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
This is your typical Priyadarshan movie--a bunch of loony characters out on some silly mission. His signature climax has the entire cast of the film coming together and fighting each other in some crazy moshpit over hidden money. Whether it is a winning lottery ticket in Malamaal Weekly, black money in Hera Pheri, "kodokoo" in Phir Hera Pheri, etc., etc., the director is becoming ridiculously predictable. Don't get me wrong; as clichéd and preposterous his movies may be, I usually end up enjoying the comedy. However, in most his previous movies there has actually been some good humor, (Hungama and Hera Pheri being noteworthy ones). Now, the hilarity of his films is fading as he is using the same formula over and over again.
Songs are good. Tanushree Datta looks awesome. Rajpal Yadav is irritating, and Tusshar is not a whole lot better. Kunal Khemu is OK, and Sharman Joshi is the best.


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


user
Priyadarshan- whenever a person heard his name, his first thought would be 'comedy'. That is what this man is known for, or rather, was known for. After giving stupendous blockbuster comedies like Hungama, Hera Pheri and Hunchul, his train derailed slowly with movies like Chupke Chupke and a few others whose names I can't recollect for now. Now with hideous films like Dhol, the first word that would strike our mind after hearing his name would be- 'torture'.
Dhol is a mixture of bad, unfunny toilet jokes, somewhat of drama, poor suspense and idiocracy. The only good thing about Dhol was one or two of the scenes which were funny, though not witty, and secondly, except for Kunal Khemu and the hysterical grandma, the acting was decent.
Speaking of the acting, I felt that Rajpal Yadav and Sharman Joshi were at the top (if you compare them with the others in the movie), then came Tusshar Kapoor, then Tanushree and at the last the two idiots mentioned above. The flaw in Kunal Khemu was that he was loud in his jokes and even in his acting. The grandma, firstly resembled a ghost, plus she was not funny at all but rather silly.
The plot was the same, seen before one. Four boys behind girls and in need of money, but with a few twists. There is a 'bad' man who is preposterously stupid and dumb. And at last, the good wins over the bad and everything is fine. The idea of having a Dhol with a tone full of cash in it is simply not witty.
The worst thing about the movie is its length. After an hour or so, you get exhausted and want to leave the theater. But being a critic, it is my responsibility to tolerated the whole two and half hours of the movie. THe movie goes on and on and the same kind of jokes are repeated again and again and the situations are perennial just at a different place.
If your mother-in-law has arrived to your house and starts mocking you at everything, then send her for this movie and have fun. 3 out of 10.


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


user
The movie starts with a nice song Looks like a thriller, with Arbaaz Khan walking around in a suspicious way but then suddenly we are forced to a comedy With the routine stupid idiots like GOLMAAL with Tusshar, Sharman, Kunal and Rajpal acting like grown up kids Their scenes are quite funny first and then get boring There is a bored sub plot of Tanushree's brother being killed Towards the end the film tries to get serious with the villain kidnapping our heroes but here it gets even stupid Then a lengthy bashing bashing climax straight out of HERA PHERI and wait, there is also a long chase in Payal's house
The film is so boring that it makes you fall asleep
Direction by Priyan is very bad music(Pritam) is routine except the first song
Cinematography is bad, the film has a cheap look throughout
Rajpal Yadav is good in his 1st scene where he goes to pay his rent and i was happy that the actor isn't loud and over the top like other films But No, He becomes his usual self and gets irritating most of the times Tusshar should not speak in a film, his dial delivery is terrible Sharman is the saving grace, He is the sole actor who acts very well in this film Kunal Khemmu tries hard in his first comic film as an adult, But doesn't impress much Tanushree is bad as always Arbaaz Khan gets less scope and is usual Payal is a non actress Murli Sharma is terrible


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


user
A typical Goth chick (Rainbow Harvest looking like a cross between Winona Ryder in Beetlejuice and Boy George) gets even with people she feels have wronged her with the help of an old haunted mirror that she finds in the new house she and her mom (horror mainstay, Karen Black, the only remotely good thing about this travesty) buy. The acting's pretty laughably bad (especially when Rainbow interacts with the aforementioned mirror) and there are no scares or suspense to be had. This film inexplicably spawned thus for 3 sequels each slightly more atrocious than the last. People looking for a similarly themed, but far superior cinematic endeavor would be well advised to just search out the episode of "Friday the 13th: the Series" where a geeky girl finds an old cursed compact mirror. That packs more chills in it's scant 40 minutes than this whole franchise has provided across it's 4 films.
My Grade: D
Eye Candy: Charlie Spradling provides the obligatory T&A


