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
Since Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon came along, there's been a lot of talk about a revival of the Hong Kong movie industry. Don't believe it. The people now making movies in HK give new meaning to the word crass. Running Out of Time 2 is a perfect example. Ekin Cheng is the name draw, here, but he spends most of the film just grinning idiotically and flipping a coin. He flips the coin over and over and again and again. Why? Who knows? Sean Lau plays a cop who chases after the coin-flipping pretty boy. But once again: who knows why? There's a pretty actress in the female lead who runs some sort of company and she has to pay a ransom or something but she mostly just looks like she would rather be at a spa or shopping centre than in front of a camera. Nothing makes any sense. There is no action. There is no sex. There is no comedy. All there is is a name: Ekin Cheng. And you know what? Who cares?


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


user
The previous poster obviously worked on the movie. It's a joke how bad it is and no one would review this kind of movie the way he did.Mentioning all of the actors' names and what they were in previously is a sure sign that he's involved with it in some way.
It's on Cinemax right now and I was sure this was some movie where porn stars (the one called Ava is gorgeous and well-endowed) were forced to make something else for some crazy tax reason.
Also, when I first saw it, I was sure it was made in about 1986, and I was born in '73, so I thought I knew what i was talking about...but no...it was made in 1993!! Unbelievable!
Though I would call it one of those so bad it's good movies. Like watching a train wreck.


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


user
I was unsure whether or not Andy Sidaris could repeat his success with the cinematic hit "Malibu Express." With his film Fit to Kill he has proved that Sidaris is a serious filmmaker and not just a one-shot director. The plot written by Sidaris, which was ungratefully passed up by the Academy, is a complex screenplay involving many unseen twists and turns. The main characters composed work for a sexually based radio station known as KSXY. Cleverly, KSXY is actually their secret headquarters. In "Fit to Kill" they confront their long-time nemesis Kane, who is trying to steal one of Russia's most prized diamonds. A well-written screenplay is not all, excellent acting by the cast helps to ensure this film as a cult classic. Panned by the critics and the box office, this film will be appreciated in years to come. It is now suffering the same fate as Clockwork Orange and Taxi Driver did, but in the future will undoubtly become recognized. I am disappointed no critic circles have recognized Andy Sidaris's trademark filmmaking. The costumes, the special effects, all help to compliment this already beautiful piece of filmmaking. It may do you best to ignore the dismal 3 rating on this film and go out and rent it for yourself. My personal rating is 10/10. The drama is as thick as the blockbuster Runaway Bride, and the action better or equal to the cinematic masterpiece Last Action Hero. Andy, keep up the good work.


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 see women's breasts, get a porno. There is no plot, but the last 45 minutes of this movie focus on resolving some sort of dangerous plan. The only value this movie has is that sometimes its so bad its funny, and, yes, boobs are boobs.


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


user
Unbelievably awful film. I watched part of this on T.V. recently. My jaw dropped as I watched a horrendously conceived plot and listened to mind-numbing drivel. Not a single line from the master of one-liners could come close to producing anything resembling a chuckle. It was so bad it made me want to exhume Rodney Dangerfield's body, slap him around and scream, "How could you?" I know many films are done in haste, hoping to cash in on the popularity of a given actor or theme. But please, Hollywood, show a little respect for your audience. It's sad and scary that people were expected to pay to see such tripe. The bottom of the cesspool, even by Sunday afternoon television standards.


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


user
Having watched 10 minutes of this movie I was bewildered, having watched 30 minutes my toes were curling - I simply couldn't believe it: The movie is really awful. In fact it is so awful, that I had to watch all of it just to be convinced(!). During this, I came to realize that it reminded me of a bunch of Danish so-called comedies from the 60's and 70's. The pattern is as follows: Take one extremely popular comedian, make a script putting this comedian in as many grotesque situations as possible, add a bunch of jokes (especially one-liners), and spice it up with a couple of beautiful young girls - film that, and you have a success! I wouldn't know if this movie was a success, but unlike the Danish tradition which died quietly (with a few great comedians) it seems that there is a market for this kind of movie in the US.


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


user
Rodney Dangerfield is a great. He has done a lot of great works. But this one....is awful. The whole plot is whack. It could have been much better. The jokes in the movie aren't funny....their stupid. This was very not so hilarious. He can do much better than this.


