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 movie has one redeeming feature. At one point, after a character is attacked by an ax-wielding fairy, his brother asks him, "Why is your dick over there, Chuck?" After suffering through almost an hour of bad film, this almost made my drink come out my nose.
Some of the acting isn't too bad, but the kids all stink and P. J. Soles should be ashamed of herself for doing this film. The story is weak and nobody does what you think (or what common sense dictates) they should.
Of course, there are a lot of story points that don't add up. For example, in one scene the ghosts of young children must concentrate hard to move a physical object so they can prove they exist, a difficult feat since they apparently can't interact with physical matter. However, minutes later they all pick up branches off the ground and beat the Tooth Fairy with them. Apparently they CAN sometimes move matter and sometimes they CAN'T. Go figure.
Lots of blood and guts, though...a few nice boobs. But this doesn't make up for the deficiencies.
If you want a movie about the Tooth Fairy, go rent "Darkness Falls". I think it's great, though a lot of other reviewers don't share my opinion. At least it sets a mood.


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 so stupid it simply goes around the corner and becomes ridiculous. I wanted to watch "Darkness falls" actually and thought that this was the movie. Boy, what a mistake! I fast-forwarded as much as I could and still I couldn't get rid of the boring moments. I just envy the people who was paid to play in or work on this movie. They were actually given money for this crap. Isn't that amazing? I mean in this movie a man gets killed and chopped in a wood-grinder to little bloody pieces and few minutes later the mother and the kid talk calmly at the table as nothing happened and drink coffee. Please! Come on! Who gives money for such crap movies? Oh, and the "tooth-fairy" was lame. Not scary at all and was obvious that it is a bored stuntman wearing a badly made make-up.


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's get it out of the way. . . yeah, this film steals a LOT from 'Darkness Falls' (2003). The plot for 'Darkness Falls' goes something like this: The Tooth Fairy, a murderous woman who hides her face due to disfigurement kills people who look at her out of revenge. In 'The Tooth Fairy' (2006), the disfigured Tooth Fairy (who, yeah, hides her face) unleashes her furious vengeance on just about anyone. A little too similar to be coincidence.
But, what must be asked is this: If you're going to directly steal the exact plot from a movie, why choose something as mediocre as 'Darkness Falls'? Sure it made a few bucks at the box office, but that was strictly for the fairly okay theatrical experience the film delivered. A low-budget, straight-to-video movie will not have that same effect. And it didn't.
As I watched the opening 15-20 minutes of the film, my expectations actually rose. There seemed to be at least SOME production value. The story didn't seem terrible, just blatantly ripped off. Past the first scene, we get an okay cast of characters including an ex-doctor with secrets (played by that guy who looks like a Busey) and some hot veterinary student (Jenifer from Argento's 'Masters of Horror: Jenifer'). After those few minutes, however, the film just slowly goes down the drain. It serves all the basic horrible clichés including, but not limited to: some crazy old person with an unheeded warning, the buff dumb jock, the psychic, and the stripper with the heart-of-gold.
One of the biggest problems this film had was its inability to stick with a target audience. It's kind of like the filmmakers wanted to change the tone for whatever character was on screen at the time. When the adults were on screen, it had a more mature feel. When Star (the stripper) and whatshisface (the jock) were on screen, the dialogue went down to a more stupid, err immature, level. When the kid was on screen, it felt like an episode of 'Are You Afraid of the Dark?'. . . only less scary.
Technically, the film is all over the place. The visuals range from fairly good to plain boring. The writing is subpar, as is the acting for the most part. On the plus side, there's some excessive gore at parts (including a fairly cool (yet painfully predictable)) woodchipper scene and a pretty vicious nailgun scene. Also, if you're looking for a bit of the sexy stuff, there's a brief topless scene (but if you want to see this chick topless, there are better films to do that). Other than that, there's not much to bother with when it comes to this film.
If you're a huge fan of 'Darkness Falls' (do those exist?), maybe you can check it out to see the story done in a different way. . . but, that's about the only reason I can find to see this one.
Final Verdict: 3/10 -AP3-


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


user
The first episode of this new show was on today, and it was horrible. Not only did Shaggy have a squeaky new voice that made listening to his lines torture, but it's so far away from the original concept and animation style that it's barely recognizable as a 'Scooby-Doo' show.
Even back in the dark days when Fred and Velma were gone and Scooby's nephew Scrappy was there, the team still solved mysteries. This new show instead features Shaggy and Scooby battling a James Bond type super-villain and his henchmen while living in a mansion. There's not even a van called 'The Mystery Machine' (and the teaser for the next episode which promised a transformers type robot car did NOT put my mind at ease). How can anyone take Scooby Doo and make THIS?
The show earns two point for two scenes featuring the whole Scooby Doo gang, all of whom speak with the correct voices except Shaggy, and even then I'm being far too generous.


