seen all the characters in other movies, i promise. the script tries to be edgy and obnoxious but fails miserably. it throws in some hangover meets superbad comedy but the jokes are way out of left field, completely forced, and are disreguarded almost completely after they are cracked. the hot chick is old and has no personality, shes just some early thirties blonde chick with a few wise ass non-underwear wearing jokes who is less than endearing. the attraction between Molly (the hot chick) and Kirk (the dorky love interest) is barely communicated. the attraction in no where to be found its a completely platonic relationship until they awkward and predictable seat belt- mishap kiss occurs. afer this they are in a full on relationship and its just incredibly lame. the main focus of this movie is not the relationship, but a failed attempt at making a raunchy super-bad-esquire movie with a semi appealing plot. I could compare this to the hangover, in its forced nature. i wont get into that. i could keep going but its just pointless. just don't pay to 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 thought that this movies was a letdown I expected it to be so much better than it was. I am so glad I didn't pay to see this movie and that I didn't sit in a movie theater for this one. Where to begin on this movie, the acting in this movie was average, the humor was terrible and just the overall storyline of this movie wasn't special. I thought that this movie was suppose to be great, but it wasn't more than a cheesy waste of time. I think that the acting in this movie was terrible no of the actors in this movie had chemistry, it just wasn't there. I think that if maybe we had a different actor play Kirk than Jay Baruchel it might have been better but the entire time I watched this movie he looked high and I didn't get the feeling that he wasn't acting in this movie. Now, Alice Eve did a great job as an actress but, there was no chemistry between her and Jay. All the actors in this movie were no names and had very little affect in this movie. The humor in this movie was not funny at all, there were a few one liners in this movie that were OK but nothing worth saying to your friends that they would understand. I think that Jim Field Smith had a hard time with this because he couldn't decide if he wanted a romance or a comedy. I honestly think he needs to stick with the Burger King commercials. I think that this movie could have been better if the writers would have gone to a different director. The storyline of this movie is just like every other hot girl just OK guy love storyboring I think that it would have been better if it had more originality, but what a letdown nothing. I honesty would not recommend anyone go see this movie. I think that you would have more entertainment at the dentist than at this movie. So save yourself the agony and just don't see it.


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


user
This movie probably had some potential for something; my bewilderment is how these utterly prosaic unfunny themes keep making it to theaters, it's as if ideas are being recycled just because generations are. Truly the decerebrate oafs behind most films are like dogs, they return to ingest their own vomit. Well, they're 19 bucks richer now because of me. This was not at all imaginative, there was no redeeming moment, anything remotely funny was shown in the trailer (and nothing amusing was in the trailer), performances were strained (especially Molly's, totally unconvincing). What was theoretically supposed to be some comic relief was the homoerotic friend with a penchant for Disney films; none of his analogies hit home, his little moral speeches were flat, I was literally waiting for them to go on to say something meaningful, only to find out he was done. The so-called "hard 10" is the most insipid plastic creature there is (apart from having a horse-like face with a weird smile); I honestly found her friend Patty (referred to as the Hamburglar) to be much better looking than her. But then again, gentlemen prefer brunettes ;) Well, anyway, the whole premise is that society is superficial and if love is true it transcends all social facades; the way they showed this, with a dude shaving another's scrotum and the million-times-mutilated-and-beaten-to-death-horse premature ejaculation routine (with obvious allusions to American Pie and Happiness - the latter in the disgusting scene denouement involving the family dog). I feel as if the movie was like adjoining ridiculous jokes into an unformed wretched ball of raw sewage. Goes to show marketing can push anything out there, shine whatever fetid mass and call it gold, people will come (worked for me). Done with tirade.