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


user
This movie was so bad, outdated and stupid that I had rough times to watch it to the end. I had seen this Rodney guy in Natural Born Killers and I thought he was funny as hell in it, but this movie was crap. The "jokes" weren't funny, actors weren't funny, anything about it wasn't even remotely funny. Don't waste your time for this! Only positive things about this were the beautiful wives :) and Molly Shannon who I'm sure tried her best, but the script was just too awful. That's why I rated it "2" instead of "1", but it's definitely one of the worst films 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
I have to confess right off that I have never been a fan of Rodney Dangerfield. Indeed, from me he gets "no respect." I watched this only because my wife wanted to see it, and found exactly what I expected: a stupid story without any real humour. It's full of lame, crude jokes and a totally ridiculous plot revolving around a developer's (Dangerfield) plans to build a ski resort in Utah that just didn't capture my attention at all.
In addition to Dangerfield the film starred a weak cast, including the likes of Andrew Dice Clay and the totally over the hill John Byner (I didn't even know he was still around until I saw his name in the credits for this.)
This truly is a Dangerfield disaster.
2/10


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


user
I almost burst into tears watching this movie. Not from laughing but from the memories of a great Rodney Dangerfield movie. Candyshack was his first and stole the movie, Easy Money had him at his best, and Back To School is by far an 80's classic masterpiece. Then there was Ladybugs and that's when it started to show. Poor Rodney was getting old (Meet Wally Sparks was a slight step up from Ladybugs but not saying much).
In My 5 Wives Rodney plays Monte (a name he must love since that was his name in Easy Money) a rich (isnt he always) guy who loves women and gets married like its nothing. Well now he inherits a huge piece of land and since the land was run by the Amish, he inherits 5 Wives. This sounds like a great idea for a Dangerfield movie. The problem is EVERYTHING. The script is so poor that Rodney seems to be saying his one liners to the camera and all the side characters have nothing to do. The movie looks like it was shot on video with some really poor stunt sequences that are obviously not Rodney. Andrew Dice Clay plays a gangster who looks like he is dying to say the F word (which he should since the film is rated R but plays as if it was PG) and Jerry Stiller has a nice 2 minute cameo. Don't get me wrong, at times I did laugh at a few of Rodney's jokes but the poor man is getting way too old and way too slow. We can see his jokes coming from miles. And the film turns way too PC which thanks to the horrible 1990's, the 70's and 80's Rodney just doesn't work anymore.


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 watchable movie, but plot was a little weak and most of the jokes were from some of Rodney's earlier movies. With that said, it was worth the time to watch. I gave this a 5 out of 10. So basically, its one of those movies that you do not go out of your way to see, but if you find it on the tube, take a chance.


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


user
When Rodney Dangerfield is on a roll, he's hilarious. In My 5 Wives, he's not on a roll. The timing of the one-liners is off, but they're the best thing going for the movie. The five women who play the wives don't add up to one whole actress between them. The plot is very weak. Even the premise is pretty weak; there are a few jokes about having multiple wives, but the situation has little to do with anything else in the movie. Most of the movie could play the same way even if Rodney's character had only one wife, so the premise seems more like an old man's fantasy than a key part of the comedy. Another old man's fantasy: we're supposed to accept that Rodney's character is an athletic skier.
Jerry Stiller seems to be phoning in his role just to do a buddy a favor, and the rest of the name actors must simply be desperate for work.
The odd nods to political correctness later in the movie don't really do anything for the movie. For those who like their movies politically correct, the non-PC humor is still there in the first place, and the seeming apologies for it still don't get the point. For those who hate seeing a movie cave in to political correctness, the PC add-ins are just annoying digressions.
This has to be the mildest R-rated movie I've ever seen. There are some racy jokes, and the bedroom scenes would have made shocking TV 40 years ago, but that's about it. Maybe it was the topless men (kidding).
The DVD features interviews where the cast members seem to find depth and importance in this movie and in their roles. I kept wondering if they were serious or kidding. They seem to be serious, but I kept thinking, "They must be kidding!" There's also a peculiar disclaimer suggesting that since the movie never actually names the Mormons or the Church of Latter-Day Saints, that somehow it's not about them. Never mind that the movie features a polygamous religion in Utah, and makes reference to Brigham Young.
In short, My 5 Wives was a disappointment. I was hoping for Rodney on a roll, but the best I can say for the movie is that Rodney was looking pretty good for a guy who was pushing 80 at the time.


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


user
As much as I love Rodney Dangerfield, this was a terrible movie. The plot was kind of a holistic rip off of various movies, but unfortunately they forgot to rip off any good jokes. In addition it was annoying and boring and that's being kind. If you're looking for a good laugh, rent a copy of Private Parts.