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


user
Scott Menville is not Casey Kasem. That is the first, most important, and most disturbing thing about this attempt at re-imagining Scooby-Doo and company.
Shaggy's voice is squeaky and does not sound anything like he has ever sounded in any of the previous incarnations of the Scooby shows. They've also changed the outfit and the classic mode of walking from the original.
I'm not sure what they're on about yet with the villain angle, but it surely isn't following the formula used in any of the previous Scooby shows.
And the animation style is very bizarre and distorted. I like it, but it's not real Scooby-Doo type animation. But the weird animation used for other WB shows grew on me; this might, too.
It's worth a glance at -- once -- if you can handle the lack of proper Shaggy voice. That right there is enough to jar one out of enjoying the show properly. Besides, I am trying not to be an inflexible, nitpicking fan. Evolve or die, as the saying goes. We'll see how it looks after two more episodes -- by then I'll have formed a much more solid opinion.


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


user
I grew up with scooby(kinda the re-runs of where are you)I hate scrappy, love Daphne, and feel its not complete with out the whole gang. But this is sad, scooby doo is mystery solving comedy-not bad totally spy's jap anime. i like "whats new", they had to give danger-prone Daphne a makeover sometime :( and try to lose the *sex *drug jokes of many a generation, but this "get a clue" is flat out crap and should not have the Scooby name attached. They even tried to do some lame punk thing with the theme song. now i'm gonna go watch my DVD of scooby doo where are you to wash the filth of this new series off my eyes


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


user
The animation looks like it was done in 30 seconds, and looks more like caricatures rather than characters. I've been a fan of Scooby Doo ever since the series premiered in 1969. I didn't think much of the Scooby Doo animated movies, (I'm talking about the TV Series, not the full length movies.), but some of them were pretty cool, and I like most people found Scrappy Doo to be an irritant, but this series is pure garbage. As soon as I saw the animation, and heard the characters, (and I use that term loosely) speak, I cringed. Also, Mystery Inc., was a team, and without the entire crew to compliment each other, it just seems like opening up a box of chocolates to find someone has already ate the best ones, and the only thing left are the ones nobody wants. What's New Scooby Doo was better than this. If you're going to have a Scooby Doo TV series, include the elements that made the series endure so long. The entire cast of characters, and quality animation. They need to put this one back under the rock from where it came.


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


user
Shaggy & Scooby-Doo Get a Clue. It's like watching a much-loved relative in the final throws of a degenerative illness!! Clearly the work of people with no soul, no love or respect for the original work. What in the name of all that's holy were they thinking of? It seems they were trying to go all post-modern and ironic. Instead it's just abysmal swill!! What's the point in taking up a successful franchise like 'Scooby-Doo' if you just going to flush it down the toilet? My son loves the original series - and even some of the spin-off movies - but he can't stand this drivel! And let's face it, you can't argue against the tastes of a seven year-old


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


user
I am 17, and I still like most of the Scooby Doo movies and the old episodes. I love the 1990s movies, and recently we were treated to one of the better direct to DVD Scooby Doo outings of this decade, Scooby Doo and the Goblin King, which I wasn't expecting to be as good as it was. Anyway, back to Get a Clue! I watched some episodes, expecting something very good, but from what I saw of it, I wasn't impressed at all. First of all, I hated the animation. It was flat, deflated and very Saturday- morning -cartoon -standard, easily the worst aspect of the series. Even some shows I really hate had slightly better animation. Even worse, Shaggy and Scooby looked like aliens, and I really missed Fred, Velma and Daphne, as they added a lot to the old episodes, when Scooby Doo was positively good. I also hated the character changes, because it seemed like instead of solving mysteries, Shaggy and Scooby were now playing superhero, something they would've never had done in the movies or in the Scooby-Doo Where Are You? show. The theme tune wasn't very good either, I can't even remember it, and the jokes were lame and contrived. Though, I do acknowledge that there is a very talented voice cast, had they had better material, and hadn't been told to sound as different to the original voices as humanly possible, which they did, might I add. In conclusion, I personally thought it was awful, and I am not trying to discredit it, it's what I personally feel. 1/10 Bethany Cox


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


user
As a mother of 2 young children who are or should I say have been growing up with the many reincarnations of Scooby I feel well positioned to comment on the historical and current version of Scooby.
If as a family we had not seen any episodes prior to Shaggy and Scooby get a clue we may have enjoyed it as a light weight, nothing special Saturday morning cartoon. But that in essence is the problem it is in it's current format so light weight that it will not have the longevity of the "old" Scooby and gang. I'm sure it may succeed in a quick monetary return but I'm sure the long term buy in of old and young is in very real danger of being lost. My 6 year old son on seeing the new version was really disgruntled and without any prompting said that it looked really badly animated and why wasn't it anything like the last series(Where are you).
Scrappy Doo was an anomaly but still infinitely better than this. Let's hope Get a clue will be apropos with reference to the producers.