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


user
`In the tradition of 'Carrie' and 'Heathers'? Try `a shameless ripoff of not only those two films, but 'The Evil Dead' and 'The Shining' as well.' That said, they really don't make bad horror movies like this anymore, and that's a shame, 'cause it's a gas.
Rainbow Harvest is the Winona substitute here, and although she barely does more than mumble her lines (and occasionally scream, `YOU'RE UGLY!!!' into her haunted mirror), she's Goth way before it's fashionable, so you have to respect her. (And she's quite creative about it too, accessorizing with black leather scarves and a kind of black-spray-painted Hawaiian-Punch-guy hat. Eat your heart out, Cher.)
Karen Black overacts a bit, but she's not totally without dignity, and you can't help but sympathize with her. (Unless you're a certain friend of mine, who asked, `Who is that, Horse Lips from 'M.A.S.H'?' the first time she came onscreen.)
There are decent supporting performances by Kristin Dattilo (as the square chick who befriends Rainbow), Ricky Paull Goldin (in his trademarked wisecracking hunk role), and William `Larry, Darryl and Darryl' Sanderson (as some kind of pet undertaker, or something). But it's sad to see the once smokin' Yvonne DeCarlo reduced to playing what can only be thought of as the Charlotte Rae part.
The eighties were the heyday for hilarious, mindbogglingly dumb horror movies like this, and `Mirror, Mirror' was one of the last of its kind. Definitely worth a look.


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


user
I got Mirror Mirror mainly because Yvonne De Carlo was in it (I thought she was great in American Gothic) but sadly she didn't have a very big role in this film. It starts off OK and the pace moves along nicely...but by the end it starts getting a bit tedious and dull. That's not to say that this is a boring film, but it's just very average and nothing spectacular. I didn't like the "posession" side of it and there were no decent gore scenes. Plus the 'main' story was very confusing and the ending doesn't make much sense at all. I did however like the story surrounding the Gothic girl and how she got revenge on her tormentors.
I wouldn't particularly recommend Mirror Mirror to horror fans - it's nothing to wet yourself over.


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


user
Mirror. Mirror (1990) is a flat out lame movie. Why did I watch movies like this when I was younger? Who knows? Maybe I was one for punishing myself by watching one terrible movie after another. I don't know, I guess I needed a hobby during my teen years. A teenage outcast (Rainbow Harvest) seeks solace in an old mirror. Soon she learns about the horrific power this antique mirror has and uses it to strike out against those who have wronged her. Movies like these, the power giver has a nasty side effect. This one changes her inside and out if she likes it or not.
A mess of a movie that for some reason was restored on d.v.d. a few years back. I don't know why. They should have left it on the shelf and collect dust. People love this movie foe some reason. If you do I would like to know why. Until then I dislike this movie and I have no reason to ever watch it again.
Not recommended at all.


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


user
I've been using IMDb for a few years now, but have never written any reviews before. However, this movie so disappointed me (even with a modest score of 6.4 at the time of writing) that I couldn't keep quiet anymore.
Noise is the story of a New Yorker (Tim Robbins)who is so perturbed by noise pollution that he takes on an alter-ego as a as a vigilante, "The Rectifier", and vandalizes any cars he finds with a car-alarm sounding.
I take the name of the movie to be somewhat of a misnomer. Although there are one or two instances of other sources of noise being addressed or mentioned, the only true focus of our protagonist is car alarms. Car alarms, car alarms, car alarms. There is really no other focus. When the movie tries to tie other examples of noise pollution to the problem of car alarms, it seems to be just thrown in to give merit to the actions of Robbins' character.
Yes, we're all annoyed by noise. Nobody likes the sound of car alarms. Of course we all have that internal urge to take a baseball bat to a shrieking vehicle, and this movie uses that fact, and pretty much that fact alone, to sell this movie. I say 'pretty much' because there is also a blatantly contrived sexual relationship (including a completely needless threesome) which is obviously thrown in for those movie-goers who need such things thrown in in order to enjoy a movie. Honestly, it's eye-rolling.
Robbin's character, very shortly into the movie, becomes completely unrelatable. It seems less that he decides not to put up with the noise anymore, and more that by focusing so much on the noise he has begun to lose his sanity. The first half of the movie is essentially the story of how he turns from just an angry, car-bashing dude into this hero of the little guy, The Rectifier. However... the transformation doesn't take place. He just renames himself.
I could go on for a while. Annoying generalized social commentary comes in every now and then to add to the pretentiousness of the movie, and the self-satisfied smirk which never quite leaves Robbins face doesn't help either.
Overall, I think it's very obvious what this movie is trying to be, as it's pretty much shoved down your throat, but in my opinion, it fails in a big way. Just one guy's opinion, cheers.