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 seen Rodney Dangerfield's previous movies and performances, you'll recognise several of the jokes made in this odd piece of dreck. Written like a sitcom, this movie fails to strike any sort of likeable chord throughout, from the self-help doctor played by the aways sexy-as-chopped liver Molly Shannon to the 'I'm fat, and therefore funny' John Linette. The 5 wives themselves are likeable enough, and if this had been done as a pilot for an action-adventure series, it might have worked. Instead, it comes off like a male fantasy that's trying hard not to be politically incorrect.


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 features two of my favorite actors in Kilmer and Downey. It also boasts the always enjoyable Larry Miller in a too-small part. Despite this I found it to be nearly unwatchable. Michelle Monaghan may be pretty but she is nearly charisma free and the reasons for Downey's character's obsession with her character is not at all understandable in terms of the information the film presents or the way it's portrayed. The ending seems pretentious and though the intention seems to be that the audience should join in the nod and wink the film, having failed to bring us in on the side of its protagonists leaves us unwilling or unable to do so.
Fans of the film say that those who disagree simply "don't get it". I don't think this is so. The plot was not complicated or beyond understanding. It was simply uninvolving and clumsily and obviously manufactured. I "got it". I just didn't like it. Paddy Breathnach's "I Went Down" and Guy Ritchie's "Snatch" and "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" are much better realized examples of the kind of film-making that director Shane Black fails to achieve.
I share a birthday with Shane Black but a look at his credits (mostly as a screenwriter)makes me want to dissociate myself from any other connection.


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 "Slugs" is unique because the titular vermin are actually the good guys in this horrific tale of nature gone awry. You see, these poor slugs have been mutated through the pollution of evil humans and don't mean to do anything malicious, they're just slugs- slugs with sharp teeth who eat flesh and excrete poison, but slugs none the less. The real bad guys are the humans, who either actively try to destroy our beloved slugs, or overreact when they encounter them.
For example, take the scene where the guy puts on the glove full of slugs. They were just hanging out in a comfortable work glove when out of nowhere this giant hand came at them, and they reacted instinctively, defending themselves and biting the guy. Now, instead of seeking medical attention for his slug bite, this guy runs around his greenhouse screaming like an idiot, spills some highly volatile chemicals, starts a fire, knocks a bookcase over on himself, and cuts off his own hand- then the fire and volatile chemicals mix and his house explodes. How can you blame that on the slugs?
This movie paints a portrait of humans that is less than favorable. The characters in this movie include the dumb sheriff who hates everybody, the drunk hick who's mean to his dog, and the lumpy sidekick whose wife is at least forty-five years older than him. There's also a set of drunken teens
that get attacked while copulating, and we have to see the skinny long-haired freaks' genitals. Meanwhile, there's a guy who looks like a demonic Leslie Neilson who yells "You don't have the authority to declare happy birthday!" for some reason. Finally, this parade of loathsomeness is rounded out by the guy from the MST3K classic "Pod People" whose face explodes after eating a slug-laces salad (another easily avoided fate blamed on the helpful, harmless slugs).
Humans are portrayed as greedy, stupid, racist, alcoholic, and, in one pointless scene, as would-be rapists. In the movie's climactic scene, the villainous humans try to burn the slugs who are cowering helplessly in the sewers, Well, since they're idiots, the humans succeed in BLOWING UP THE ENTIRE TOWN. They alone do more damage than the slugs ever did!
If you hate humans, and I know I do, you'll appreciate "Slugs". If you're a fan of bad cinema, you'll also appreciate this crapfest from the director of "Pieces" and "Pod People". There's enough bad acting, silly dialog, illogical plot twists, lame special effects, pointless scenes, and poor dubbing to hold your attention.


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


user
I love killer Insects movies they are great fun to watch, I had to watch this movie as it was one of my Favourite horror books by Shaun Hutson.
I have met him and I wish I did listen to him as this movie was terrible like he Said it was,after he said that I was still dying to see how bad it was.
The plot: People are dying mysteriously and gruesomely, and nobody has a clue what the cause is.
Only health worker Mike Brady has a possible solution, but his theory of killer slugs is laughed at by the authorities.
Only when the body count begins to rise and a slug expert from England begins snooping around does it begin to look like Mike had the right idea after all.
This movie as the most overacting you ever see a movie! Slugs in this movie are fast (Then normal) and it looks like they fast forwarding the scenes!
This movie is nothing like the book at all, the book was ten times scarier, ten times gory and had a lot more story to it!
I didn't like this movie at all! As I am huge fan of Slugs the book and second book called Breeding ground! Both of books are Great
Read the book then watch the movie, you may like more then I did Give this 2 out 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 a mildly interesting late 80's gore fest featuring some nasty slugs with a taste for human blood. If you can get past the ridiculousness of the whole thing you might actually get some minor enjoyment out of this. The acting is awful and the plot is simply there to hold the movie together between gory slug attacks, but the movie isn't a complete waste of time. The special effects are actually quite good, and the gore is well done. It reminded me of the remake of the Blob, probably because of the sliminess of it all. All in all, you could certainly do worse with an hour and a half of your time, but I wouldn't suggest seeing this movie unless you've got a strong stomach and are into this sort of thing.