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 grown up with Scooby doo all my life, My dad grew up with scooby doo. We have just watched the first episode of the travesty that calls itself Shaggy and Scooby get a clue. What planet are Warner Bros on allowing this shambles to air. The characters could have been drawn better by my younger sister. The story could have been better written by my 3 year old twin cousins (who are Scooby Doo fans too). Scooby and Shaggy just aren't!!!!! if anyone but Casey Kasem does the voice of Shaggy it just isn't gonna work folks!!!! trust me.
This program was disgraceful. What's New Scooby Doo is much better. Why change a winning format. Bin this piece of garbage and go back to the true Scooby


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 let down! This started with an intriguing mystery and interesting characters. Admittedly it moved along at the speed of a snail, but I was nevertheless gripped and kept watching.
David Morrissey is always good value and he Suranne Jones were good leads. The Muslim aspects were very interesting. We were tantalised with possible terrorist connections.
But then Morrissey's character was killed off and all the air left the balloon. The last episode was dull, dull, dull. The whole thing turned out to be very small beer and the dénouement was unbelievably feeble.
Five hours of my life for that? My advice: watch paint dry instead.


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 don't mind having your emotions toyed with, then you won't mind this movie. On the other hand, if you enjoy British crime mysteries, following clues and seeing how they all logically fall into place at the end, you'll be very disappointed.
Here are some of the logical inconsistencies that lead to that disappointment:
* While the police utilize the CCTV cameras early on to gather clues about the mystery, the huge truck that stopped and blocked the children's view just before her disappearance doesn't get caught on camera. This is a critical piece of the mystery. It's inconsistent to have the car the children were in caught on camera and not the big truck that is so critical to the mystery.
* The movie goes to great lengths to show the sophistication of the equipment in tracking down the children's movements but misses the opportunity to utilize the same sophisticated equipment is tracking down vehicles that may have entered the crime scene from camera-visible locations adjacent to the crime scene as part of developing clues.
* In England, driving is on the left. The director goes out of his way to have the car at the crime scene park on the right, several meters away from the flower kiosk, when it could have easily parked immediately behind, or even on the side; as the huge truck did.
* The police forensics team is so meticulous as to find a discarded cell phone in a sewer drain several miles from the scene of the crime, but can't find any blood evidence from the head injury right at the crime scene, even though they secured the scene just hours after the disappearance and with no intervening rainfall.
* Search dogs were not used at all to find the missing children; this from the country that is well known for developing the hound dog for search and hunting.
* It is illogical that such a highly publicized news story would not turn up the presumably innocent truck driver that stopped at the flower kiosk.
* It is illogical that the mother would go to such extremes and expend so much effort to leave carpet fiber clues under her fingernails for her eventual murder investigators even coaxing her daughter to do the same-- while she simply could not have crawled out of the unguarded mobile home. If she had enough sense about her to ask her daughter to get carpet fibers under her nails, she could of just as easily asked her daughter to call out for help or even leave the mobile home that was in a crowded residential park.
* The suspect that abducted the little girl was portrayed as mentally slow/dimwitted --justifying his unknowingly drowning of the mother but, he was smart enough not to cooperate with the police and also fully exercise his rights not to self-incriminate.
There are more inconsistencies like this that will lead to a true sleuth aficionado's disappointment. 'Five Days' is a very weak British crime story.


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


user
I cannot believe that I wasted five hours of my life on this rubbish. The previous five day offering by this author was highly enjoyable and I was really looking forward to this. But most of the dialogue was completely incomprehensible. Suranne Jones was the principal culprit since she either mumbled or gabbled her lines, but most of the rest of the cast followed her example. Notable exceptions were Bernard Hill and Anne Reid, old stagers whose diction was exemplary. Do producers not listen to productions before they are aired to make sure the dialogue is audible? As a result I suppose I lost track of what was going on, and since the original plot line seemed to metamorphose into to the standard them-and-us thing between Muslims and the rest I soon lost interest. The ending was a complete anti-climax. A complete dud.