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 haven't figured out what is going to happen in this film in the first five minutes then give it a couple more minutes. Lilia is a widow. She has been left on the shelf for too long and she wants to burst out. She has a teenage daughter which only highlights that she is not getting any younger. While checking up on her daughter she discovers a world she never dared...the cabaret, where she can belly dance in skimpy sequined outfits while men throw money at her. The film is very misogamist. It's portrayal of men is dismal. Which is rather odd as Lilia stoops to jiggle around for them, not for money, but just for the hell of it. When she succeeds in arousing them it makes her feel like a woman again. She does not wish to connect with them but she is addicted to the attention. The other dancers all are mostly aging women who look like men in drag and realize their time in the spotlight is short-lived. Not short enough I say. She does find romance, however brief , with you guessed it....No surprises here we didn't see coming. Though the ending is good you realize that it could have ended no other way. Maybe this film just isn't targeting my demographic- 30 Male


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


user
Well, you'd better if you plan on sitting through this amateurish, bland, and pokey flick about a middle-aged widowed mom who has a little more in common with her young adult or old teen daughter than she would like. Set in Tunis, mom piddles around the flat, gets antsy, and decides, albeit reluctantly (she just can't help herself), to don the costume and dance in a local cabaret. Meanwhile her daughter is taking dancing lessons. The common denominator is a Tunisian band drummer. This film is so full of filler I watched the DVD at x2 and read the subtitles, fast forwarding through much of the very ordinary dancing and loooong shots of walking (they walk everywhere) and more walking and just plain dawdling at x4 just to get though this boring, uneventful, low budget flick which some how garnered some pretty good critical plaudits. Go figure. (C-)


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 a fan of Matthew Modine, but this film--which I stumbled upon on cable--is absolutely witless. I see that the screenwriter and director were one and the same, so there was no one around to check her worst instincts. There are no surprises, no original lines, and no original characters. The goldfish was basically the most sympathetic character. What a waste of all this acting talent. Given how expensive it is to film in New York these days, I have to wonder how this got made in the first place. And if you're wondering why I watched it at all, it came on after a film that I like on cable and I left it on while I worked at the computer. It's not a very demanding picture!


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


user
Worst movie ever made!!! Please see the Real movie reviews from the pros on this movie.Check Rotten Tomatoes on the web for some good independent reviews on this film. The comments made on this site are apparently from folks with some financial interest in this film. I find the positive comments very misleading. I find it amazing how the negative comments are so bad against this movie and the positive comments sound like an Academy Awards Speech. Don't waste your hard earned money!!!!!! This Film is retarded!! I can't believe a film like this would ever be made. Why would Hollywood waste their time on such junk? This film is an attempt at nothing. I ask myself what looser would actually sink their money producing such trash. I went to blockbuster and the attendant even told us not to waste our time or money. I didn't listen and I did waste my time and cash. Please don't make the same mistake! It really is the "Worst movie 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
I just saw this film last night in the 2006 Tribeca Film Festival and it seriously makes me wonder if the folks at the festival actually screen the films before selecting them. The film was simply awful - I say that without hyperbole or ulterior motives - it was awful. Matthew Modine's days as a leading man are way over. Gina Gershon sported an inexplicable and unnecessary English accent - she should be ashamed of her participation in this film. Gloria Reuben had a weird little cameo in it - she should also be ashamed. The script was terrible and the we were given absolutely no reason to care about the characters. I highly doubt this will be picked up, but then again, people in Hollywood are known to make mistakes sometimes. I really think "Kettle of Fish" is a serious contender for the worst movie I've ever seen.


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 that appears on cable at like two in the afternoon to entertain bored housewives while they iron. The acting is second rate. Poor Mathew Modine seems to sleepwalk through the whole film. And god help Gina Gershon. Her accent is too over the top. It sounds nothing like an true English woman. It sounds forced and phony, much like her acting. She should stick to what she does best, lesbian showgirl con-artist who plays in a rock & roll band and has a drug problem. The other characters are no better. They are two dimensional. empty, vapid and silly. How are we to supposed to care about these people. At one point Christy Scott Cashman get's lost in Central Park. Really? It's not that hard to navigate Central Park. Just follow any path out. Not only did I not care about ANY of the characters,I downright hated them. The only reason I even stayed with this train-wreck of a film was Fisher Stevens. Even his brilliant humor couldn't save this dying Fish. Each scene is typical romantic comedy fare and nothing is left to surprise us. The script was awful as was the acting. If you catch this Fish throw it back!