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


user
Mike Brady (Michael Garfield who had a minuscule part in the classic "The Warriors") is the first person in the community to realize that there's murderous slugs in his small town. Not just any slugs, mind you, but carnivorous killer bigger then normal, mutated by toxic waste slugs (who still only go as fast as a normal slug, which isn't that frightening, but I digress). No one will believe him at first, but they will. Oh yes, they will.
OK, killer slugs are right above psychotic sloths and right below Johnathon Winters as Mork's baby in the creepiness factor. So the absurdness of it all is quite apparent from the get go. The flick is fun somewhat through and is of the 'so bad that it's good' variety. I appreciate that they spelled out that this was Slugs: the Movie as opposed to Slugs: the Children's Game or Slugs: the Other White Meat. Probably not worthy of watching it more than once and promptly forgetting it except for playing a rather obscure trivia game. Director Juan Piquer Simón is more widely known for his previous films "Pod People" (which MST3K deservedly mocked) and "Peices" (which is quite possibly the funnest bad movie ever made)
Eye Candy: Kari Rose shows T&A
My Grade: D+
DVD Extras: Merely a theatrical trailer 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
This could have been a rather entertaining film, but instead it ranks with other duds like Leeches and Rest In Pieces at the bottom of the cinematic food chain. Had they played this flick tongue-in-cheek, it could have been a very entertaining film, like Re-Animator or Dead ALive, but Juan Piquor Simon plays it tongue-in-cheek in spots but straight more often.
The premise of this film is a small community that is besieged by mutated slugs. There is an abandoned toxic waste dump near a sewer line that mutates the slugs into aggressive, meat-eating monsters - albeit monsters that move slowly and can be squished under your boot. Health Inspector Michael Garfiled and two accomplices are the only people that seem willing to fight the slugs while the sheriff and mayor think they are crazy. The climax is a laugh riot - unintentional at that - which makes you scratch your head as to how stupid (actors and screenwriter) the scenario of destroying the slugs is.
STORY: $$ (No new ground charted here. Simon seems to play the gore elements tongue-in-cheek but the dialogue is straight. Had Simon worked with a clever script - one with plenty of one-liners and eccentric characters, this could have been a cult film).
VIOLENCE: $$$ (You won't be letdown here. We get plenty of exploding chest cavity scenes as well as a grand head explosion in the middle of a fine Italian restaurant. The blood and guts, that many horror film watchers enjoy, is in full swing here. You also get corpses of people who have been picked clean by the slugs and plenty of slug smashing scenes).
ACTING: $ (Wow! Michael Garfield seems to know that this script is a stinker and he delivers his lines with a facial expression that suggests he knows how preposterous this film-making endeavor is. Kim Terry, as his wife, does an adequate job even though she does little beyond the hold-your-face-while-you-scream bit. The "teenagers" were all horrible actors - no exceptions. Man, this film could have used Bruce Dern or Jeffrey Combs!)
NUDITY: $$ (Two teens get naughty in bed before they get dispatched - in a poorly done scene - by a horde of slugs that crawled into the girl's bedroom. Both male and female nudity here).


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


user
All you really need to know about this movie comes after the opening scene, where a guy falls into a lake and gets eaten. Then they start rolling the title credits: You see "Slugs!" in big letters, followed shortly thereafter by "The Movie." WHEW! I was worried I had accidentally tuned into "Slugs: The Musical" or "Slugs: The Game Show." Anyway, from there the movie deteriorates into a kill-fest. You see a guy cut his hand off because he had slugs in his gardening glove, two people get attacked by slugs while having sex, and a girl falling on her back in an underground passageway get stung to death by killer slugs. It's a pretty silly movie, falling in the "so-bad-it's-good" category. It also is shot so poorly with such grainy film that you're shocked to learn it was made in 1988 (my guess was 1974). I'm VERY surprised it has received as high a score as it has here, because most people here don't give those types of movie any love. But if you want a movie that tries to be scary but ends up being laughable, this is one of your prime candidates.


