empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie has one of the worst lead characters ever. I say this because he is made out to be the hero when, in my opinion, everything he does in the whole movie screws up people's lives and causes problems. He can do nothing right, yet the movie makes him seem like the cool dude everyone should be looking up to. He has temper tantrums at all the wrong times, he has all the wrong stances on things that end up making people mad at him and getting people killed, he is too nosy, too pushy, too macho, too assuming, makes all the wrong decisions and has no common sense.
It's about a private detective hired by a successful painter to find the woman and son that he walked out on years ago. The detective finds the woman and what he thinks to be her son. However, all kinds of things happen to make this story full of crime, drama and twists. It's made for TV, what do you expect?
Anyhow, the movie is fairly entertaining. Johnny Depp is very young in this one and has an awful 80's haircut. He chews gum and tosses a soccer ball around for about 5 minutes and that is all we get to see of him.
For some reason, the out of print VHS version of this sells for $40 in online auctions. It must be for Johnny Depp collectors only. It couldn't be because of the plot. It couldn't be.

\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMaybe, like most others who have seen this film long after it's premiere on television, I wanted to see many of my favorite actors in old and obscure form, which is exactly what 'Slow Burn' is. Except, aside from the nostalgic value, the movie itself is not very good.
Eric Roberts plays former reporter Jacob Ash, hired by a Gerald McMurty (Raymond J. Barry), a rich artist, to investigate the whereabouts of his estranged son, Brian, who had been living with his mother, Laine (Beverly D'Angelo) for the past few years. In a Phillip Marlowe-esquire fashion Jacob Ash narrates what would become more than just an investigation into the whereabouts of Brian. But, once Jacob tracks down Laine, his discoveries break open wide a whole lot of trouble. Perhaps because events in the film move too slowly, there is never much suspense to this little thriller, not even by the end with the finale routine of revealing the culprits and their motives.
However, as said before, this movie is probably one that will draw attention for it's then-relatively unknown cast of actors, which include both a very young Eric Roberts as well as the adorable Johnny Depp, who plays Laine's stepson, Donnie. That may be reason enough to give it a try...if you can find it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw \"Caddyshack II\" when I was ten and I mostly laughed because of the horse scene. I should have realized that the movie was as empty as...I can't come up with a good comparison. It's stupid and not even really funny. The cast members from the original who chose not to star in this made probably the best choices that they ever made in rejecting this; why, oh why, did Chevy Chase return?! And how on earth did Jackie Mason, Robert Stack, Dyan Cannon and Dan Aykroyd get involved in this swill?! I bet that every person who had his/her name even remotely attached to this junk (e.g., the caterer) is ashamed beyond redemption. So, all in all, it's beyond dreadful, terrible, and everything such. Avoid it like you would the Ebola virus.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nCaddyshack II is NOTHING compared to the original Caddyshack. But, there are legitimate reasons for it. (1) Rodney Dangerfield was supposed to be the ace of this film BUT he didn't like the script, wanted to change it, his request was denied, so he didn't do the film. (2) It was low budget, Bill Murray had grown to superstar status. Ted Knight passed away in 1986, and Chevy Chase the \"so called ace\" of the first movie (although it was Rodney all the way)couldn't't be on more than 5 minutes, because it would cost too much to pay him. BUT you had Dan Aykroyd, Robert Stack, Randy Quaid and Jackie Mason, all serviceable substitutes, who none had their best performances.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen I first viewed this movie, I didn't know the title of it. I realized it had Chevy Chase in it with the same name he had in Caddyshack so I had an idea this was Caddyshack 2. At the end of the movie when I did find out it was Caddyshack 2 I was disappointed. They could have done better. Dan Akroyd I thought was bad. The whole story was bad. Call this movie by another title, but don't call it Caddyshack 2. You give that great movie a bad name. Jackie Mason's daughter when I first saw her looked like his wife. How old is this girl? Geez. How about making this movie a little believable. I thought Chevy Chase was good.