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


user
For the life of me I can't understand the good reviews on this piece of crap. It was pointless. Matthew Modine was horribly miscast as a leading ladies man. Gina Gershon, well, others have said it, but I'll reiterate, why the stupid accent? Totally unnecessary. And her acting was just bad. I don't know if she was thrown by the accent, or what. There was no chemistry between these two.
And the girl Modine was in love with, suddenly she's shoving half a head of lettuce in her mouth and acting in a goofy way? Where did that come from? I think we were supposed to feel sorry for her as we saw her marriage to a workaholic begin to crumble, but frankly, I couldn't care less about any of these people.


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


user
Let's face it, romantic comedies are considered lightweight when compared with dramatic movies (just look at the Academy Award nominations each year). But still, the good ones are truly an art form. Look at "When Harry Met Sally", "Sleepless In Seattle", and classics like "Roman Holiday" and "It Happened One Night". I like the good feeling of seeing two people destined to find happiness.
This movie attempts to construct something that resembles a romantic comedy. But no one believes the romance between the main characters, and there is nothing funny to make up for that major shortcoming. Modine is way past being a leading man - especially a romantic lead. I'm sure as Executive Producer, he had the means - but not the good sense - to cast himself. And Gershon...I see possibilities of some comedic talent, but she had no script and a poorly developed character. And whose idea was the English accent? Pointless.
Others have stated it, but I want to repeat: this story is poorly conceived, poorly executed; the actors are terribly miscast; and the characters, well, we just don't give a hoot about them.
An art form this ain't. Go rent "Moonstruck" again.


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 supposed to have depicted a 'ladie's man' bachelor who was ready and willing to settle down once and for all. However, I did not care for his mission to settle down, because I didn't care for his character. I don't understand what all of these beautiful women saw in him. He had absolutely no class, or charisma. He should've at least had a way about himself that made ladies weak in the knees other than his saxophone playing, but to no avail. Just because he is a musician does not make him sexy. Not to mention, the things he did to get the attention of a married woman he fell in love in a span of five minutes of knowing her were absolutely outrageous and ridiculous. Does this man have any shame what-so-ever? Had he tidied up, and stopped doing and saying stupid things he would have been more attractive as a character, but alas, his character was bland and boring.
Gina Gershon's character was unnecessarily British. She could've just as easily been an uptight out-of-towner with her regular speaking voice than do a poor British accent that sometimes would fade through out the movie.
The only two characters I cared for were the fish and frog. Now those two had chemistry! Academy nominations for both STAT! Plot holes, lack of character development, horrible acting, unnecessary drama, cliché moments... What a mess of a 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 was a disappointment - none of the nuance of the original. The Brits just seem to be able to make a truly unsettling film with none of the over-the-top histrionics of the American version. The original series combined both creepy stories and subtlety of performance with great attention to lighting and settings. I have watched the series many times and am still enthralled.
Just another poor adaptation along the lines of the dreadful adaptation of "Cracker". Get hooked up with BBC America or BBC Canada and watch for such delights as Waking the Dead, Spooks, Silent Witness, and Judge John Deed. Watch the original Touching Evil, then look for "Wire in the Blood" for more of the truly understated, elegant performance of Robson Green. Hollywood needs to have a look at this actor!