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


user
Ok, where do we start with this little gem? Mutant slugs begin to take over a small New England (?) town. Only one man can stop them... and that man... is Mike Brady! Now, if that wasn't laughable enough, stay tuned.
The footage of the slugs is what's known as stock footage. No matter who the slugs attack or where they are, the same shot of piles of slugs oozing everywhere is shown. Keep in mind, this singular shot occupies at least half the movie.
The acting in the movie was knock down, drag out, steal your wallet, punch your girlfriend, kill your dog, BAD. I'm sure there's worse, but you're going to be hard pressed to find it. The only gem was... you guessed it.... MIKE BRADY! He must have taken a few night classes at the YMCA, because he was the best in the bunch.
As for horror? This film is not to be taken seriously. There isn't horror! They're slugs for crying out loud. The entire rising action could have been avoided with a salt shaker or two. Only watch this film in a MST3K type environment, otherwise I can see some major damage to the brain.


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


user
In all of low budget history. this movie has to be one of the worst. True ther are some humorous sides to the movie, but in general it was just plain awful. I just can't understand what person could not out run a bunch of slugs. I mean they have to be one of the slowest creatures on the planet. The only part worth while in this movie is the close up of a slugs attempt to bite the finger of a man. This was rather amusing.


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


user
is seismic activity with little or negligible results on the surface. So in that respect, IMDb's average voting score is spot on.
A Spanish film made in the USA with third or fourth rate actors giving a kind of "Falcon Crest" dimension to the whole affair is a wonderful way to waste your time, as well as wasting the money of those who backed the project financially.
The slugs involved are originals from Asturias, northern Spain, but as they were not allowed into the United States, plastic ones had to be made. However, chopping them up in the lettuce being used for making the evening dinner-time salad contrasts rather weirdly with Parisienne music as well as a rather tatty array of other US forgotten hits (or misses if you have no idea who was responsible for composing it). The actors involved were also a rather tatty array, just suitable for a low-budget film which might be categorised as horrific, horrifying, horrible or just simple awful.
As a result, the outcome is negligible on the surface, undetected underground, and about as attractive as Chapter 17,000 of Coronation Street or the latest news from Baghdad.


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


user
Just kidding! This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen! It was so bad though, that it was hilarious. My friend and I purposly rented it because it looked so bad. Cheesy old horror flicks are always good for some laughs. The plot stunk, some of the voices were dubbed, the quality was horrendous. But I sure had a blast watching it!


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


user
I'm not even gonna waste time on this one; it's not funny, not scary, practically unwatchable and only occassionaly gory(the FX suck though(no pun intended)). This is a disclaimer; WATCH AT YOUR PERIL! Ask yourself 1 question; Are slugs scary?


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


user
Basically this is a pale shadow of High Fidelity, which was a witty and wonderfully acted film with several truly winning character turns. Watching the Detectives has none of that.
The premise of a video store geek swept off his feet by a quirky mystery woman is a good one but is never fully or adequately explored, thanks to a very weak script and the miscasting of the leads, not to mention the lack of any real visual story-telling style. I mean, this film is centered around MOVIES, yet is itself incredibly uncinematic! That's a major failing right there.
But the main problem is we simply don't care about the main characters because the script and the actors (Murphy and Liu) fail to make them true or sympathetic in any real way. So the film just becomes a series of episodes involving two people who seem, well, not terribly interesting.
Oh, yeah, another thing: For a romantic comedy? It's not funny. And the romance isn't terribly romantic, either.
So avoid it. Even at its 90-something minute running time it's just not worth sitting through...


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


user
Lucy Alexis Liu and Cillian Murphy are both excellent actors, who can certainly rise to any acting challenge put to them.
Unfortunately 'Watching the Detectives (2007)' offers only one to both actors and audience alike: not to fall asleep during a mind-numbingly boring, very predictable and unimaginative story.
'Watching the Detectives (2007)' tries very hard to be funny, but the comedy is forced, extremely poorly directed and embarrassing to the verge of complete ridicule.
After a third of the film still nothing that may capture even the most willing audience, like the director's friends and relatives, is even hinted at, not to mention actually happening.
I'm pretty sure everybody who liked it faked it or had to fake it like Neil's ex-girlfriend did when he showed her an old B&W film she couldn't care less about. 'Watching the Detectives (2007)' is nowhere near category B, it falls somewhere between Q & R, like -Questions? and -Repress the questions! The director knows what he's doing! Well, if his goal was to bore the viewer to death, he has done a very good job!
'Watching the Detectives (2007)' was a complete waste of time for Lucy Alexis Liu and Cillian Murphy, bur PLEASE don't let it be a waste of your time!
Rating: 0 out of 100.