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nCaddyshack Two is a good movie by itself but compared to the original it cant stack up. Robert Stack is a horrible replacement for Ted Knight and Jackie Mason, while funny just cant compete with Rodney Dangerfield. Ty Webb is funny, being the only character from the original. Most of the other characters in the movie lack the punch of the original (Henry Wilcoxon for example) except for the hystericly funny lawyer Peter Blunt, being played by Randy Quaid. Every line he says reminds me of the originals humor, especially the scene at his office (I don't go in for law suits or motions. I find out where you live and come to your house and beat down your door with a f***ing baseball bat, make a bonfire with the chippindale,maybe roast that golden retriever (arff arff arff) then eat it. And then I'm comin' upstairs junior, and I'm grabbing you by your brooks brothers pjs, and cramming your brand new BMW up your tight a**! Do we have an understanding?). Offsetting his small role however, is Dan Acroyd, who is obviously no replacement for Bill Murray. His voice is beyond irritating and everything he does isnt even funny, its just stupid. Overall Caddyshack II is a good movie, but in comparison to the awesome original it just cant cut it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is so God-awful that it was literally a chore to watch. I wanted to eject it from my vcr and throw it across the room, but kept thinking (foolishly) that it would eventually get funny and then everything would be all right. \"You lose, we win, yay!\" This movie should be required viewing for anyone who even once entertained the thought that Jackie Mason was funny. After that, beat them ove the head with this movie until the tape cracks. And if you're even considering renting this turd (or worse yet, have!) I have one thing to ask of you: didn't you even look at the cover? I mean, with crap like this you can tell with just a glance how bad it is! \"Oy vey!\" This movie sucked.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhy was this movie ever made?They have tarnished the original Caddyshack with this crap.I was only able to watch half of it and i didn't laugh once.At least i didn't pay to see it because it was on t.v. but i won't get back that hour of my life that i spent watching this dreadful mess.There wasn't one original star from the first except for Chevy Chase and he probably regrets doing this film.Jackie Mason was supposed to be the outrageous,funny buffoon like Rodney Dangerfield was in the first but Jackie Mason wasn't funny at all.Jackie Mason is no Rodney Dangerfield.If you want laugh,watch the first Caddyshack.If you like terrible movie's,then this you're movie.This movie stinks like a barnyard in july.Avoid at all cost.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhy is this one no good when the first one rocked? Try the fact that they attempted to replace Rodney Dangerfield with Jackie Mason! Please! That's like replacing the Beatles with Wierd Al. Randy Quaid is the only one that saves this movie from a zero.
However, don't let this stop you from watching the first movie which was outstanding.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\ncaddyshack II does NO justice for the caddysack. thin plot, thin actors(exception of randy quaid). the ONLY thing that is decent with this movie is the soundtrack..maybe. this movie should have been destroyed when the script was written.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n
It sucked.
I returned the video after watching half of it. Not funny,
just a cheap and desperate attempt to cash in on a very very funny original. junk, forget it, don't waste your time etc etc
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWatch this movie .....only to truly appreciate how good the original is. I'm not real hard to please, but this was one of the worst movies I have ever seen.
It hurt me deeply, because I like Chevy Chase, Jackie Mason, and Dyan Cannon. The writing was just terrible! I thought Chevy would have at least ad libbed some better stuff than he did. There was hardly anything to laugh at in this movie. I went into it wanting to enjoy it. I wanted to laugh but nearly cried.
In the beginning credits it read Special Appearance by Chevy Chase. This worried me from the start. Chevy is actually in more than I thought he would be. It's more than a \"special appearance\". Too bad the appearance wasn't special. Mason's character would have been a good secondary character but got old as a main. I would rather have seen more (much more)of Dyan Cannon. At least her character was fun, if not well written. I also missed the gratuatis teen sex scene. Mr. Gopher went from being cute and innocent to a pesky rodent that deserved to be blown up. Jonathan Silverman is the only character that interested me and we didn't see enough of him.
I take it back. Try..to watch half of this movie, then...remember the Alamo, the Maine, and CaddyShack I.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAfter watching Caddyshack 1 I'd heard there was a sequel and decided to look it up. The movie seemed pretty bad and I told myself to stay away but stupid me gave in and actually bought the damn thing! All the reviews and everything bad you've heard about Caddyshack II are true. The movie is simply worn of ideas and the lamest plot and jokes I've ever heard, the gopher, the acting the whole movie really is bad (Randy Quaid was funny though).
Just stay away from this movie as much as you can is all I can really say. I deeply regret watching and buying the DVD but not sure which was the worser decision. Just stay away as much as possible.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have vague memories of this movie being funny.
Having seen it again either I have changed or I was thinking about a another film altogether.
It seems as if we are supposed to be sympathetic to Jackie Mason's character however nothing in the movie actually engenders that emotion. Its notable that he is really the only person accorded tender dialogue with loved ones. No-one else's character is allowed to rise to the status of even vaguely human.