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


user
"Rival reporters Pat Morgan (Ginger Rogers) and Ted Rand (Lyle Talbot) are always trying to out-scoop each other on stories. The latest involves the mysterious death of a philanthropist who fell to his death after a shriek was heard from his penthouse apartment. The two reporters start out as rivals but combine efforts to solve the crime and write the story when more residents of the apartment building turn up dead," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.
This said-to-be follow-up to "The Thirteenth Guest" has little to do with the earlier movie; it is not a sequel, as has been inferred. Ms. Rogers continues to develop her skills. Mr. Talbot adds a little humor to his characterization. They are a pleasant team, the plot is interesting and mysterious; but, the resulting film is very dull. The opening and closing are startling. A long-winded wrap-up of plot development points follows the climax.
*** A Shriek in the Night (1933) Albert Ray ~ Ginger Rogers, Lyle Talbot, Harvey Clark


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


user
A very young Ginger Rogers trades quick quips and one liners with rival newspaper reporter Lyle Talbot in this 1933 murder mystery from Poverty Row film maker Allied Productions. The movie opens with a wealthy businessman taking a header from the roof garden of a high rise apartment house, or was it from a lover's apartment? Rogers actually has two identities at the film's outset, that of Miss Terry, the dead victim's secretary, along with her newspaper byline of Pat Morgan. Mistakenly phoning her story directly to Ted Rand (Talbot) instead of her paper's rewrite desk, she gets fired for her efforts when her boss learns he's been out scooped.
Here's a puzzle - it's revealed during Police Inspector Russell's (Purnell Pratt) investigation of Harker's death that Terry/Morgan had been employed as his secretary for three weeks. Why exactly was that? After the fact it would make sense that she was there for a newspaper story, but before? Clues are dropped regarding Harker's association with a known mobster conveniently living in the same apartment building, but again, that association isn't relevant until it's all linked up to janitor Peterson (Harvey Clark). And who's making up all the calling cards with the serpent effecting a HSSS, with the words "You will hear it" cut and pasted beneath? Apparently, the hissing sound of a snake was the sound made by the apartment house's radiator system, which Peterson used to transmit a poisonous gas into the rooms of potential victims, such as Mrs. Coby in the apartment below Harker. But in answer to a question posed to Inspector Russell about Mrs. Coby's death, he replied "apparently" to the cause of strangulation.
It's these rather conflicting plot points that made the movie somewhat unsatisfying for me. The revelation of janitor Peterson as the bad guy of this piece comes under somewhat gruesome circumstances as we see him stuff the unconscious body of Miss Morgan in the building's incinerator furnace! However, and score another point against continuity, we see Miss Morgan in a huge basement room as Peterson ignites the furnace; she made her getaway, but how? And still pretty as a picture. And who gets to make the collar off screen if none other than milquetoast police assistant Wilfred (Arthur Hoyt), who in an opening scene fell over his own feet entering a room.
Sorry, but for all those reviewers who found "A Shriek in the Night" to be a satisfying whodunit, I feel that any Charlie Chan film of the same era is a veritable "The Usual Suspects" by comparison. If you need a reason to see the film, it would be Ginger Rogers, but be advised, she doesn't dance.


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


user
What is supposed to be a simple generic mystery plot involving a dead philanthropist is, in fact, a head-ache inducing tale about a bunch of characters (the only big actor being Ginger Rogers, in a very early role) all trying to find the murderer among a small cast of residents in a posh apartment building. These characters range from utterly stupid to downright mean. As a cheap, low budget production, most of the action revolves around Rogers and her lead man (some guy, I don't care who he is 'cause he really sucked) talking about their various possibilities of solving the crime, while being constantly cut off by an absurd detective with his head in his butt. Honestly, I've never had a worse time watching an old b-rate movie of this type, and I've seen some real head-slappers.
Oh, and the butler didn't do it, because there wasn't a butler. But pay attention to the guy who's closest to a butler. There ya go.
--PolarisDiB


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


user
I am appalled at how bad this film is. As a pastiche of early 20th century Hollywood artistes it sets a new low - even past The Moderns or (gasp) Cradle Will Rock & I never thought I'd see a film worse than those 2. Granted they were about a slightly different milieu & period. Nevertheless the intents & results were distressingly similar.
First off there's the horrible casting: Eddie Izzard as CHAPLIN? Excuse me? Peter, did you owe this guy something? Jennifer Tilly as Loulla Parsons?? Kirsten Dunst as Marion Davies??? Holy smoke, these people don't even begin to try to capture the look or sound of the period they are purportedly depicting.
Well, Last Picture Show was a decent film, but this thing is a disaster & the rest of Bogdonovitch's pics haven't been much better. Guess rubbing up against Welles & Hitch & Ford wore off a long time ago. Still good for hosting TCM though.