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


user
At one point, Violet (Lucy Liu) tells Neil (Cillian Murphy) that why she constantly seeks out for an adventure. She said "because I'm bore-phobic". It mean that she can't really get on with her life by doing some mandatory activities. Well, I think her reason and the way this film go is very ironic. Because "Watching the Detectives" is a cheer boredom.
Have any of these characters actually doing something exciting for once? Neil is a geek who runs his own very small video rental shop. He and his other geek friends usually hang out around the shop and watching movies together while debating about them afterward. But Neil's life is completely turned around when Violet walks into his store. She's an eccentric woman who hides a little secret from him. Anyway, after some dates, they decide to see each other. The problem is Violet is a person who keep doing prank jokes on Neil and can't really doing something normal, whereas Neil is completely opposite to hers. The question is. Is they are going to be in love at the end? You bet.
"Watching the Detectives" is a cliché romantic-comedy to its core. And they made it even worst by pretending to be something else. From the first couple of set-up, we know that Neil is pretty laid-back guy who didn't really commit to anything. And then, Violet enters the scene, looking all weird and annoying. So at this point, we all know that we're going to sit though all meaningless situations to find out how they're going to end up in the end. Is it worth waiting for? I would say no.
As I said, they tried to give something more for the audience. "Watching the Detectives" is trying to talk about commitment. To observe how far people go to reach for something they desire. We knew in the end that insane things that Violet has done is all the test how far Neil is ready to go to win her heart (or whatever). Well, I think it is completely bullshit. This movie will end pretty quick if Neil just said to himself "Forget about it, that girl is one of a nutjob !" After collaborating with many great directors recently (Danny Boyle's "Sunshine" and "28 Days Later", Ken Loach's "The Wind That Shakes the Barley" and Neil Jordan's "Breakfast on Pluto" to name a few), it's pretty weird choice for Cillian Murphy to make a movie with one of Broken Lizard comedy troop, Paul Soter. By all means, He's not bad (as usual), but such a talent actor like him shouldn't be wasting his time in the movie like this. On the other hand, Lucy Liu is dreadfully awful as Violet. Her acting is a mess. I mean it's all over the place and so over-the-top. Tony Montana would have been proud.
The last but not least mistake that movie made is a completely irrelevant title. You simply can't really connect a dot between the plot and its title; and then you will end up thinking that it makes no sense at all. In short, "Watching the Detectives" is pleasant if forgettable motion picture that you might have a chance to catch it on cable TV so quick that you couldn't imagine.
BloodyMonday Rating: 1.5/4


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


user
To make a film straddling the prequels and the "real" Star Wars trilogy would tax even a great film-maker....Mr Lucas is not that film-maker.
To portray the fall of a good man into darkness needs a good actor...Mr Christensen is not that actor.
The first 60-80 minutes are overwhelmingly boring with only a few pockets of yet more light sabre fights but there is a lack of edge because you already know which main characters survive to the original Star Wars.
Count Dooku (Christopher Lee) has a very fleeting role here and about the best idea is to have Jar Jar Binks silent!
No the film only picks up with the Chancellor turning on the Jedi and has one great (overlong) sequence at the lava falls


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 trying to decide if jumping into a wood chopper would be more enjoyable than this dreck. It finishes the destruction of what was once a classic couple of films. With Jedi, Menace, Clowns and Sith we have the death of Lucas' career. He wants us to swallow the Annakin is Vader nonsense? I never believed it was true. This film vindicates those feelings. The story hasn't worked since Phantom Moron, and each new film just piled the crap on until all that was left was a toy parade. I have to go. I know where some new rocks to throw are. You want spoilers? Here they come. Luke and Leia are NOT related. Vader is NOT their Father. Duke Countoo should have switched sides while he still could. Yoda has less verbal skills than Yogi Berra. His advice has never been any good to anybody. Obi Wan lied to Luke for the first two films. Annakin didn't build C3P0. He found him in the desert and lied to his Mom about putting him together from scratch. Chewbacca has fleas. This whole mess with Vader and the fall of the Republic can be blamed on that stupid b***h Amma-Lamma-Ding-Dong. If she had any brains she wouldn't have come within a light year of Annie, but she had told do what George Lucas wrote for her. What a dope!