I don't even like golf but as the film went on I found myself really rooting for Robart Stack and the club guys, really hoping they would repel Mason and Chevy Chase.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen a hardworking entrepreneur is rejected from a prestigious country club, he starts a battle between the members and eventually buys it from Ty Webb(Chevy Chase) and turns it into a theme park/golf course in which everyone can join.
This is by no means a good movie, but it is still slightly amusing at times. Almost all of the comedy is cheap slapstick and bad jokes except for Chevy Chase. Chevy Chase plays one of his greatest roles as Ty Webb for a second time and plays it great. He is not only the funniest character in the movie, he is the only funny character in the movie. Even Dan Akroyd fails to bring humor to this film which aspires to be a great sequel to a classic comedy but falls to rubble with others shown on Comedy Central. The movie might have been better if Ty Webb(Chase) had a larger role but instead he was reduced to a minor character and the star became Jackie Mason(Who??) They should have brought back all of the cast and made a sequel the right way! This is a perfect example of what not to do when making a sequel to an already great movie. Overall, Caddyshack II is humorous but a large mistake.
I do not recommend this movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie sucks. It's horrible. If anyone liked it, those people should get there heads examined. Jackie Mason's character sounds like a retard. That guy who tries to kill the gopher is a loser and he sucked. Even though Chevy Chase was in this movie, he wasn't funny. This movie had crude and unfunny jokes and did not have Rodney Dangerfield, Ted Knight, and Bill Murray. Even though Jackie Mason's character had the personality of Rodney Dangerfield's character, Mason's character sucks. Rodney Dangerfield was funny! He should have returned! I don't care about Ted Knight, but Bill Murray should have returned, also. The original Caddyshack was Murray's career performance. If he was funny in the first, he could have been funny in the second.
Final comment: I recommend this movie to... NO ONE!!!!!!!! THIS MOVIE SUCKED!!!! IT HAS SUCKED, IT SUCKS NOW, AND IT WILL ALWAYS SUCK!!!!!!!
2/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is quite possibly the worst sequel ever made. The script is unfunny and the acting stinks. The exact opposite of the original.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHave you heard the theory of cloning redundancy, where a copy is poorer than the original? Caddyshack 2 is a perfect example of that. They try to duplicate everything from the first movie. Now, in a few cases this work. Robert Stack is actually a little better than Ted Knight, when they play essentially the same character. I actually like Randy Quaid, who is no more or less offensive than Bill Murray in the original. But Jackie Mason is no Rodney Dangerfield, and worse of all, C2 demonstrated once and for all that Dan Ackroyd is one of the worst comedy actors of all time. There is very little that I like him in, and C2 nailed the coffin shut on his \"comedic\" career as far as I'm concerned. He seems to feel the same, sticking more to tuffy like Driving Miss Daisy and hosting Psi-Factor. Other than that, it's mostly, \"been there, done that\" for Caddyshack 2. Watch the original twice rather than each version once, and you'll get more for your rental money.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film should never have been made! It stinks, it's awful, it's no good, it's bad, it's terrible. Starting to see a pattern here? Jackie Mason is certainly no Rodney Dangerfield. Gone were Ted Knight and Bill Murray, who, along with Dangerfield, were essential to the first film. It seems that the three of them (the stars) all knew a stinker of a script when they saw one. The one who didn't have the good sense to bow out of this was Chevy Chase, who stuck around but was extraneous to both films in my opinion. This film is quite simply NOT FUNNY. Nor does it have any other endearing qualities. This thing relies heavily on anti-Semitism to work and it works to it's detriment. I hated this thing. A waste of everybody's time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI usually give sequels the benefit of the doubt and go easy on them. But thisis very poor. The exact same as what happened in the first film happens here again. The exact same. Only they wanted younger kids to be able see it (this accounts for the repeated presence of Bugs Bunny but why they threw in one 'f*ck' is beyond me).
They didn't even bother to change Jackie Mason's character from Dangerfield's. Let me explain, in CADDYSHACK Rodney Dangerfield played a boorish Real Estate owner who enrages the uptight members of Bushwood country club. In this movie Jackie Mason plays a boorish Real Estate owner who enrages the uptight members of Bushwood country club. A big effort they made to change the content of the script huh? No, I don't think so. A very unfunny Dan Aykroyd shamefully copies Bill Murray's character. He even goes after the gopher (now more like a Gremlin) in much the same fashion as Murray did.