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


user
What "Noise" fails to do is get us to understand its character. Tim Robbins plays an obsessive New Yorker who can't deal with the obtrusive noises of the city any longer, particularly car alarms. It's an odd idea for a film, which has about as much creative credibility as "Death Wish." It is clever at points; particularly a scene in which our hero is trying to read through Hagel, "I'm too stupid to be understanding this." He reads and rereads a paragraph in confusion, we read it and don't get it either.Just then a car alarm goes off. Throughout the movie is constant interference of alarms and city noises. Though, all in all it does little to help us understand our hero, who allows this all to ruin his marriage and gets distracted with side plots instead of digging deeper-into his persona.
The film-making itself is too oblivious to notice its own sound problems, shoddy editing, and visible boom mikes. No, "Noise" isn't all-bad. William Hurt is at least colorful. At least the ending doesn't fall flat. Overall it drives home a logistical point, one you haven't probably thought of. At least I hadn't. Though all in all, ninety minutes long, it couldn't have ended sooner. The story dragged on and seemed to be lost as soon as it started.
This is another one of those movies that you might see at a film festival, but probably won't get picked up for distribution. Check it out on DVD if you're really partial to someone involved in the project. Otherwise skip it.


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


user
This is one of those topics I can relate to a little more than most people as I hate noise & have no idea how those in big cities, New York especially how people get any sleep at all! It astounds me that people can stand all the noise out there these days. The basic plot of the film is that it makes for an interesting topic. It's too bad that's about it. Tim Robbbins is decent although except for a couple of scenes (especially with the absolute supermodel looking Margarita Leiveva) he didn't seem to really be altogether there. My biggest hope for this film is that casting agents will see the absolutely stunning & talented actress to boot, Margarita Levieva. She doesn't have a lot to do, but she is supermodel beautiful. Even when they are trying to make her look at more girl next door. It makes me sad that there can be people such as Paris Hilton & Kim Kardashian in the world w/no redeemable skills or talent, to have more fame and success than this talented beauty. I didn't care for much of this film because the script isn't very good, but am glad I got to see some new talent. I hope that producers & directors think about Margarita when they need a beautiful new actress to be in there big budget film. If they can make Megan Fox a star (c'mon she isn't that hot, & her acting "talent" is worse than made-for Disney channel TV shows) from 1 film, it should happen easily for her, as she is gorgeous & has talent! I'd recommend her changing her last name so we can pronounce it and make it more marketable. Here's hoping this makes her career, & if there is any justice she can pop up on some big summer movie or two in the next couple years.


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


user
WE FAW DOWN
Aspect ratio: 1.33:1
Sound format: Silent
(Black and white - Short film)
Stan 'n' Ollie get mixed up with a couple of floozies (Kay Deslys and Vera White) after setting out to visit a theatre which burns down in their absence! Needless to say, their tyrannical wives (Vivien Oakland and Bess Flowers) are not amused...
Leo McCarey's OK comedy laid the narrative framework for William Seiter's masterpiece SONS OF THE DESERT (1934), with L&H playing brow-beaten victims of circumstance, forced to tell a monstrous lie which backfires in spectacular fashion. Much of it is very funny, especially the scene in which Stan is teased by Deslys, leading to a violent game of push and shove. However, some of the fun is undercut by Oakland and Flowers, playing their roles completely straight, which adds an element of unpleasantness to the 'henpecked husband' scenario. Originally released in the UK as WE SLIP UP.


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


user
Why do movie makers always go against the author's work? I mean, yes, things have to be condensed for the sake of viewer interest, but look at Anne of Green Gables. They did a wonderful job of combining important events into a cohesive whole that was simply delightful. I can't believe that they chose to combine three novels together for Anne of Avonlea into such a dreadful mess. Look at all they missed out on by doing that . . . Paul Irving, little Elizabeth, the widows, Windy Poplars . . . and Anne's college years, for heaven's sake!!! Wouldn't it have been delightful to meet Priscilla and all the rest of the Redmond gang? Kevin Sullivan should have taken things one movie at a time, instead of jumbling them all together and combining characters and events the way he did. This movie was good, if you leave the novels out of it!! But L.M. Montgomery's beautiful work is something that should not be denied. This movie was a let down after seeing the successful way he brough Anne of Green Gables to life.