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


user
After seeing this film I complained to my local cinema about the quality of the sound-track or whether the cinema sound system may be faulty. For at least the first half of the film it is extremely difficult to understand what anyone is saying because of the background 20's music and the scratchiness of the sound-track. I was ready to blame the cinema equipment but not so - it was the Director.
I was told the subject of my complaint was an essential part of the making of the film. The music and the sound was supposed to be distorted to create a very disturbing effect within the film. These days, directors will go to many lengths to make their film unique. Unfortunately, no matter where or how you see that film the sound score will be the same.
So apart from the historical inaccuracies of this film (which you can find out for yourself elsewhere) the sound-track distortions are in themselves a good reason to give this film a miss. You will only hear the distorted scratchiness of the sound-track and certainly not a cat's meow.


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


user
...is the only way to describe this movie about subjects that should be surefire: scandal, sex, celebrity, power. Kirsten Dunst grins her way through her role as silent movie star Marion Davies like she thinks she's in "Legally Blonde." The guy who plays William Randolph Hearst overacts to the point where you want to reach into the screen and slap him. Eddie Izzard is pretty good, except that he's playing Charlie Chaplin, and is about, oh, 125 lbs too heavy for the part? Hard to believe this hamfisted, uneven wreck was directed by Peter Bogdanovich, but then again, he hasn't made a watchable movie in, what? 30 years? Sometimes, there's just no coming back.


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


user
Anyone who is a sucker for 1920s jazz, 1920s dress, the Charleston, and ultra-swanky yachts (e.g. me, on all counts) will want to like this movie. But the sad fact is that that's all there is. The plot is banal and obvious, the acting mostly either awful or playing to the farcical side of the goings-on, and when the whole thing's over there is not much left but the impression of mirrors and smoke. This is a beautifully made 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
Just because an event really happened doesn't mean that it will make a good screenplay/ movie. The Cat's Meow, by Peter Bogdanovich claims to be based on actual events which happened on a cruise hosted by William Randolph Hurst. The writer paid more attention to creating a bizarre cast of characters than taking time to create a story for the bizarre characters to inhabit. The key moments of the story seem implausible; for example, when Hurst accidentally shoots the producer, believing him to be Chaplin. Basing a key element of a story on someone wearing the wrong hat is trite and contrived. The story attempts to be a dark comedy, but The Cat's Meow misses an important piece of this equation, comedy. There is also a lack of empathy for any of the characters. It hardly matters who is shot, who is killed, who is guilty and who is innocent. There is not a strong character to cheer for. As a result the conflicts are difficult to care about and the eventual outcome is incidental.


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


user
Kirsten Dunst is terribly overrated as an actress. You can tell always she's just "acting". I like Izzard though. Plot is awfully boring. The viewer has no real connections to the characters, never knowing who to really sympathize with, or even care about. Slow, dull movie, with some laughs, but few and not very funny anyway. Plot is not engaging or suspenseful in the least. You can see each plot turn coming a mile away. What is this movie supposed to be? Comedy? Drama? Who cares? You won't by the end of this film.


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


user
What happened to Peter Bogdanovich? Once a brilliant director, a trail blazer... is now scraping the very bottom... Is this the same man who directed "The Last Picture Show"? Here, he takes a somewhat interesting (albeit farfetched) premise, and turns it into bubble gum that loses flavor the moment you take the first bite... Dunst is not bad, but Izzard is miscast as Chaplin, and all the other actors seem to have been cast for their "looks", and not because they were right for the part. Too bad. I'll go rent "Paper Moon" again.