There is not a laugh to be had. A sample of the 'comedy' in this film: Jackie Mason is getting ready for a hot date with Dyan Cannon. He is in the bathroom is his robe. He moves to the door to get dressed in his bedroom whenthe door handle breaks off. Wow!?! That's the best they can do. Eight years to think of a completely new sequel and that's all we get!?! I could have pulled a better script out of my ass.
See it only if you're a die-hard fan of the original. It's the only way you'll find any kind of laughs in it. Everyone else steer clear.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie beats everything out there. Well, depends on what you are looking for... it could be a 10 or a 1 on the scale. This movie is in a complete league of its own.. I don't think any movie could possibly come close to it. I am not sure what the director intended to make it as.. a thriller or a comedy. If he did think he was making a thriller, then he has by a stroke of luck, created one of the best bollywood comedies of all time. You have to see it to believe it.. a matrix + terminator + a host of other movies rolled into one, along with a storyline dating back to 1980's Hindi movies, with a icchadhari naag (a mythical snake which can turn into a human).
Its an ideal movie if you are sitting with a bunch of friends with alcohol on the side, planning to laugh at the movie! I am not sure whether to give it a 1 or a 10.. On the basis of flipping a coin, I have decided to give it a 1!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie made me laugh so much. It was a bloody joke to tell you the truth. So unbelievable and the worst plot ever. The acting as well was bad. I don't how come so many popular Bollywood actors and actresses took on to do this movie. The script must have been somewhat of a joke. The visual effects in this movie was excrutiatingly painful to watch. I believe that a kindergarten kid could have done a better job of the visual effect and a monkey could have done a better job of coming up with a plot.
The plot has numerous attempts at copying major Hollywood movies like The Terminator but it fails miserably. I laughed my head off seeing this movie. A total disaster in Indian cinema history!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOK, I would give this a 1, but I'm gonna give it a two because I laughed while watching this film...First of all, I can make a much better movie than this one...in a week...The special effects made this film look like a joke. One shouldn't make such films with horrible special effects because then people won't take it seriously. The acting and direction was also horrible. The screenplay had many plot holes and the whole film wasn't believable at all. This has to be the worst Indian film ever. The songs were also bad. The acting was bad and artificial. Need I say more. Don't watch this movie unless you are curious to see how bad it is. That's why I watched it. I am going into film and I wanted to see how bad a bad film can get. Trust me, I watched one of the worst films in history if not THE worst film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAn insane assault on viewers senses. This is a mish-mash of assorted Hindi and English movies - poorly done. The name carries over from a 70s' multi star cast, which the 2002 version also boasts of. The story is taken from the 70s' Sunil Dutt/Reena Roy starrer - \"Nagin\" and visual effects taken (a horrible attempt) from The Matrix, Terminator 2 and Mission Impossible II.
Set in a college environment (Sunil Shetty, Akshaye Kumar, Manisha - college kids!!!???!!), Manisha Koirala is the victim, who mistakes a fatal assault on her by two students as a collective effort on the part of our heros. As it turns out Manisha is a Cobra (Nag) snake reborn as a girl in this life and her mate from the previous life, now a super powerful-all-and-any-shape-assuming (Ichadhari Nag) - Munish Kohli, is out looking for her in this life. Manisha appeals to him to avenge her violation and murder.
So begins the mad killing spree, where the avenging lover starts singling each male of the group, with increasing powers and tricks with successive attempts. The effects are extremely cheap, with computer generated skeletons, morphing bodies and motorcycle stunts completing the farce.
Carry over from Nagin includes Raj Babbar playing a catholic priest who provides temporary relief to our boys with a more \"Religiously correct\" multi-religion locket (the original Nagin only had an \"Om\") . Sunny Deol plays Manisha's love interest in her current life and the ultimate saviour against the all powerful Munish Kohli.
Music and songs are below average.
Avoid if you don't fancy cheap thrills.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nhi, This is the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. The day when I watched this movie, I was having high fever. But still I watched the movie with lots of patience. And after watching the movie, I felt like repenting. Because, I wasted 3 hrs for this stupid movie. I could have taken rest rather then watching this movie. And I was really surprised that how come actors like Sunny Deol, Akshay Kumar Aftab etc acted in this movie.
I don't understand if directors don't find a good story to make a film then why do they remain as directors? Why can't they sit at home and spent their time at home?
