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 was a Hindi movie. Hindi=Horrible. reasons: cheap dialogues, cheap special effects, cheap directing + stretching a 2 hr max movie into 3 hrs.
%^^^^^^spoiler...little bit%%%%%%%%
Specifically for this movie: 1. dialogues are not funny. they are cheesy, and cheap. Though akshay tried his best acting for which i admire him, comedy was not funny at all! I laughed only 3 times during this movie. 2. first half of the movie was useless to the story of the 2nd half. the 2nd half was the actual story/movie. the first half was time pass/build up. 3. The characters are not developed properly at all. paresh rawal is smart in the first half, an idiot in the 2nd half/rest of the movie. we don't really develop any feelings or caring for akshay, and govinda. their characters are stupid nothing more. they do not seem to struggle in their difficulties. Jokes are funny, but they are not funny in a very serious scene. the characters of the gang and the drug smugglers are cheesy and have been used in last 20 movies. there is nothing new about those characters. Again, they are shown to be stupid for being funny. however, stupid=funny when stupid is the norm throughout the whole movie. the only character that made sense was that of lara dutta with a real story. 4. special effects were crap. at the end, ppl r fallin off the ladder of a fire truck. you notice that they are not actually on ladder in air. secondly, ppl start to fly off when the ladder starts to move around. ppl can't fly off a ladder when its moving...they fall directly to the ground due to something called gravity. 5. the whole movie was dubbed. all the dialogues were recorded after the movie. The actors' lips hardly synced to the dialogues.
There are probably many other reasons why this movie was crap, but i can't remember them. look at this masterpiece of crappy Indian movies by non-intelligent, even stupid, director yourself and you will agree with my review. ppl who like Hindi movies, please increase your expectations for decent quality in Hindi movies.
Let me say that not all Hindi movies are bad. I like some. i did not like this one.
1.5/10 (1.5 for the effort by akshay and lara)
\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 don't mind sequels; sometimes they're better than the original. However, many times the originals are best left alone....especially when you can't duplicate the cast. One of the big reasons \"The Magnificent Seven\" was such a hit was the very popular cast.
This is hardly the \"magnificent seven,\" when only Yul Brynner returns as one of the members of that famous group in \"The Magnificent Seven.\" With six of the seven guys absent and replaced by much lesser-known actors, this loses its appeal in a hurry. In other words, except for Brynner, these guys have no charisma! This is a like a championship sports team fielding all substitutes except one.
Brynner is good, once again: fun to watch, fun to hear with that distinctive deep voice of his, but the story, not just the rest of the crew, is lame. This movie should never have been made. In the original, we cared about the \"seven;\" in here, we couldn't care less.
\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'm not sure this film could ever match the first one, even if it starred the original seven (notwithstanding the fact that four were killed). It just doesn't have the spark and chemistry. All the actors seem tired and look as if they are just going through the motions to get their paychecks.
It's interesting how Yul Brynner is \"magnificent\" in the original film but stiff and unconvincing in this sequel. Yet when he stars in Westworld and Futureworld in the 1970s his character (in the same matching black pants, shirt and hat) evokes the same mystery and presence of the 1960 film's Chris Adams.
There's nothing in this 1966 flick to make it worth watching, even on cable.
\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\"Return of the Seven\" has a few good action scenes, and Elmer Bernstein's score is as rousing as ever. Nevertheless, it's a boring film, because it simply fails to involve us emotionally. Mcqueen's absence makes a really bad impression, and the fact that his character here is played by a different (little-known) actor is odd - in a bad way. The characters are not developed, so we don't connect with them - and we hardly care when some of them die. This sequel is a passable but poor imitation 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\nThis movie had potential. The script was not bad, and it presented an interesting dark atmosphere with themes of suicide, patricide, regrets, and--as Chris says--\"10 years of going nowhere\". It's a sharp contrast to the original MAG7 which was bright, humorous, and even the bad guy was lovable.
It's a very interesting change of tone, and if they had developed the characters more, maybe I would've liked it.