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


user
This movie is like the material S.E. Hinton was writing in the 1970s and Copola was adapting to the screen in the early 80s, and, had Trueblood actually been a product of either, the results might've been much better (especially in the acting department). Instead, we get a rather so-bad-its-funny piece of mediocrity.
Jeff Fahey plays Ray Trueblood, a former street rumbler, I suppose is the accurate description. This was in the days of action movies that used guys in their 40s and mid30s and dressed them up in greaser threads or some kind of more effeminate selection of gang garb and they fought to lousy 80s music. Nonetheless, Ray is the lone caretaker of his younger brother, Donny (Chad Lowe in a part where he screams a lot), who he is forced to leave behind inexplicably in a train station when, on the run from the cops, he is nabbed and forced to serve time in the Marines. Flash forward to present day and Ray is back in town and looking for his brother who has also become part of the street gangs, although in a gang that was Ray's adversary and now old scores must be violently settled (and again, cops must be dodged and this time, a lady's honor defended in the action film sense) before Ray can carry on life at normal pace with his brother, Donny.
For the most part, the film is quite ridiculous. For me, most of this has to do with far too much overacting, although not by Fahey or Sherlyn Fenn who plays the waitress he befriends. The guys in the gang and Lowe himself seem to do quite a bit of needless exaggerated as New York street toughs. Although, the bigger hang up is recycled plot lines and perhaps a kind of movie that was well past its prime as a product of 1989.


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


user
Three Russian aristocrats soak up the decadence of Monte Carlo, despite the fact they are down to their last franc. In order to support their lavish lifestyle, the three use the services of a counterfeiter, and use the notes at the casinos, hoping to exchange the bogus currency for a jackpot. Andrew Hughes, a US envoy, arrives at Monaco with his wife Helen, and the three decide to make pals with the visitors, hoping for financial assistance. One of the three Russians, Count Sergius Karamzin, plans to go further, with continuous advance towards Helen, while disappointing the Count's maid, who loves Sergius. Eventually, circumstances play their hand against the three aristocrats. Its obvious that Von Stroheim was trying to convey a message (with the foolishness of American women and the improper behaviors of the aristocrats), rather than tell a story, and the film really can bore modern audiences, like me, easily by doing that. Even the acting, which is great in later EvS like Greed and the Wedding March, is just run of the mill here. The film could have used improvements on various levels. Rating, 3.


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 director von Stroheim's third effort - it is quite crude and shows none of the exceptional flair for the camera and editing mastery he would display a few years later with his masterworks, GREED and THE WEDDING MARCH. Essentially we have a trio of grifters, masquerading as a Russian count and two Russian princesses who have rented a villa in Monte Carlo. Their aim is to use counterfeit money at the gambling tables and win a fortune. Part of that plan is for the Count (von Stroheim) to insinuate himself between a visiting American ambassador and his "foolish" wife, wooing her and hoping to gain some money by playing on her weaknesses. He makes the mistake of also taking the life savings of the maid, whom he has promised to marry. When she sees them together, she sets fire to the room, (von Stroheim and his prey are on the room's balcony). Here von Stroheim first establishes his persona as "the man you love to hate." He is thoroughly bad and his character flaws eventually bring him to a very bad and deserved end. The film is crude in its cinematography and editing and not worth seeing unless you are fascinated by the director. There is a cute bit- when he first attempts to meet the Ambassador's wife, she is reading a book - we see the title - FOOLISH WIVES by Erich von Stroheim. This was originally envisioned as a 210 minute film, cut down to 140 minutes by the studio and finally released at 70 minutes. The restoration on Kino Video restores surviving footage (damaged in some way in most scenes) from the alternate earlier version to give us a 107 minute print.


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


user
Dil was a memorable movie that bring to the celluloid a great director like Indra Kumar. The movie followed with Beta, Ishq, Raja & Masti all of whom were superb.
But then every successful director gives a few horrible movies alongwith some hits too. Pyare Mohan is one such movie.
Though the comedies are told nicely but then they fail the viewer to laugh. Comparing with the kind of comedy movies being made today this is a dumb.
If you really want to watch a movie and laugh, please don't watch this. Because the pathetic comedy will make you cry only.
In short, the movie is worth 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
This movie is even a big step down form the typical fare dished out by Bollywood. The performances were horrible. Even Boman Irani, who always manages to shine, goes completely OTT as the villain. The soundtrack is not memorable either. And in spite trying hard, the female leads don't manage to be "sexy". Vivek Oberoi is capable of far better projects while Fardeen Khan seems to be stuck in similar fare for the time being. But this monstrosity is even beneath his limited capabilities as an actor. Esha Deol and Amrita Rao are horrible in badly written cliché roles. It's high time for Indra Kumar to hang up his directorial hat. Hope he never directs another eyesore like this. Future of Hindi movies are in better hands now. To sum it up, stay far away from waste of celluloid.