I request to all directors that it will be good for them if they request audiences, either by mail or by media, newspapers, radios etc... to send them a nice story if they don't find any good story for to make a film . I request again to all directors please don't make such films.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you have seen this movie, then you will know that it is one of the worst Bollywood movies ever made. Bollywood is known to copy Hollywood movies. Who would of known that they will copy Terminator 2. The difference between both Film industries are Hollywood spends millions and Bollywood spends 100 thousands (Average). Thats the problem with this film, if you want to make a T2 style movie, then do it properly. The director added a bogus fantasy storyline about a reincarnated snake who finds his long lost girl (in the previous birth) dead by 2 guys, but the blame goes to 10 people. She suddenly reincarnates into a ghost and together they want to kill the 10 people they blame for her death. Not to mention, the Reincarnated snake guy or villain has some kind of super powers. He can transform into anything, he can fly, disappear, fire power, wind power, you name it, he has it. He even gets bazookered and survives the T1000 style. You are probably wondering how he survives. its best not to ask, and its best not to waste time and money on this movie. Its Best just to forget this film even came out. I think its a shame to use a big starcast for this outrageous movie with a nonsense storyline.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI am ashamed to admit in public that I even held the cover of this movie once! This is an absolute reason why one should research on the movie before seeing it! The 'makers' of this movie have called us all fools and gullible losers with too much time on our hands.
Based on the mythical Indian shape-shifting powerful cobras and rebirth, the story takes us for a painful ride. College going 40+ actors (now really?) are the target of their former friend Manisha Koirala (who was in her former life a cobra, but is now a ghost!) and her pathetic, eternal, powerful boyfriend cobra/killing machine boyfriend Munish Kohli (who thankfully hasn't been seen since). Now do you need to know more?
I vote for studying for the upcoming test in school rather than this movie! Give it a pass if you are sane. If not... then you'll probably enjoy it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFriday the 13th meets the Matrix. As with all of these stupid horror movies, everyone knows who has been killed and who will be killed next, but do nothing to prevent anything, all with the added CGI action effects from the Matrix. Hasn't the world seen enough Matrix reproductions?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOh If any day u wanna see a supernatural thriller turning out to be a comedy watch this movie
This film was a shocker as it had so many actors in it but what they do and how they fit in?
The handling of the college scenes is like a school play where each person comes talk and then the next person comes infront
Okay reasons to laugh at the film: 1) Akshay, Suneil, Aditya Panscholi, Sharad Kapoor, Arshad Warsi as college students 2)Akshay carries a gun in college 3) some pathetic stunts and SFX
there are several more flaws like why doesn't the snake save his lover from being raped and comes in so late? also why he doesn't kill all of them together there only?
But afterall they have to make a 2 hrs + film so hence you have a tortorius movie
The movie is painful to watch The film was directed by Rajkumar Kohli who was an expert making such films in the past and had a successful record of films like JAANI DUSHMAN(1979) and NAGIN Rajkumar Kohli wants to help his son's non existent career Right from VIRODHI(1992),Aulad Ke Dushman (1993) and QAHAR(1996) all flops he tried hard to promote his son and he also casts big stars so that his son gets noticed, sadly nothing could help his son's career
The film has several comical scenes like the death scenes, how the actors after being bashed by the snake are so fit to fight him again and the climax
Direction by Rajkumar Kohli is bad Music is bad
That brings us to the cast Akshay Kumar - ordinary stuff, he has nothing much to do rather then stunts Suneil Shetty- awful Sonu Nigam- the worst debutante award goes to him, he gives cartoon acting a new meaning Aftab- terrible Arshad Warsi- nothing to do Sharad Kapoor- bad Aditya Panscholi- irritates Sunny Deol- is comical in the scene when he comes to save Sonu LOL Manisha Koirala- ordinary Rambha- Akshay's pair Kiran Kumar, Raza Murad are as usual Raj Babbar- hilarious for wrong reasons the girls are awful Which brings us to Munish Kohli This guy has a huge physique, he is even more stronger and taller then Akshay Kumar Sadly he comes across as poor man's Akshay His voice is awful, his expressions are painful The only thing he has to do in the movie is wear glasses and make an evil face Rajat Bedi is awful
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNo words can describe how awful this film is. Its like the director literally took a s*** in a roll of film and sent it out to the viewing public.