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


user
Ludicrous. Angelic 9-year-old Annakin turns into whiny brat 19-year-old Annakin, who somehow seems appealing to Amidala, 5 years his senior. Now 22-year-old Jedi warrior hero Annakin has a couple of bad dreams, and so takes to slaughtering children, his friends, and the entire framework of his existence because a crazy old man convinced him a) his precious wife might really die, and b) only he can prevent this. Ludicrosity squared.
I think the people who like this movie are not paying attention. The story is ridiculous. The characters are unbelievable (literally, not the perverted sense of "fantastic", "wonderful", etc.).
Obi-wan Kenobi was the wise and kind anchor for the entire series, but in the climax, he hacks off Annakin's legs, lets him burn in the lava, and leaves him to suffer. Doesn't anyone think that's a little out of character? Not to mention it was pretty stupid to take a chance on him living, as it turns out.
I was expecting at least a story that showed consistent characters with plausible motivations. None of that here. The story could have been written by a 10 year old.
Oh yeah, the CGI is pretty cool.


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


user
First let me preface this post by saying that I am a fan of the original Star Wars MOVIES...I don't read the books, play the games, wear the underwear or eat the cereal (if there is one). I am simply a fan of the films.
With that being said, I struggle to see how people are giving this movie such high praise. Taking this movie by itself, and not comparing it to it's terrible predecessors (EP 1, 2), I don't understand how you can say this is an amazing movie. For all of the terrible shortcomings in the script - cheesy dialogue, contrived scenes (ie R2 suddenly being a badass, and long CGI intense chase scenes that have little human touch), HORRIBLE acting, and noted plot holes...how is this good? There was no real internal dilemma within Anakin; it just seemed like a switch was flipped and he was evil all of a sudden. I was not interested in the movie until the last 20 minutes or so (which by the way was ruined by the "NOOOOOO!" Frankenstein scene). When you BOMBARD the screen with intensely amazing CGI effects and fill in the gaps with absolutely atrocious one-liners when more could have and should have been said, this is NOT A GREAT MOVIE. For a film with such a "dark" tone, there was too much levity in the speech of ALL characters.
I close with a question: From the beginning to the end of the film, was there really a sense of urgency and importance for what was actually about to take place?


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


user
Revenge of the Sith starts out with a long action sequence that is impressive without being terribly exciting, then gets really boring for the next hour and fifteen minutes, with the same horrible dialogue and dull machinations that have plagued the rest of the prequel series. The only thing that improves the proceedings is the slow--and I mean slow--build-up to what we know will be the birth of Darth Vader. And when that finally comes, it's pretty all right. Not great. Not even good. But pretty all right. This movie is being vastly over-praised because it does not suck to high heaven like the previous sequels. Instead it's just turgid, dull, and routine. But you have to say, wow, those CGI environments are really impressive at times. Bu the lightsabre fights? They're all a blurry mess. I think the dark side took hold of Lucas when he started these prequels and no one noticed. This will make a ton of money, but thank god it's over, this once-worshipped franchise has been beaten down enough. I saw the 12:01 show, and after it, I heard a group of very small kids say, wow that was awesome! But everyone older than eight all grumbled the same thing: I fell asleep in the middle. It was kind of boring. I just thought seeing the birth of Darth Vader would be better. So said we all.


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


user
This kind of storytelling is unacceptable The only reason this film is anywhere above the 5 stars out of 10 line is because it's got George Lucas behind it, and it has the words "Star" and "Wars" in its title. That is an insult to aspiring filmmakers, and many others out there who have made clearly superior films with superior story, writing and acting, but did not get the credit. This is a travesty.
First things first. The story. Anakin's evolution? There is none. Apart from a little make-up around the eyes, and a little yelling, there is none. He becomes young, stupid, cocky Anakin Skywalker to Darth Vader in a single blow. The only thing consistent about Darth Vader in the original series was his intelligence, how good he was at almost everything he did, planning, fighting, you name it. The only consistent thing about Anakin that is perceived in the prequel trilogy is his consistent stupidity. He even loses his body because of a bout of stupid cockiness.
What part of the Emperor Palpatine telling him legends of the Sith does not point to the Emperor being a Sith? Unacceptable!
The fight scenes used too many digital doubles. Everyone's flying all over the place like teddy bears in a make-believe doll house. Count Dooku, Emperor Palpatine, Anakin, Obi-Wan, almost every fighter had a rubbery digital double jumping around.
In one specific fight scene, Obi-Wan and Anakin in the climactic battle, they both actually stop in the middle of parries and ripostes, to twirl their sabers a few times while inches apart. I realize the fights are choreographed, but that just got me shaking my head in disbelief and disgust.
The writing was awful. All the dialogue was of tremendously low quality. The good actors like Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman did the best they could with their lines, but that just wasn't enough. I can't say enough bad things about this film. Too much special effects, plot holes bigger than the centre of the universe, and absolutely no insights into any of the characters. This is the biggest mistake of this film: nothing new is offered. We know the rough picture of everything, all Lucas did was colour it in.
We knew Anakin lost his limbs. We knew Luke and Leia are brother and sister, we knew Luke is Anakin's son, we knew Obi-Wan and Yoda go to exile, we knew everything. Nothing new is offered in this film. If that's all the fans wanted, then that's fine, Lucas couldn't have gone wrong.
But when Anakin finally becomes Darth Vader, and he asks after Padme, and hears she is dead, he reaches out his arms awkwardly and screams "Nooooooooooooooooooooo." That scene screamed B-movie all the way, and I was half expecting Darth Vader to go "DANGER WILL ROBINSON, DANGER" at any time. That is what this is. A B-movie, disguised by a huge budget and a ultra-loyalist fan base that will settle with anything now that the first two movies have pulled their standards down to the pits of the Earth.