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


user
Anything that might have been potentially interesting in this material is sunk in the first few seconds with a disclaimer that the events we're about to see can't ever be known and "This is the whisper [rumor] most often told" about one of Hollywood's most sensational "mysteries."
Okay. So we're not getting anything new (and E!'s "Mysteries & Scandals" gives you a better foothold on the particular incident...and that's not much of an endorsement). What do we get?
We learn that Hollywood is a nest of viper's and decadents. No big news there. More interesting we learn what a washed up director is willing to do to regain his position of power in the entertainment industry and/or political establishment. It raises the question of whether Peter Bogdanovich is speaking from his own experience through these characters. But what's told is so cynical and ugly and muddled, we're left feeling guilty for witnessing a bunch of hooey that passes itself off as history.
The tone of the film has a curious madcap quality that I found more irritating than fun. We're not empathetic with anyone. And the great "Citizen Kane" polishes off the relationship between Davies and Hearts in a much more convincing way. In "The Cat's Meow" we're not ever sure of Davies motives for being with Hearst. As soon as we're told one thing, she's off doing the other.
And are we to believe that Davies was the love of Chaplain's life? Or is he just trying to cockold one of America's most powerful--and apparently moronic--citizens. The film never makes it clear.
What is convincing are the production values. There's a glorious recreation of the yacht and period costumes. I got more out of looking at the construction of some of the lapels on the men's jackets than following a story that libels many of the the most well-known personalities in Hollywood history. No one will remember that the screenplay is pure fiction. The disclaimers that frame the film only make it all the more tentative and unsatisfying.
The performers can't be faulted, although Meg Tilly goes way past parody here. Kirsten Dunst never disappoints. She gives the most sincere performance in a sea of scenery chewing. Only Joanna Lumley rises above the material, but so much so that she seems to be distancing herself from the whole enterprise rather than narrating it. One of her first lines is, "I'm not here!" And I'm sure she wishes she wasn't.
This isn't on par with Bogdanovich's trashy, so-bad-it's-good "At Long Last Love." It's perched on attempting something serious, but hesitates and stumbles chiefly because it's so full of bitterness towards "the beast" named Hollywood. This is "National Enquirer" filmmaking. And it not only soils the names of those who the film places on board the Oneida that weekend, but the audience gets pretty dirty 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
"The Cat's Meow" contains a few scenes that boast intelligent dialogue, and some fine performances, a few of which surprised me. Eddie Izzard is more effective than I expected as Chaplin (partly thanks to an excellent hair and makeup job by some talented designer); Joanna Lumley is compelling as novelist Elinor Glyn; and Kirsten Dunst is winning as Marion Davies (though why movies never use her real-life stutter is difficult to explain). But these elements don't add up to a successful whole. The screenwriter seems to have worked very hard on certain scenes--the meetings between Davies and Chaplin are particularly well crafted--but not so hard on the big picture. Several minor characters don't need to be there, and don't behave consistently. The basic plot is full of illogic (e.g., why does Thomas Ince think it's a good idea to tell Hearst something he really doesn't want to hear?), and the party scenes are repetitive and tiresome. I'd like to think a trip on Hearst's yacht was more fun than the movie indicates. Davies is characterized as a standard bubbly Flapper type, which isn't really accurate, and the screenwriter's ideas about Chaplin and love are implausible.
Strangely, Bogdanovich, who seemed so connected to the Thirties in "Paper Moon", lacks a similar affinity for the Twenties. He insisted the excellent costume designer use only black and cream, which gives the party guests a very artificial look, and plays only the most stereotypical songs of the period (e.g., "Yes, We Have No Bananas"). When Hearst insists everybody "Charleston, Charleston!" it looks as if the actors had a ten-minute dance lesson just before the scene was shot.
The lives of silent film stars can make fascinating movies, I'm sure, but not this time.