The acting in this movie is horrendous, The plot is so dumb, and the deaths of each character is laughably bad. Some stupid scenes include Akshay Kumar pulling a gun out of nowhere to kill a hologram (yes a hologram), Akshay Kumar carrying a bazooka around the town, Rajat Bedi getting beaten up by a poorly animated skeleton, Rajat Bedi and Siddharth double penetrating Monisha Korella (How did they think this was straight?). Also i'd like to point out that the animations are absolutely terrible. The scene that supports this statement is when Kapal has the motorbike and somehow gains the glasses. The shopping job looks like it was done in microsoft paint.
The best parts in this movie are with Sunny Deol. This man is so strong that he makes even god feel scared. In one scene, he literally breaks open a jail door by kicking it. Chuck Norris' round-house has nothing on that! He is even so powerful, that he can fly from London to India in a matter of 10 minutes! Overall, this movie is perhaps the most poorly made movie in the universe. If you were to watch it, watch it for the hilarity that ensues throughout (BTW this movie is supposed to be serious)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSo many bad reviewers, it made me wonder, what people are thinking while watching a simple flick made by a quite bad director??? Did you all expected a super-hit flawless movie?? No way, you already can see, Raj Kumar Kohli loves multi-starrer movies... All of his earlier works where multi-starrers, but no one was flawless. Take the first Jaani Dushman for instance, so many flaws, but still good fun. Anyways sticking to the movie, the movie Jaani Dushman is a Hindi fantasy film about a snake, who can take any form (Armaan (Munish) Kohli) which takes revenge for the suicide of its lover (Manisha Koirala) on the people who caused it. Its quite good, with a great star-cast. But i think it could have been much much better. For instance, take the script, can't say its flawless. For example Take the ages:
Do 40-48 yrs old still study in university??
There are many many more, i won't list more, but there are dozen more. A solid 5.5 is good for this one.
**.75
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nEvery time I think about this film I feel physically ill. To read such a great book and later discover there's a film of it was a great feeling. Years later and imagine my joy at switching on the sci-fi channel and finding it starts in just 5mins!!! Up go the titles and then uggg. If just a couple of things had changed OK. Everything is changed. Numerous characters are removed entirely new rubbish ones are added. The main hero is shrunk and de-aged by about 30 years, and hilariously his girlfriend/wife is now his mother! Even the dog is reduced to sub-lassie capabilities. This is truly appalling cinema at its absolute worst. I would quite happily remove my own toenails with pliers rather than sit through another horrific viewing, and I urge anyone thinking of watching this - please don't. If you own a copy burn it now, right now and think how much better your life would have been had this celluloid insult never occurred.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt is hard to believe that anyone could take such a great book and and make such a terrible movie.
Imagine King Kong being recast as an organ grinder's monkey and Fay Wray's part being played by a young boy. How about Elton John as Rambo!!!!.This movie is even worse than the TV remake of The Night of the Hunter.
By using the title Watchers and Dean Koontz's name the makers of this movie should be sued for fraud by readers of the book who expected a reasonably accurate adaptation of the book.
Read the book, I have never talked to anyone who didn't like it. Another good book is The Winner by David Baldachi.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis was a film based on the Novel written by the modern literary god that is Koontz? I refuse to believe that studio bought the rights to this movie for anything using the Genius' Koontz name. Ever since my sight became poor enough to require Large Print, I have been unable to read this book as I had at least twice a year since first reading it. I missed the book greatly and was unable to find it in Large Print.
I was hoping by renting this movie I would at least get my vicarious Watcher's pleasures, but this movie was a travesty. Because of subtle plot points, it is my belief none of Mr. Koontz's, or most decent authors for that matter books can be crammed into 1-2 hours of film.
It will be the wise network, cable or other wise, who buys the rights to this novel and makes a multiple part television movie, i.e. mini series, of this book the RIGHT way!
one a star out of five - would that I could go lower ...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI still find it hard to believe that a fine - if overlong - novel by Dean Koontz was transformed into this utter excrement.
This movie is so bad it's disgusting. Boos to all who participated. Shame on you!
P.S. The fact that sequels have appeared just goes to show how little taste and discretion remains in Silver Screen Land.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDean Koontz's book \"Watchers\" is one of the finest books I have read. Sadly, the movie is a sad caricature of the book. The disillusioned middle-aged hero and the lonely spinster with whom he finds a meaning to his life are converted in the movie into a couple of silly teenagers, the stoic security agent and the conscientious sheriff are combined into a farcical villain - you get the picture? The moviemakers have taken a moving tale of love, horror and adventure and converted it into a Z-Grade horror flick aimed - very poorly - at the teen market.