But instead they waste far too much time on gratuitous (and ridiculous) battle scenes, poorly edited together. At one point you see a horse fall, and 5 seconds later you see the same scene again. But not many people would notice that, since there are already 2 dozen horse trips (I'm not exaggerating), and by then we've already dozed off.
Which leads me to the title of my review. This film was extensively cut due to animal cruelty, so chances are (if you decide to watch it) you'll get the watered down, kiddie version. There's a bullfight where the matador stabs the bull, and suddenly as the crowd erupts cheering, there's no bull, just the matador in an empty arena. Like wow, maybe the bull was a Jedi, I dunno. More likely, the scene was cut.
Later there's a cockfight scene where, in the original version, one of the birds gets horribly mauled before a crowd of cheering Mexicans. This was cut. But we still see enough to get pretty annoyed.
But by far the worst scenes are the horse throws. One after the other, you see horses' legs get yanked, sending thousands of pounds of horse onto its head. In one scene, a horse gets thrown, and then while it's squirming on the ground in paralytic convulsions, an explosive goes off right under its neck.
This film was made in 1966 when Hollywood was just starting to regulate animal brutality on film. This is probably one of the last flicks where you can see it happen. So if that sort of stuff it floats yer boat, check it out & you'll get a mild thrill. But if not, you'll either be irritated or flat out bored.
\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\nThe original title always struck me as a rather overblown definition for a bunch of gun-toting saddle-tramps. Still; their screen presence was at least underscored by a top-quality group of actors to support Yul Brynner. Most were movie stars in their own right.
However; this first sequel was a pale imitation, with a group now composed of largely B and C list players, who were more mediocre than magnificent. It was a similar set-up. Brynner's 'Chris' had to recruit yet another team of gun-toting saddle-tramps to sort out the Mexican peasants' problems again. Another tyrant was giving them grief.
With the originality and freshness of the first movie now spent, this remake had little else to offer. The budget was evidently very limited. This was reflected not only in the cast, but also in the below-par script, which borrowed much from the earlier classic. It was also more than half an hour shorter than John Sturges' original. Yet we still had a reprise of the agonising and moralising that made even the first a little turgid at times. However, here there was no decent acting, action or location work to balance things up. Filmiing was less expansive. It failed to convey the broad sweep of landscapes that were a great part of the original.
Generally; it just lacked imagination. The first movie had been a smash-hit, and this pedestrian sequel was evidently put together as quickly and cheaply as possible in order to cynically cash-in on former success. And it shows. There's very much a 'made for TV' feel about it.
Not recommended.
\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\nB. Kennedy tried to make a sequel by exaggerating and amplifyinga gargantuan leftist western (not as leftist as the G. Kennedy sequel, that came after this one).
This is the ugliest film of the two sequelsvery ugly looking. It is slapdash. B. Kennedy made it amplifyingbut without having the genius for that. Hundreds of peons, hundreds of Mexican _compadres, hundreds of women, a desert, barren landscapes, a stormthe largest scale.
Everything in this clumsy sequel, likable only in a weird way, is phony.
The movie itself is very ugly looking. Brynner, who made the best part in the first film, doesn't look good at all in this one.
Rey plays a priest; he will be a political leader, Quintero, in the next sequel of the franchise.
It is true that when you have that many characters you may not need a very interesting storyline; sometimes. E.g., Brynner meets McQueen; then they pick other 'compadres'; or, B. Spencer meets Coburn; etc.. It's fun to see where and how they'll meet the rest of the crew, etc.. But you need at least these several characters. Unfortunately, Burt Kennedy's installment is not very good at that.
Return of the Seven (1966) begins with a bullfighting. Vin and Chris meet there; they decide to rescue the third survivor of the original MagnificentsChico, who belongs to a huge group of 300 peons abducted by the Mexican bandits. We find out the name of Chico's appealing wifeit's Petra. Chris must constitute again a small armyand here we have a Dirty Dozen treatChris chooses his men from the convicts. Another member of the commando is a womanizer, who will take good care of the wives left without husbands. The sexual humor is especially displeasing and distasteful in this film. It strives to seem smart and spicy; it is simply boorish and dumb and gross.
The choosing of the members of the small army was one of the greatest joys in the McQueen film. Unfortunately, in the first sequel there is the most unmemorable of the three crews assembled under the Magnificent Seven's name.