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


user
If your idea of entertainment is watching graphic footage of people being run over by cars (you get to see a woman passing under the front wheel, being twisted as the car passes over her before she goes under the back wheel -- and they show it twice in case you missed it the first time) then this is the documentary for you. Admitedly I didn't watch any more of this very disturbing piece of voyeurism, but that was enough for me. Maybe the rest is even better.
I wonder how long it's going to take for television networks to start showing slush movies. Perhaps game shows based on self-mutilation might be nice.
I already know that there are disturbed people in the world and that horrible things happen. I don't need to see the proof on the TV masquerading as entertainment.


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


user
Can anybody do good CGI films besides Pixar? I mean really, animation looked antiquated by 2006 standards and even by 1995 Toy Story standards. Or maybe they spent all their budget on Hugh Jackman. Whatever their reasoning, the story truly did suck.
Somehow, Hugh Jackman is a rat - a rat that is flushed down a toilet. Yeah I know, seems stereotypical. But then the sewer mimicked the ways of London - to an extent. Throw in a promise of jewels (????) and an evil(??) frog and you get a pathetic attempt at entertainment.
I would like to say something entertained me. Maybe the hookup in the movie? Or maybe the happily-ever-after rat relationship. But nothing did. It had the talent, but it blew up. D-


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


user
Ultimately too silly and pointless. Yes there is the gilded cage metaphor but probably most kids would miss that. Forgettable. Instantly.
Animation is, as we have come to expect, super-real. The plot-line could best be described as thin but tenacious. Although the ending seemed arbitrary to me.
The sewer underworld is a suitably disgusting reflection of the world above and, somehow, wealth and money seem to count for a lot there too. Oh yes, and there's a romantic interest with the female being the smarter, more savvy and go-getting of the pair - this in itself is rapidly becoming a tiresome (anti) stereotype. Probably your kids will love it though.


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


user
Oh if only I could give this rubbish less than one star! There were two mildly amusing parts in the whole film and that is it! one was where a line or two from the song Don't Worry, Be Happy was sung by the slugs and the other was where Roddy fell of the toilet roll and landed with his feet and legs apart so that everything else he landed on on the way down hit him in the groin. That is it there was nothing more amusing than that, at least not for me anyway! Doctornappy2 is not right in saying 'Fans of the completely terrible "Shrek" might enjoy, but "Wallace & Gromit" fans will probably turn away in disgust.' As I loved Shrek 1 2 and 3 and I also love Wallace and Gromit. You see what it boils down to is that if an animation is done extremely well then it is definitely worth watching, this however was about as far from done well as you can possibly get! The continuity mistakes were too big in number. Some were pointed out by the makers of this site others were not. I won't point out all of the others, but here are a few more to see: When the young daughter leaves at the start of the film the catch to the cage door comes down and the hook part of it that is on the right clearly goes back around behind the round knob thus effectively making sure Roddy would not be able to get out and yet he does just by simply kicking at it. At one point the ruby falls down Roddy's back and gets pushed straight up into the the air by Rita all the while the ship is moving forwards. In the next scene Roddy has caught it again. This is impossible. Seeing as how the ship is moving forwards the only place when the ruby was ejected out from under the back of Roddy's shirt the only place it could have landed was in the water not in Roddy's hand. There was a third one I wanted to point out but for now I have forgotten it.
Too many, for want of a better word, 'jokes' were repeated in one way or another, there was not enough time to establish any sort of connection with any of the characters, the characters were hollow, shallow and empty, and the whole film left you wanting....wanting to watch 85 minutes of anything else! Paint drying or grass growing are two superb options!


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


user
Let's just say it in simple words so that even the makers of this film might have a chance to understand: This is a very dumb film with an even dumber script, lame animation, and a story that's about as original as thumbtacks. Don't bother -- unless you need to find some way to entertain a group of mentally retarded adults or extremely slow children. They might laugh, especially if they're off their meds. There's a special kind of insult in a film this ridiculous -- not only do the filmmakers apparently think that children are brainless idiots who can be entertained with claptrap that cost approximately zero effort, but they don't even bother to break a sweat inserting a gag here and there that an adult might find amusing. This film, frankly, ticked me off royally. Shame on you for stooping so low.


assistant
0