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


user
What a disappointment... admittedly the best of the prequels, but the story is weak, the plot is rushed and the end result is just a collection of set pieces, poorly realised and tacked together amateurishly. There are numerous continuity errors that clash glaringly with the original films, and the emergence of Darth Vader was handled so terribly that what could have been a legendary moment in modern cinema is now instead a cheesy goof that will be ridiculed for many years. I won't complain about the abysmal dialogue, as this is Star Wars... the original three films had style, cult feeling and cracking stories, and the strange dialogue added charm. The prequels were shallow attempts to make more money, and this lack of love shows in spades. Utterly disappointing.


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


user
Well, I guess I'll have to be the one to say "The Emperor has no clothes." When I saw this show listed for PBS last night I was both hopeful and apprehensive. I loved "Morse" (even going so far as to buy the complete DVD set) and felt that, while I always liked Kevin Whately's Sgt. Lewis character, the show WAS John Thaw, period! After watching the new "Inspector Lewis" (as it is billed here), I am more convinced then ever that I was right...Whately is fine (even though he looks awful (both badly aged and too fat), but he simply doesn't have the charisma to carry the show as did Thaw.
And as for his "sidekick" Fox, well...perhaps the reviewers here from England can understand what he's saying, but I for one mostly could not.
As for Ms. Innocent...all I can say is that I miss James Grout.
I'm sorry to say that they should have left "Morse" rest in peace.


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


user
Movie didn't have much plot and was uninteresting. Basically you spend a lot of time watching people paint. Also it's very difficult to hear or understand the dialogue -- partially because of the accents, but also because words are mumbled.


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


user
Americans have the attention span of a fruit fly and if something does not happen within the span of a typical commercial, we tend to lose interest really fast.
I found out an exciting fact from this film: someone has to paint high tension utility poles and do it on a schedule! And guess what, they really would like to be doing something else (the viewer has similar feelings).
Surprisingly, when I was bored watching late night infomercials and decided to actually watch this film, I found the characters to be interesting and highly engaging.
I just don't usually watch that much late night TV, so I can't recommend this film, unless watching paint dry is your idea of an exciting two hours out of your life.


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


user
Billed as a kind of sequel to The Full Monty, about unemployed men in Sheffield, this movie is a fake.
As someone born in Sheffield, and still with links to the city, I was extremely disappointed by this film. Someone said it could have been set in Oklahoma, and that just about sums it up for me. This looked like a romantic view of northern England made for the US market. Probably many Americans - and many southern English people - don't realize that Sheffield is a big city of around half a million inhabitants, with a sophisticated urban culture. In Among Giants it was depicted as some dreary dead-end semi-rural small town, where everyone in Sheffield seemed to drink in the same old-fashioned pub, and where the people's idea of a party was line-dancing in some village-hall lookalike. This was a small close-knit community, not a metropolitan city.
The working-class Sheffield men were totally unlike their real-life counterparts, who are generally taciturn and communicate with each other in grunts and brief dry remarks. They don't chatter, and they certainly don't sing in choirs.
Even the rural settings, supposedly in the Peak District, looked alien to me. I recognized a few places where I used to go hiking, but some of the aerial shots of pylons stretching out over a bleak landscape reminded me more of Wales. Indeed, in the credits at the end I spotted a reference to Gwynedd, Wales. The Peak District is, in the summer, crawling with walkers and tourists in cars. It is situated between two big cities. It is not some kind of wilderness.
As for the notion that a young woman could fall in love with, and lust after, Pete Postlethwaite, that was ludicrous, and could only have been a male dream. Her reasons for becoming his lover were never made apparent. None of the men was shown as having a partner or families; they existed in a vacuum.
Anyone wanting to see a film about unemployed Sheffielders would have been led astray. This Sheffield existed only in the minds of its middle-class writers and film-makers.
It was a gigantic fake!



assistant
0