Robert Fuller makes a lousy \"Vin\";Oates is the smiley womanizer.
In this mockgargantuan attempt, a Mexican revolutionary leader has a gargantuan planhe kidnaps 300 peons and uses them to build a village and a church in the memory of his lost sons. (Useless to say that this insane Mexican revolutionist doesn't equal Wallach's part in the first film.) B. Kennedy bets exclusively on camp and overthetop stuff: ugly landscapes, a thunderstorm, gargantuan lightning ,a desert. A huge battle between the emancipated peons and the revolutionary vaqueros. Of course Return of the Seven (1966) completely abandoned the good sense of the McQueen film.
What is particularly shocking is that this sequel came quite quickly after the original filmyet, everything changed meantime in the way of making westerns.
Both the sequels look weird.
\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 could have done with the seven gunslingers just staying away. This sequel should never have been done, the first did it all and better. The plot was a turkey, the acting was turkey, the direction, production, camera work... all turkey. Whoever put out this junk should be tarred and feathered. May they not return again!
\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\nThe great Yul Brynner, who won an 'Oscar', and who has starred blockbusters such as 'The Ten Commandments' among lots of others, ended his remarkable career with cheap backlot movies such as this one, 'Sartana', and such. Regretable, indeed. One should take pity on seeing him making his very best to make this idiotic thing stand. Gone were the days when he was surrounded by Steve McQueen, James Coburn, Charles Bronson, Eli Wallach, in 'The Magnificent Seven', and walked around under the famous Elmer Bernstein soundtrack. It's difficult to make a living out of being an actor, sometimes.
\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\"You know - I've been in some towns where the girls weren't all that pretty. In fact I've been in some towns where they're downright ugly. But it's the first time I've been in a town where there are no girls at all\" I am sure the fans of great classic remember this phrase that belongs to Vin... one of the TRULY magnificent seven (from the first movie)...
Now I'd want to re-phrase him here. You know - I've seen some movies where the plot isn't all that good. In fact I've seen some movies where the plot is terrible, but that's first time in my life that I saw the film where there isn't any plot at all.
OK. Maybe my above statement is little bit over the top, but honestly... how one can call the plot a crap that is going on in this movie. The bad guy (oh, don't ask me to give you his name, because I don't remember and his not even somehow close to Calvera who's name and character is unforgettable...) is trying to build the church in the name of his late sons, that were killed in some battle, and this bad guy is kidnapping poor villagers to force them to build the church...
first of all how big must be church to have to force hundreds of villagers to build it... is it some Egyptian pyramid or something? but OK, let's stop here about the plot and absolutely forgettable character of a bad guy and let's say few words about The Seven itself...
Yul brynner's good old Chris, always calm, always silent, talking less but talking wise is gone (unfortunately). Oh no... he's as calm as he was... but now, he's calmness are so fake that you just don't buy it. (imagine, he meets a good old friend Chico, who he must rescue after so many years and there is just a few \"hi, Hello\" and not even handshake (as far as I remember))... honestly, it looks more like meeting of two strangers in some internet chat, rather then meeting of Chris and Chico. That makes \"new Chris\" more look like robocop or terminator rather then our beloved wise quickgun...
I won't stop here talking about other characters. There simply aren't ANY... (imagine if strong actor like Yul Brynner is so much fake forgettable, then what will be other characters look like)...
There still are some attempts to give us a background story for each one of them... for example one is women favorite guy, second is a man with dark past who's wife was raped and killed by indians and he since then is killing everyone and everything that is moving... but non of these characters are making any sense or non of them can take your heart.
I remember I was a little child and when O'reilly (Charles Bronson's character) died in the first movie I was crying. Here, I just didn't care about each one of them... even if whole of them with all the crew of the film would die, it seems I wouldn't care more...