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


user
the writing of the journalists and the required over eager reckless press officer and sobbing grandma was ham-fisted and cliché ridden.
I cant blame the actors, but surely someone must have said "are you joking I cant say this!"
This episode had a press perspective and police perspective, while the police perspective was standard enough, the press perspective and characterization was overdrawn exaggerated and at points insultingly unbelievable.
I notice that this was an HBO co production, if so then perhaps the sledgehammer stereotypes can be explained in that light,
I was completely cringing during the press conference scene. it lacked any credibility and did not remotely ring true. 40 minutes into the first episode and I am still waiting for the suspense.
Skip Five Daysthis. the 2008/9 production with these characters is far better and more suspenseful even if the crime is over the top.
This story had unforgivable moments which can only be described as staggeringly unbelievable.
For a press officer to start a press conference without an investigating officer present to take press questions.
so unbelievable it felt like amateur hour.
I then began looking for Journalists called "Scoop" and for Perry White to make an appearance.
I saw the 2009 Hunter before "five days"made it to Australia, not realizing it was a prequel and was looking forward to Bonneville and McTeer going around again.
Head shakingly awful.


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


user
Come on! Get over with the Pakistan bashing guys. Bollywood can not only make brilliant movies- but can seriously affect a generation of viewers.
I am a HUGE Bollywood fan- but anti-Pakistan movies just make me wince too much to enjoy screenplay, cinematography, action sequences- everything.
I'm really happy to see that viewers on both sides of the border are rejecting propaganda, and there are movies like Main Hoon Na out there that have done brilliantly not only because they deserved to because of the quality of its Bollywood masala- but also because it tries to say: give peace a chance and shows that there are crazies out there on both sides who do not represent the masses.


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


user
Where to begin?
#1 Amitabh's son, played by Akshaye Khanna, is 30.
Amitabh's been in prison for 33+ years... he
A) Telepathically transmitted the sperm home?
B) Asked a nice Pakistani guard to mail it for him?
C) They allow conjugal visits in secret Pakistani Jails
D) All of the above
E) The producers were having a little too much bhang at
the time they approved the script?
#2) Amrita Rao (Yummm!) wants Khanna - he's yum, yum, yummy... and apparently he wants her - who wouldn't, right?!... But, when her dad gets ratted out, and then killed (I hardly think this is a 'spoiler' as you'd have to be brain-dead and blind not to see this coming in the film) he's pretty emotionless towards this catastrophe and with the tip (metaphorically) of his hat, leaves her behind to save his dad, never mind her loss, and says (paraphrasing) "If god wills it, we'll meet again"... Basically meaning, "I'm gonna get my dad and MY job done, sorry for your loss - CYA! Buh Bye!" - callus beyond even low-life Hollywood standards...
#3) There are so many holes in this horrible waste of time called a movie, that you can drive all the jeeps, trucks camels and any extra stuff through it. Pass - really, complete and total waste of time - Oh! There is a great dance sequence (yes, only one - as in dance sequence - regardless of quality) great belly dancing - but NOT worth watching just for this.
Rent Veer-Zaara or Lakshya (will Hrithik Roshan ever take acting lessons?) for better Indo-Pak conflict movies... In fact, Veer-Zaara is pretty damned good - 7.5/8 I'd say!


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


user
The first half hour or so of this movie I liked. The obvious budding romance between Ingrid Bergman and Mel Ferrer was cute to watch and I wanted to see the inevitable happen between them. However, once the action switched to the home of Ingrid's fiancé, it all completely fell apart. Instead of romance and charm, we see some excruciatingly dopey parallel characters emerge who ruin the film. The fiancé's boorish son and the military attaché's vying for the maid's attention looked stupid--sort of like a subplot from an old Love Boat episode. How the charm and elegance of the first portion of the film can give way to dopiness is beyond me. This film is an obvious attempt by Renoir to recapture the success he had with THE RULES OF THE GAME, as the movie is very similar once the action switches to the country estate (just as in the other film). I was not a huge fan of THE RULES OF THE GAME, but ELENA AND HER MEN had me appreciating the artistry and nuances of the original film.


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


user
Spoiler warning.
When the main character's sister is pushed down the stairs, the killer breaks a glass of vodka next to her, to make it appear that she's been drinking. But right before she is killed, tells her sister's business partner (Teri Garr) on the phone that she hasn't had a drink in 4 days. Yet the police never mention the results of a toxicology report! And, the characters talk about her being drunk when she fell down the stairs. Huh? Really bad mistake in this movie, which is pretty awful, overall.
Surprisingly bad, considering the great cast. Some faults: the writing isn't very good, the music is made-for-TV bad, and there is no tension at all because we already know the answer to the mystery from the first scene in the movie.