Buy the book and enjoy many hours of reading - it will be far, far more rewarding than watching the movie.

\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nCorey Haim is never going to be known as one of the great actors of his time, but at least in movies like \"Licensed To Drive\", he was more in his element... lowbrow humor.
Dean Koontz's book \"Watchers\" was one of his earlier works, and still probably his finest to date. Sadly, this magnificent tale of a brilliant dog, a deranged mutant and a genetic experiment gone wrong is butchered horribly. The acting is so lifeless, you might think you're watching a zombie movie. Only the dog gives a respectable performance, and if you want to see a decent movie about a dog, you'd be better of watching \"The Incredible Journey\", \"Cujo\" or even \"C.H.O.M.P.S.\"...okay, maybe not \"C.H.O.M.P.S.\"
If you've read the book, avoid this movie at all costs. If you haven't read the book, read it and avoid this movie. You'll thank me later.
A somewhat better translation of a Dean Koontz book is the capable thriller, \"Phantoms\".
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nCorey Haim plays a kid who teams up with a dog to take out a giant troll and OSA hit-man (Michael Ironside) with a 30/30 and homemade bombs (Which plays plausible considering Haim) Oh and he also protects his mother and girlfriend as well in this watchable yet disappointing adaption of a decent story. Corey Haim is terrible, of course but the movie's sheer momentum as well as Ironside's imposing presence make this at least a modestly effective film. Still the plot is ridiculous and it would've been nicer if we could've seen a monster or at least more gore. At least it's something different. Also it's fairly likely that this film will be the last teen movie for awhile to show a teenager making pipe bombs.
Matt Bronson 2/5
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI couldn't agree more. The book is one of Dean Koontz's best novels and this film is a total travesty. I watched about half of it then threw the tape in the bin in disgust! I have NO idea what the idiotic director was thinking making this piece of crap but I would rather poke my eyes out with a sharp stick than watch this useless movie again! Everything about this film is just wrong. First the main character is changed from an ex marine to a high school KID. WHY??? Second the love of his life in the book becomes his mother in the movie! hem I bet Freud would have something to say about that! LOL. The dog is cute enough and the best thing in the movie and completely outcast everyone else! Also a main character who helps them in the book betrays them in the movie. There really is nothing good to say about the film except that at least it's relatively short at an hour and a half or so. If anyone hasn't seen the film yet do yourselves a favour! READ THE BOOK! It is so much better than this worthless waste of time!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nokay, my question; who's the idiot that wrote this movie, giving it the same name as Dean Koontz's awesome book? its terrible, nothing like the book...you got the dog, and the watcher, but there the similarities end...might be good, if you haven't read the book, though...but it disappointed me, really.
they should make a new one, and let koontz write it... now that would be a good movie... I'll say it again, this movie disgusted me...absolutely disgusted me. it was terrible, it was absolutely nothing like the book. I would never again watch it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI hated the book. A guy meets a smart dog, gets a virgin girlfriend, and all the while they're being chased by a hit-man and a ape beast thing (both of whom want the dog). Dean Koontz really can't write (I read the book at my sister's recommendation, I should have known better). When I saw this, (mostly out of a morbid curiosity) I actually found myself criticizing it because of the fact that it was untrue to the book, even though this is a book that its impossible to make a good movie of. I figured at least if they're going to make a film adaptation of the worst book I've ever read the filmmakers might as well be accurate. They turned the guy and his virgin love interest into a boy and his mother, for some reason that bothered me most of all (even though I seriously doubt keeping it a guy and his chick wouldn't have made it any better). Quite simply; bad book, bad movie, don't see it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is beyond stupid.
Two high school graduates travel to Nantucket for the summer and find situations there that are absolutely revolting.
Demi Moore co-stars in this one. As the film was in 1986, was Ashton Kutcher just a babe in the woods at that time?
Moore's grandfather has died and his home is on the verge of being sold to ruthless people with a father and son who bring a new meaning to the term mean.
Bobcat Goldthwait, with that obnoxious voice is in the film, as well as two brothers, who make dumb and dumber look more and more intelligent.
The writing is absolutely ridiculous. Highlights of the stupidity are where one person says to the other: \"Did you ever notice that when people die, they go alphabetically in the papers?\"
I rest my case.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSavage Steve Holland wrote and directed his second film, One Crazy Summer, with John Cusack and Curtis Armstrong again in a supporting role. Cusack and Bobcat Goldthwait are recent graduates headed to Cape Cod in order to stay at Goldthwait's grandmother's for the summer. Along the way, they bump into Demi Moore being pursued by John Matuszak and a motorcycle gang. Soon the three are united in trying to save a house from being turned into another lobster restaurant by a conniving, spoiled family that considers \"work\" a dirty word. The film contains several funny vignettes like the millionaire dollar radio contest gags and the Godzilla skit.