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


user
After the reasonably successful MASTI which was tad better Inder Kumar returned again with a comedy PYAARE MOHAN based on the Hollywood film SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL
The film reminds you of HUM HAI KAMAAL KE(1994) where Kader and Anupam play the blind and deaf
This movie is a tedious exercise
The film has jokes of such nonsense that you don't feel like laughing like Snehal Dabi's head getting stuck in the back of the horse and all those type comedies which we don't laugh at now but mock
The film starts off in a clichéd manner and some scenes are funny sadly such moments don't last long as the story never moves in this half even the comedy gets boring The twist is well handled and the second half becomes an action film where the blind guy and the deaf go to rescue the heroines and we have all OTT chase scenes and fight scenes
Direction by Inder Kumar is bad Music is okay, one song stands out I LOVE YOU MY ANGEL
Vivek is awful in the comic scenes, his timing is very bad and is okay in serious scenes For some reason he keeps doing comedy and ruined his career Fardeen Khan is tad better but too wooden Amongst the rest Esha and Amrita are the heroines Boman Irani annoys here Snehal Dabbi is okay


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


user
Pyare Mohan can be safely included in the blacklist of one of the worst-ever films made by mankind. The film, one of the many handicapped-people flicks that arose after the phenomenal success of Black is makes a mockery of the handicapped fraternity. Vivek Oberoi and Fardeen Khan are mere caricatures of handicapped people. While Black portrayed the poignancy and emotions of a handicapped woman and gave us a glimpse of her world, Pyare Mohan shows two desperado-like monkeys who have no qualms about being handicapped and bash up half of the world to protect their love interests. Anu Malik's music is fair enough. Vivek Oberoi who made a promising start with Saathiya is sadly losing his balls quickly in Hindi cinema. Fardeen Khan was never an acceptable actor and deserves to be banned from the film industry. Amrita Rao and Esha Deol are just pretty damsels in distress having nightmarish times in Thialnd with no one to save them - except for the afore-mentioned desperados. Boman Irani, as the villainous Don Toni, is somewhat acceptable. Avoid the film if possible.


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 big fan of movies that make you think. I'm still thinking long and hard about this one, fully seven minutes after the credits have rolled. What's really confounding my neurons is the attempt to fathom the relevance to the plot of the naked girlie fondling her slick oily body, made extra-tacky by being filmed on cheap video. This happens three times and I was certain it would be explained in the end. I put my trust in the film-makers that this lurid attempt to lure viewers would be justified. It was not.
The movie has to be the most apathetic I've come across in the genre. The sets look like a cross between a 1970s Dr Who set and someone's ill-formed idea of a sponge-painted living room. The lighting is unimaginative (if your sets are going to be that bad, at least film them in semi-darkness to hide the plasterboard and create some ambiance). Of the abducted quartet, the girl stands out as being particularly lame, but none of them is given a personality. The aliens' plans for world domination are just plain silly - all they need is a birth control pill and their problems are solved. Most of the movie consists of people running down corridors. Yes, it really is that exciting. The "ray gun" special effect is ... curious, to say the least (what use is a weapon that takes a 15-second concentrated blast to kill, and even then the guy comes back for more?). The script is like a bad episode of The A-Team, and the ladies' hairstyles come from the same era, so they look like school teachers instead of an advance team of murderous alien invaders. When we finally get to see what the aliens really look like, they're in suspended animation and never even get out of their boxes. The resolution of the story - traitor alien simply has a few words with invading fleet commander and without a second thought he heads home - is truly the sign of a writer who's never had an idea more complex than a Saturday morning cartoon (I mean the bad ones with no plot, action, or characterization) in his or her life.
But seriously, what is with the naked chick?! Was it really just so they could justify putting flesh on the DVD cover to boost sales?


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


user
This thing was bad. Really bad. I mean, low budget can sometimes be very inspiring, but not this. The story was so off-the-shelf, the alien's behaviour so illogical, the characters so clichéed. I found nothing good in it. And I did try.


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


user
The Christmas Secret was touted as a wonderful film, but I was truly disappointed. They even sold VHS and DVD copies of the film when it was over, which leads me to think the producers were really proud of this project. As a screen actor myself I felt most of the performances were phoned in, although Beau Bridges, as Nick, did have a moment or two. If I were Richard Thomas I would not put this film on my otherwise fine resume. It was an embarrassment. I had been a fan since his Waltons days, but have found myself untempted to watch any of his subsequent work, so poor was this offering.
In defence of the actors, the directing was stilted, mechanical, and thoroughly amateurish.
I hope this is not considered a spiteful review and negative assumptions made about my qualifications as a critic. I turned the movie on because it had a good cast and I was prepared to enjoy the film. However I would challenge any one out there to watch this film and not wish for their money back, even though it was on T.V.