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


user
Chinese Ghost Story III is a totally superfluous sequel to two excellent fantasy films. The film delivers the spell-casting special effects that one can expect, but fails painfully on all other fronts. The actors all play extremely silly caricatures. You have to be still in diapers to find their slapstick humor even remotely funny. The plot is predictable, and the development is sometimes erratic and often slow. Towards the end, the movie begins to resemble old Godzilla films, including shabby larger-than-life special effects and a (well, yet another) ghost with a Godzilla head. Maybe I would have grinned if I was expecting camp.
It is astonishing to see what trash fantasy fans have to put up with - in this case because somebody thought they could squeeze a little extra money out of a successful formula. They won't be able to do it again: the cash cow is now dead as a dodo.


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


user
Final Score (an average of various classic cinematic qualities- acting, visuals, creativity, payoff, humor, fun, ect):
4.3 (out of 10)
Had "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" come out a few years ago it would have seemed like a bold, serious new direction in Disney animation. However, it comes just a year after the innovative and nearly genius "The Emperor's New Groove" and marks a step back in freeing Disney from it's repetative "Disney Formula". I'm a big fan of the feature length Disney animated films. Have to see them all love it or hate it. "Atlantis" is an animated throwback to "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" and similar live-action sci-fi adventures of the 50s and 60s. Problem is that this version hardly contains one original idea. It feels like a remake of something, even more so than actual Disney remakes(Tarzan, The Hunchback of Notre Dame). The characters are little more than a walking cliches of the usual suspects that typically populate these type of films (the oddball mechanic, the gung ho general, the sassy tough women). Beyond Milo Thatch (Fox) and Rourke (Garner) the supporting cast is flat-out obnoxious. The movie also suffers from it's succinct pace. Instead of fleshing it out into an epic story, Disney jams a lot in the usually brief running time brushing over opportunities to develop...suspence, characters, anything really. They thow us into this new and wonderous world and barely let us get our barings. The awkward pace sometimes makes confusing what is a relatively simple story. The animation is dark and dreary and cheap. This thing looks like a slapped together saturday morning cartoon. Let's hope they haven't forgotten that 2D traditional animation can still be wonderous. "The Iron Giant" among others proved that.
Negatives: The visuals, pace, and sheer lack of originality.
Positives: Quite possibly the coolest death scene for a Disney villain in a long time. It's the creative highlight of the movie.


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


user
I went to see this one with much expectation. Quite unfortunately the dialogue is utterly stupid and overall the movie is far from inspiring awe or interest. Even a child can see the missing logic to character's behaviors. Today's kids need creative stories which would inspire them, which would make them 'daydream' about the events. That's precisely what happened with movies like E.T. and Star Wars a decade ago. (How many kids imagined about becoming Jedi Knights and igniting their own lightsabers?) Seriously don't waste your time & money on this one.


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


user
How the Grinch Stole Christmas was a wonderful little Christmas cartoon that anyone could easily enjoy, I never did see the reason for a remake. Not to mention a remake that was made with humans, the cartoon was just perfect enough, what's the purpose of this film? But it also seemed a little odd for Jim Carrey to be the Grinch. I mean he's a great comedic actor, but him as the Grinch? It just didn't make any sense to me. His performance was a little over the top and unintentionally laughable at moments. Not to mention some of the added dialog was a bit childish and not enjoyable. The whole story of the Grinch and Cindy Lou-Who was over done and wasn't needed. They actually just destroyed the story, period.
All the who's in Whoville are getting ready for their best Christmas season yet where everything is intended to go perfectly. But Cindy Lou-Who is curious and worried about the Grinch that lives above them and that he's not going to get as good of a Christmas as the other who's. He kicks her out and decides that he doesn't want Christmas this year and that in fact he should just steal Christmas all together to show the who's what his version of Christmas is all about. But soon he realizes that the who's may know that it's a little bit more than what is the materialized version of Christmas.
How the Grinch Stole Christmas wasn't needed and was a bit over the top. I really recommend that you stick with the cartoon just for the simple fact that this is a pretty disturbing version, at least in my opinion. The make up and presentation of the whole film was just a bit over done, not to mention that How the Grinch Stole Christmas! was more meant to be as a cartoon rather than a version starring Jim Carry. But at least this version makes you grateful for the Boris Karloff version that is played every Christmas.
1/10