Like Holland's first film, Better Off Dead, John Cusack adds immeasurably to the film. Otherwise, this is a dud of a film filled with contrived situations and idiotic characters (as opposed to quirky). Moore even sings a few bars in a nightclub with some horrible synthesizers. Goldthwait's gags wear thin after awhile, and Armstrong never was an actor of any caliber to appear in anything except grade Z stuff. The tow truck twins are extremely annoying and obnoxious instead of the endearing underdogs they're obviously meant to be. This is more of a hit or miss, kitchen sink comedy which could have used a better script and direction. *1/2 of 4 stars.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDespite this being one of John Cusack and Demi Moore's early films, it is one even hardcore fans can miss, unless they absolutely have to complete the collection. I have rare moments, where I can handle Better Off Dead, but this movie is ultimately worse. I am just not a Savage Steve Holland fan, and he did both movies. So if you don't like the cheesy, random comedy and amateur animation, steer clear of this one. FYI even for the Demi Moore fans: she can't sing and the 80s synthesizers did not save her. There are too many predictable twists and too-easy jokes. I suppose if you want mindless entertainment or something you can leave on in the background and ignore while you do something productive, then go for it. Otherwise, don't watch this movie. If John Cusack (or Demi Moore) couldn't save it, you know it's got to be bad. They are the only reason I didn't give this movie a 1.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nwhat happened to Mathew Modine's career??? i can still recall when he was considered an A list actor...
was it cutthroat island the final nail in the coffin of a once promising career??? wow, this guy must really hate Renny Harlin's guts...
This movie wants badly to be a comedy but fails to deliver any laughs, the characters are caricatures, and badly drawn ones at that ... but still what pains me the most is seeing Mr. Modine taking up on this kind of roles, next to actors so far away from his caliber, i mean at the time when he was making movies like BIRDIE he could never in his worst nightmares have imagined that in the future he would be acting in movies with a hick humping a cow that just had her anus stapled shut, and maybe whats even worst;next to Elizabeth Berkley!!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie might be o.k. if not for all the language in it. I think that the storyline itself isn't bad, but I would be too embarrassed to let my wife or kids see the movie. I know that kids will learn all the swear words along the way eventually, that's true, but parents should not assist them in the process by letting them see and hear the stuff in the guise of entertainment.
I used to quite like Robert Loggia; he has a distinctive gritty quality with that rough voice of his, but in the last few years all I have seen him do are roles with a lot of language in them. If we had an award for over-use of the F word, he would have to be a contender. Unfortunately, I think he's now lost me as a fan. When I see his name on movies in future, I will be thinking twice about picking up that title.
Look, I'm no prude. I use language sometimes too, in extreme circumstances, but when we're watching a movie it is for the sake of E N T E R T A I N M E N T, something which we hope will bring us some joy and escapism. I do not want to be reminded of what's happening out on the streets in any big city these days, and it's a hassle to have to wonder whether or not a movie is alright for my family to watch.
I like Matt Modine too, but it's a pity that he has associated himself with a picture which has let his image down like this. He probably did an o.k. job in the movie, but I turned off about 1/4 of the way through after having had my ears assaulted once too often by others in the cast. Why can't these actors just say no when these scripts ask them to carry on with this gutter language? Once enough actors, (especially the big names), kick up a fuss about it, the writers will stop putting it in the movies!
I'm sorry, but I cannot recommend this picture. It's a pity too, because I think it would probably have been alright, if it had been made well enough for decent families to watch! Thank God I only wasted $2.00 on it!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWell, I'm a huge fan and follower of Elizabeth Berkley. I bought this on DVD off of eBay for my boyfriends birthday. We sat down to watch it and it was so boring. I don't remember laughing once. It's only on for about an hour and half and it seemed to take forever to end. Elizabeth is great in this though. Maybe it's just because I'm a big Elizabeth Berkley fan though. If she wasn't in it I wouldn't have watched it but every time she came on my face lit up. Unfortunately even Elizabeth couldn't save this film. Just the overall story and awful comedy makes this a film you'd rather miss than waste an hour and a half of your life. It's a very forgetful film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"