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 want to watch a real 'quality' movie get hold of The Eden Formula. This wondrous film must have cost all of $50 to make. It features a wafer thin script, pathetically bad sets, lighting and camera work, and a stop motion, paper-mache monster that is utterly laughable (it looks like they sometimes used a guy in a rubber suit and/or a glove puppet for the monster - but all were equally dreadful).
The actors all speak their lines as though they've never seen them before and are reading off a teleprompter. The special effects are way beyond lousy. And the only sad thing is that they dropped the really nifty original title 'Tyranasaurus Wrecks' which sums up exactly what you get for the full 90 minutes.
This is what happens when you scrape the bottom of the barrel so hard you break through to the crud that lies underneath.
I loved every minute of it.


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 opinions on this movie were of course bad.I was expecting a horrible, crappy acting, bad entertainment, ridiculous special effects movie.What I got was actually not that bad.The special effects were absolutely horrible, but I found the movie itself quite interesting, and the script was actually pretty good and decent.The acting wasn't THAT bad, and overall I had fun watching this movie.It's still a pretty bad film, but it's not completely worthless like I thought it was going to be, and I'm pleased to know that this movie managed to wow me, even when it wasn't that good.Overall, it's a film that should be avoided, but to me it wasn't as bad as I was expecting it to be.


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


user
I got this as a turkey movie and was I not disappointed.
Acting - overall even though many have been in other movies it is clear that they had to work hard to act this bad so constantly over this entire movie with out accidentally letting slip some degree of acting.
Plot - being generous I could say that the scriptwriter did originally start with a plot but but did his best to ignore it. the plot broke down faster then a Chinese knock off computer
Scrip - now that was an abomination of nature. it failed to flow with any rhyme or reason. the majority of the lines by the characters were at best pathetic to imbecilic. the script worked hard to make sure that no character managed to get to be considered memorable. I have watched other movies where the extras were more interesting and memorable.
Special effects - ROTFLMAO!!!!! They were short bus special
Directing - until you can come up with your own directing ability copy the style of your favorite directer otherwise you will only make failures like this.
It is good to know that your friends/family have been giving you 10 stars 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
You ever get that itch to just kill an hour or two doing chores and watching a movie so bad it defies reason? Well, out renting movies one weekend i see the box art for this one and see the T-Rex. Knowing full well that the dinosaur on the package was the T-Rex from Jurassic Park, I KNEW I had to rent this just cause I was in the mood for a bad movie.
I was not disappointed in the least.
Mad scientists, secret formulas, a company more concerned about its fortune and shareholders than lives, and of course, a big, poorly animated, sock-puppet T-Rex. Is it me our through out the movie was there scenes clearly spliced from other movies? Not to mention the Rex's hungry is never satisfied...ever. How he has hungry is beyond me because he actually doesn't have an throat (Really if you look down his mouth when he roars, it's solid...like a toy or something). Now, I like watching incredibly bad B-Movies from time to time because it reminds me how much better a blockbuster movie is. This one was hilarious. I'm not even sure if this was supposed to be a thriller or a comedy, because there are scenes where, make no mistake, you will laugh.
Do I blame the movie's budget...yes, but the acting didn't help either. OK, Tony Todd was actually pretty good, as for some of the female roles...when you cry shouldn't "tears" come out? Meh, I am not going to be angry at this movie, i knew what i was getting into and if you're looking for a bad movie to watch with friends, here's what I recommend: Watch this movie, then immediately watch Jurassic Park and then Lost World back to back. You will be writing Mr. Spielberg thank you letters the next day.


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


user
I gave this movie a single star only because it was impossible to give it less.
Scientists have developed a formula for replicating any organism. In their lab(a run down warehouse in L.A.), they create a T-Rex. A group of industrial spies break in to steal the formula and the remainder of the film is one endless foot chase.
Of course the T-Rex(a rubber puppet)gets loose and commences to wipe out the cast. It has the amazing ability to sneak up within 2 or 3 feet of someone without them noticing and then promptly bites their head off.
One cast member escapes in a police car and spends the remainder of the film driving aimlessly through the city. She is of such superior mental ability that she can't even operate the radio. She never makes any attempt to drive to a substation or a donut shop and appears hopelessly lost.
The T-Rex wreaks havoc throughout the city, there are blazing gun battles and buildings(cardboard mock-ups)blowing up, but a single police car, or the army, nor anyone else ever shows up. Such activity must be commonplace in Los Angeles.
We can only hope that a sequel isn't planned.


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


user
This film is so unbelievable; - the whole premise is bunkum; the fact that a serial killer (vampire or otherwise) could fly around untraced and kill as many people as the film implies is laughable. The vampire himself would not look out of place in a Bela Lugosi film. Most of the acting is so wooden the actors should be treated for dry rot. I await the day when someone makes a decent film from a Steven King novel (with the exception, possibly, of Stand by Me). This film suffers from what most Stephen King films do - lack of money used for the "special" effects, poor actors, appalling characterisation and dialogue. This film is cheap, tacky and fails in everything it tries to do.