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


user
Having been forced by my children to watch this at least 10 times for each of the last 2 Christmases, I feel adequately qualified to pass judgment on this version of Dr. Seuss' classic tale, and well... it's not very good. First off, following a classic act like Chuck Jones' animated TV special is going to be difficult for anyone, but this interpretation is so heavy-handed and padded as to be positively numbing. I will concede that there are a handful of inspired gags, but overall the film comes off as a calculated cash grab, at the same time as it is supposedly decrying the commercialisation of Christmas. Jim Carrey is typically over the top here, but that is completely at odds with the character of the Grinch. As characterised by Boris Karloff, he was a slow burn; methodical and sly. There is no method to Carrey's madness, and that is only the most obvious error made. Talented actors like Jeffrey Tambor and Christine Baranski are utterly wasted here. Why, Universal, why? I mean , I understand that Tony Hopkins will take just about any role offered (much like his countryman Michael Caine), but this one needs to be filed under "Films that should never have been made." This does not bode well for the Cat in the Hat, an even thinner tome that Universal is prepping for this Christmas. I get the feeling that I will be making the same recommendation for that one as I am with this one: skip it, and either read the book or watch the TV special. This is 2 hours you can never, ever get back.


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


user
Ron Howard directed this? The 1966 cartoon is charming, teaching a simple lesson to children using a simple plot. In this movie, Howard gives us a Whoville filled with greedy, manipulative, self-centered Whos. Jim Carrey is terrible, but I'm sure it's not his fault; I imagine the script called for the nastiest person imaginable, so Carrey channeled Tom Green and the result is movie magic. Much like Danny Devito's Penguin in Batman Returns, Carrey's Grinch is so thoroughly unlikeable that any degree of comedy that might be mined from his character simply evaporates. Where the 1966 cartoon featured a Grinch that we could all identify with, Carrey's Grinch is that angry, soulless old man that we've all seen at one time or another, sitting in a parked car muttering to himself or tripping toddlers at the supermarket with his cane. This Grinch is thoroughly bereft of any degree of humanity, humor, or insight whatsoever, and his redemption at the end of the movie rings false. The whole movie rings false: there is some stupid Christmas lighting competition, a failed attempt at explaining why the Grinch is such a jerk by digging into his childhood, and an indecipherable mystery as to why some of the Whos have that weird lip extension and some of them don't. Contrary to the 1966 cartoon, I would imagine children would find this movie tiresome, irritating, and filled with contradictory messages. Did we really need to see Slutty Smurf, aka Christine Baranski as Martha May Whovier? In addition, Ron Howard filled the cast with his untalented relatives. Throw in the requisite butt jokes, fart jokes, sex jokes, and other obligatory Carreyesque low-brow humor, and you have a movie that is about as far from the 1966 cartoon (or book that inspired it) as George W. Bush is from rational, lucid thought. Thumbs down on this big fat turkey.


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


user
Ironic that Dr. Seuss' fable emphasizing the non-commercialization of Christmas should be one of the most hyped, marketed, and successful blockbusters of the holiday season. The general gist of Ron Howard's adaptation is that the Grinch's bane against Christmas stems from an early childhood incident and that the Whos themselves are caught up in the materialism of the season save for Cindy Lou Who (played very well by Taylor Momsen). This movie makes an ardent, ambitious attempt to capture the wackiness and sentiment of Seuss' story, but the end result is a movie that lurches and never quite packs the emotional punch of Chuck Jones' animated version. Jim Carrey is noteworthy in his performance as the devilish Grinch, but whether it's the dialogue, the pacing, or extraneous storylines heaped upon the initial plot, the transformation from bitter miser to gleeful benefactor just does not ignite convincingly. There are some wonderful visuals and the make-up work is amazing, yet beyond the technical triumphs there's an element or two here that's missing.
Succinctness?
Soul?
Or maybe Jones did the initial adaptation all too well in his 25-minute cartoon that Howard falls short of in a movie that feels three hours long. Howard, Carey, and crew are all very capable and talented, but what would seem a winning combination is just weak and plodding in its final product. If you must see the feature-length version, rent it on video with Jones' animated version and you can see how bigger and glitzier is not always better. I give this film three cans of Who-Hash out of five.


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


user
About the baby: Why wasn't big brother assuming he'd be hungry for a bottle or some nourishment or a diaper change? He should have been screaming non-stop after that many hours without care. Definitely stupid to take the baby from a safe place when he didn't need to.
And why was the road miraculously clear whenever anyone wanted to drive somewhere? Didn't any uprooted trees fall on the roads and block them?
I can't imagine the cops at the roadblock not immediately following after any young person who would crash it, especially when they said it was dangerous to go there.
That being said, it was nice to have a movie children could safely watch, for a change.