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


user
Would have better strengthened considerably by making it as a
50 minute episode of the Outer Limits. Too much superfluous material and stuff like the chief bad guy looking like he'd escaped from The Phantom of the Opera didn't help. The whole 'Night of the Living Dead' sequence was extremely silly and quite unnecessary. After all, if the dead were to punish anyone for their sins, now remind me exactly who was killing everyone 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 is just short of a full blown gore fest based on a Stephen King story. Two tabloid reporters, one seasoned(Miguel Ferrer)and one not so accomplished(Julie Entwisle), begin to believe that a serial killer(Michael H. Moss) may actually be a vampire. Stranger than odd is this modern day blood sucker does not wing his way naturally, but by way of a black Cessna he seeks his victims. The gore actually gets gruesome as the film nears its stupid finale. Keep in mind that Mr. King had nothing to do with this film. I do admit it is a bit scary in the wee hours of the night.


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


user
SPOILERS All too often, Hollywood's Shakespeare adaptations entertaining pieces of cinema. Beautifully shot they are well performed and faithful to the text. Films including Branagh's "Henry V" and 1993's "Much Ado About Nothing" are powerful pieces of work. Watching "Love's Labour's Lost" therefore, it's such a huge disappointment for expectation to be so hideously thrown to waste. Sadly "Love's Labour's Lost" is awful! The King of Navarre (Alessandro Nivola) and his friends have forsaken drink and women for three years to focus on their studies. Plans begin to fall apart however when the enigmatic Princess of France (Alicia Silverstone) and her entourage arrive. Soon love is in the air and philosophy is off the Prince's mind.
From the start, you realise that this film is not quite Shakespeare. Cleverly relocated into a 1930s musical by Ken Branagh, the plot is still there and the script remains, but now it has been sacrificed in favour of dire musical taste. Classics like "The Way You Look Tonight", "Let's Face The Music and Dance", "I'm in Heaven" are all destroyed by weak singing and a strong feel that they just don't belong here.
Aside from weak singing, we are also treated to an increasingly large number of awkward performances by regular stars. Ken Branagh and friends might enjoy making this film, but they provide us with a stomach turning collection of roles.
The main eight actors (four men & four women) are all equally dire, and the only positive on their behalf is a vast improvement on the truly dreadful Timothy Spall.
In fact, only one individual leaves the film worthy of any praise and that's the consistently magnificent Nathan Lane. Lane has proved over the years that he is a comedy genius and in this feature he once again adds an air of humour to the jester Costard.
There's little else to be said really. "Love's Labour's Lost" deserves mild praise for Branagh's original take on an old tale. Unfortunately though, that's where the positives end. Weakly acted, performed, sang and constructed, "Love's Labour's Lost" is perhaps the weakest Shakespeare adaptation of the last forty years. It should be avoided like the plague and should never have been made. A poor, disappointing choice by Branagh and here's hoping his next effort is better.


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


user
This self-indulgent mess may have put the kibosh on Mr. Branagh's career as an adapter of Shakespeare for the cinema. (Released 4 years ago; not a peep of an adaptation since.) I just finished watching this on cable -- holy God, it's terrible.
I agree with the sentiment of a reviewer below who said that reviewing something so obviously and sadly awful is an ungenerous act that comes across as shrill. That being said, I'll take the risk, if only because *Love's Labour's Lost* is the perfect reward for those who overrated Mr. Branagh's directorial abilities in the past. Branagh has always been a pretty lousy director: grindingly literal-minded; star-struck; unforgivably ungenerous to his fellow actors (he loves his American stars, but loves himself more, making damn sure that he gets all the good lines).
Along those lines, the sad fact remains that *Love's Labour's Lost* is scarcely worse than the interminable, ghastly, bloated *Hamlet* from 1996. In fact, this film may be preferable, if only because it's about 1/3 the length. Branagh decided it would be a good idea to update this bad early work of Shakespeare's to the milieu of Cole Porter, George Gershwin, Fred Astaire, yada yada. So he sets the thing in 1939, leaves about an eighth of the text intact in favor of egregious interpretations of Thirties' standards (wait till you see the actors heaved up on wires toward the ceiling during "I'm In Heaven"), and casts actors not known for their dancing or singing (himself included). The result is a disaster so surreal that one is left dumbfounded that they just didn't call a horrified stop to the whole thing after looking at the first dailies. I don't even blame the cast. To paraphrase Hamlet, "The screenplay's the thing!" NO ONE could possibly come off well in this hodge-podge: the illustrious RSC alumni fare no better than Alicia Silverstone. Who could possibly act in this thing?
Branagh's first mistake was in thinking that *Love's Labour's Lost* was a play worth filming. Trust me, it isn't. It's an anomaly in the Bard's canon, written expressly for an educated coterie of courtiers -- NOT the usual audience for which he wrote. Hence, there's a lot of precious (and TEDIOUS!) word-play, references to contemporary scholastic nonsense, parodies of Lyly's *Euphues* . . . in other words, hardly the sort of material to appeal to a broad audience. Hell, it doesn't appeal to an audience already predisposed to Shakespearean comedy. The play cannot be staged without drastically cutting the text and desperately "updating" it with any gimmick that comes to hand. Which begs the question, Why bother?
Branagh's second mistake was in thinking that Shakespeare's cream-pie of a play could be served with a side-order of Gershwin's marmalade. Clearly the idea, or hope, was to make an unintelligible Elizabethan exercise palatable for modern audiences by administering nostalgic American pop culture down their throats at the same time. But again, this begs the question, Why bother?