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


user
For some strange reason the film world is driven by fashion . Someone makes a film about a killer shark then all of a sudden the film world`s oceans are awash with giant Squids , killer octopusses and sea monsters of every ilk . A man is stalked by an erstwhile lover from hell then every film character is stalked by a cop from hell or a flatmate from hell or a babysitter from hell . Then when a major Hollywood company produces a big budget FX laden blockbuster about tornados then other film producers jump upon the bandwagon , the fact that they don`t have the budget to pull it off doesn`t stop them. NIGHT OF THE TWISTERS is a case in point . What struck me about this made for television film is the fact that it tries to hide its lack of budget by cutting to the ad breaks . Everytime a tornado appears the camara locks onto the horrified expression of the actors as they scream things like " Oh my gawd it`s heading this way " and " Run for your lives " then the screen fades to black saving the producers the need to up the special effects budget . Unfortunately NIGHT OF THE TWISTERS budget should have been upped to include better actors . The cast are by no means bad but they are unimpressive and lack the skill to carry a film which is character driven . Where`s Josh Hartnett and Elijah Wood when you need them ?
And the last word on this being a TWISTER clone ..... Yes NOTT was released a couple of months before TWISTER but TWISTER had been hyped for several months as being the Summer blockbuster of 1996 and NOTT has a rushed feeling to it which leads me to believe that it was made and released to tie in with the hype surrounding TWISTER


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


user
I am not saying that Night of the Twisters was horrible, but it was far from great. Mediocre at absolute best. I seems though that every time one type of movie is released, a second must be around the same time. (Think about Armageddon and Deep Impact, Volcano and Dante's Peak) Night of the Twisters is really just Twister except worse and with mundane special effects.
I have nothing against the actors who starred in it, even if they weren't great, it was the movie itself, the directing, the special effects, the whole storyline was just too strange to interpret. A series of tornadoes strike a town and basically the movie is about people trying to find family and friends and deal with the damage.
I really don't know why it seems as though duplicates of disaster movies are released almost in sync with each other, but this one would have been better with Bill Paxton and Helen Hunt.


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


user
Carlos Mencia continually, violently, hatefully screaming "B**ch!" at women is like screaming "N**ger!" at black people, except it's worse. Remember, the B word, unlike the N word, is the only pejorative term that is still associated on a daily basis with violence. "B**ch!" is the last thing women hear before they are raped, beaten, or murdered. This guy is perpetuating violence by hatefully using the language of violence. Sounds like he may be a gay guy trying to cover by woman-bashing, so that he will sound like a hetero. And how about all the Nazi white guys in his audience giving the fascist salutes while their stupid little bimbo white women whimper tee hee hee at their side, clearly terrified to protest this tidal wave of woman-hating. Tee hee hee. Bet Mencia doesn't believe or support free speech for THEM! Come on, Carlos  do you want women to have the free speech to b**ch-slap you as loudly and violently and big-mouthed as you do, or do you think "free speech" is only for men to crap on women???


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


user
It's hard to believe people actually LIKE this dreck! I do think kids can enjoy it, but to me it's the kind of kid film parents can't bear to sit through. Predictable plot, boring Belushi, and possibly the worst kid actor of all time. I will give the director some of the responsibility for the kid, but she was truly painful to watch. I feel embarrassed for her now, having people know it was her. When she sang the Star Spangled Banner I had to turn the sound off--then I came here and discovered they did that because she won Star Search. I've always felt Jim Belushi should be ashamed to trade on the name of his wonderful, sadly missed brother, and this crap shows why. Zero stars.


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 rent a movie titled "Exterminators of the year 3000," the odds are good you know what you're getting yourself into. I myself was sold by the promising descriptions of "nuke mutants," "motor-psychos," and of course the "exterminators" themselves which, according to the back of the movie-store case, are all cavorting around a post-apocalyptic barren wasteland wreaking all sorts of mayhem. Let the wacky hijinks and low budget buffoonery ensue--at least, such were my hopes for this "film."
Now I like the occasional terrible movie, and if you're reading the comments on Exterminators of the Year 3000, you probably do too. That being said, I rated this film a solid "1(awful)"--not because I completely hated the film but because it is one of the most legitimately dreadful efforts at movie-making I have ever seen. The dialogue, the acting, the cinematography, the sound-editing, the editing in general, the plot, etc., etc., etc--all are worthy of what must surely be low spectator expectations given that marvelous title.
So what is really "good" about this bad movie? It does have several of what my circle affectionately terms "quality kills." A quality kill, for those few of you unfamiliar with the phrase, isn't a hard and fast term, but in general refers to someone killed in a particularly gruesome, creative, or ridiculous fashion.
Exterminators of the Year 3000 also has a fair supply of "dialogue-so-bad-it-becomes-funny," provided in great part by Crazy Bull, the aptly titled leader of the hapless motor-psycho gang--who incidentally also provide most of the quality kills (if you're hoping for big things from the nuke mutants, think again, they play essentially zero part in the movie...shucks!). Crazy Bull, however, is all you could ask for in a b-movie motor-psycho. Shakespearean paraphrase and oddly PG-style insults are all he knows how to say...and that's terrific.
Despite its quality kills and bad dialogue, however, if you're looking for a truly entertaining bad movie, Exterminators of the Year 3000 does disappoint somewhat in that with its draw limited to things like silly and outdated special effects, quality killing, and bad dialogue, there is simply not enough to justify a full feature length, owing principally to the forty minutes or so in which the audience is forced to follow the characters in protracted and boring car "chases" and long desert hiking sequences...All in all, a pretty good awful movie, but hey, it's no Death Race 2000.