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


user
I think this is one of the weakest of the Kenneth Branagh Shakespearian works. After such great efforts as Much Ado About Nothing, etc. I thought this was poor. The cast was weaker (Alicia Silverstone, Nivoli, McElhone???) but my biggest gripe was that they messed with the Bard's work and cut out some of the play to put in the musical/dance sequences.
You just don't do Shakespeare and then mess with the play. Sorry, but that is just wrong. I love some Cole Porter just like the next person, but jeez, don't mess with the Shakespeare. Skip this and watch "Prospero's Books" if you want to see a brilliant Shakespearean adaptation of the Tempest.


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


user
I've read comments that you shouldn't watch this film if you're looking for stirring Shakespearian dialogue. This is true, unfortunately, because all the stirring dialogue, this wonderful play contains, has been cut, and replaced with songs. I've read this play, and recently was lucky enough to see it performed, at it remains one of my favourite Shakespearian Comedies, but this movie seems to take all that I like about it away. The Princess, though no doubt doing what she was directed to do, had no regal bearing, and all the girls seemed to lose the cleverness of their characters - also affected by unwise cuts, which not only took away the female characters already sparse dialogue, but took comments out of context - it was a little unnerving to hear the Princess proclaim; "We are wise girls to mock our lovers so!", when mocking had not taken place at all. The news reels throughout the film also disrupted the flow, and took away many excellent scenes, as they showed the information in the scenes after them, and were in modern phrasing. In conclusion, an excellent play, ruined by an odd concept, and unwise cuts. Kenneth, I usually love what you do. What were you thinking?


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


user
Kenneth Branagh attempts to turn William Shakspeare's obscure, rarely-produced comedy into a 1930s-era musical, with the result being both bad Shakespeare and bad musical comedy as the actors are rarely adept at one or the other of the two styles and in some cases flounder badly in both. Particularly painful is Nathan Lane, who seems to be under the impression that he is absolutely hysterical as Costard but is badly mistaken, and Alicia Silverstone who handles the Shakespearean language with all the authority of a teenaged Valley Girl who is reading the script aloud in her middle school English class.
The musical numbers are staged with the expertise of a high school production of "Dames at Sea," leaving the cast looking awkward and amateurish while singing and dancing, with the lone exception being Adrian Lester who proves himself a splendid song and dance man. The only other saving grace of the film are Natascha McElhone and Emily Mortimer's contribution as eye candy, but they have given far better performances than in this film and you'd be wise to check out some of the other titles in their filmographies and gives this witless mess a pass.


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


user
I do get irritated with modern adaptations of Shakespeare when the director can't make his mind up whether to use the original or to update it. If it's using the original words in an updated setting, that's particularly tricky if set in the 20th or 21st century although it can work OK in period styles, eg the Trevor Nunn Twelfth Night set late Victorian very effectively. It could work with the 30's setting if only there had been far less of the song and dance and far more of Shakespeare's text. Unfortunately, it just ends up being a pretty trivial though very pleasant show.
Another problem is Branagh himself. I agree he's far too old to play one of the students but more important, he's such an experienced Shakespearean actor that in spite of all his efforts to be just another student, his strength of acting shows all the time. Of course he should have played the King - no problem in having a mature student King surrounded by younger students. Instead we had a pleasant but unimposing actor for the King, thus an unimposing so-called King with no Kingly attributes.
The amount of song and dance, which I found tedious in spite of the nice songs and pleasant enough dancing, unfortunately meant the great Shakespearean dialogue had to be cut down drastically. So the whole thing ends up a trivial and mild confection, and I got very bored, including with the comic turns, and was glad when it ended. Branagh has not done Shakespeare justice in this production.
Accolades however to Richard Briers and Geraldine McEwan, absolutely splendid as the older couple.


assistant
0