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


user
Bottom of the barrel, unimaginative, and practically unwatchable remake of THE ROAD WARRIOR. This film follows the exact plot as the Filipino film STRYKER and is worse by far! Bad acting, dialog, effects, dubbing, pacing, action sequences... The list goes on and on. Italy made literally dozens of Road Warrior rip-offs in the early 80's, some good, some bad. This is the worst by far, no contest. Not only was the mood of the film completely bleak and miserable, the experience of sitting through this one is a bore and a half. There was 1 (one) good chase sequence towards the beginning of the movie, and a cool shot of a man holding a hand grenade exploding. But EVERYTHING else about this movie seriously reeks! For actual post-nuke fun, go track down a copy of ENDGAME, AFTER THE FALL OF NEW YORK, or ESCAPE FROM THE BRONX instead. They're much more enjoyable than this rubbish.


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 surely has one of the strangest themes in history -- right up there with Ed Wood's impassioned defense of cross-dressing in "Glen or Glenda?"
The subject: playing bridge. The Park Avenue set plays it; the Bohemians play it. The Russians -- who speak very questionable "Russian" and have most unconvincing accents when they speak English -- play it at the restaurant where they work.
If one isn't interested in bridge, one -- even despite the great cast -- isn't likely to be much interested in this bizarre movie.
Loretta Young and Paul Lukas are fine. (Well --Frank McHugh is an unlikely ghost writer -- as Lukas is an unlikely Russian.) But they are all sunk by the fetishistic script.


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 breeches the fine line between satire and silliness. While a bridge system that has no rules may promote marital harmony, it certainly can't promote winning bridge, so the satire didn't work for me. But there were some items I found enjoyable anyway, especially with the big bridge match between Paul Lukas and Ferdinand Gottschalk near the end of the film. It is treated like very much like a championship boxing match. Not only is the arena for the contest roped off in a square area like a boxing ring, there is a referee hovering between the contestants, and radio broadcaster Roscoe Karns delivers nonstop chatter on the happenings. At one point he even enumerates "One... Two... Three... Four..." as though a bid of four diamonds was a knockdown event. And people were glued to their radios for it all, a common event for championship boxing matches. That spoof worked very well indeed.
Unfortunately, few of the actors provide the comedy needed to sustain the intended satire. Paul Lukas doesn't have much of a flair for comedy and is miscast; lovely Loretta Young and the usual comic Frank McHugh weren't given good enough lines; Glenda Farrell has a nice comic turn as a forgetful blonde at the start of the film, but she practically disappears thereafter. What a waste of talent!


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


user
I usually enjoy Loretta Young's early movies: her acting back then was light and breezy, and she sure knew how to wear clothes. But this one is just a loser from the word go except for a funny supporting turn by Glenda Farrell. Young is a hatcheck girl who talks her writer-husband (Paul Lukas) into becoming a championship bridge player. It's not the most cinematic of games, and the long, talky middle part in which their marriage falls apart just about kills the film.
There's one interesting bit though. As Lukas and Ferdinand Gottschalk start their climactic game, a series of quick shots show airplanes, trains, football games, even a diver in mid-air, freezing in anticipation of the event. It's the earliest use of a freeze frame I've seen in an American film. Wish the rest of it were that inventive-and funny.


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


user
Having read another review, I thought this movie would actually be good. I do enjoy the "B" movies, but this couldn't even be classed as such. The photography is probably the only half-way decent thing in the movie. But the editing left much to be desired. It was very choppy and staccato. Whoever chose the music and sound did a terrible job. The music was awful, specially anything atmospheric or scene setting. If the acting had been better, they could have pulled the movie off. Unfortunately, I've seen better acting in porn flicks. If you want to see a "B" vampire movie, check out 'Blood Ties'. You'll be much more entertained.


assistant
0