So, please, go and SEE THIS MOVIE... I recommend it, because you won't have the other chance to see something worse then 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...there were some great, creamy-smooth facial shots of Marlene, along with her \"shocking\", gender-bender outfit (plus her not-to-be-missed \"transmogrification\" from ape into human being); but, overall, the generally unconvincing plot and dated acting -- not to mention the less than engaging tunes coming from Miss Dietrich's \"baritone\" voice --did little to ensure Blonde Venus a permanent place in my mind's Pantheon of Memorable Films. Cary Grant -- still in the throes of cinematic infancy -- seemed as though he was forever looking to \"find himself\", while Herbert Marshall was probably never anything BUT Herbert Marshall from the day he was born, until the day he died. Naturally, from an historical point of view, Blonde Venus was fun to watch, so long as one was able to put aside...\"great expectations\".
\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\nThe fifth collaboration between Marlene Dietrich and director Josef von Sternberg, BLONDE VENUS is a film that looks great while it's playing but fails to engages the viewer. The plodding storyline of Dietrich being torn between two men, becoming a mammoth cabaret star, and fighting for the custody of her child is jumbled and often feels like bits of three separate films half-baked together. Dietrich is unwisely cast in a rather passive, reactive role for much of the film and her character remains aloof from viewers, while Herbert Marshal is unconvincing as her ill-tempered husband, and Cary Grant is largely wasted as a suave suitor who dashes in and out of the picture. The film does contain some intriguing set pieces (the \"Hot Voodoo\" number is the high point) that are impressively surrealistic for this era in Hollywood, although it proves to no avail in such a dull, incoherent 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\nThis was such a terrible film, almost a comedy sketch of a noir film.The budget was low compared to a blockbuster, but still higher than most.But its where they've decided to cut costs that is totally weird.Some actors are at least competent, while others look like they just been dragged off the street.One of them being the lead actor, hes so very bad that i cringed when ever he said anything (he talks through the ENTIRE movie).Then there's the weird costume choices.At the start of the movie all characters are wearing 1930's clothes.They drive a classic car, but the background is a modern day windfarm thats blatantly state of the art.And the costumes and some settings continue to follow this 30's film noir theme.Then BAM in drives a brand new escalade with 24 inch rims....WTF.Same thing again when a guy has a night scope on his rifle, you get a shot down its sight.Hes aiming at a guy with an mp5 and tactical gear on.In a even stranger contrast the locations are brilliant, and seem to have cost more than the rest of the entire film.The camera shots/angles a very good, and show these locations brilliantly in the scenes.The director has a keen eye for a good looking single shot, but no idea how to do much else.
People who should be shot for this film▼
The writer The director The casting agent The costume designer
People who should be tortured to death for their monotone, monotonous nails on chalk board voice.▼
Anton Pardoe- the lead actor, writer, producer If you ever seen the movie Hostel, i wish that would happen to this guy, but he doesn't escape.
\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 the first time I feel the need to comment on IMDb, to write some sort of a review and, as it so often happens, it's not because of a really excellent film, but a truly appalling one.
Take the narrating style the youngest might relate to the Max Payne video game series, a cast of virtually unkonwns (which is not a bad thing in itself), poor dialogs, some dark scenes but not many enough, and make a film out of it. Don't worry about the bad acting, the length (way too long), the lack of immersion (the lead character has to be one of the lest interesting I've seen in a long time - couldn't care less if he died) or the often ridiculous solutions they find to certain problems the lead character finds himself in.
I wouldn't have written anything if it hadn't been for another review here, giving it 10 stars. I gave it four, but maybe three is closer to what I feel about it. Not only do I not wish to see it again, but the mere thought of it takes me dangerously close to wanting to kill myself. Oh, and a so called noir film is nothing without a good soundtrack - not the case here. The ending song sounds like it was more suitable to a western movie.
It's not romance, it's not action, it's not noir, it's not good. That would be my review if it weren't for the minimum of 10 lines.
\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\nFilm Noire is a genre that requires a certain level of tact, cleverness, intellect, and imagery. This movie has none of that, though they really tried hard with the imagery.
It's the kind of movie that your cousin Marky the dump truck driver, who's always talking about how he's going to make it big in the movies someday, would make.
The dialogue is wooden and lifeless. The visuals, while obviously expensive to make, are the work of a director who has tried to be clever and failed miserably due to a severe lack in cerebral ability. The acting ranged from sub-par to just plain bad. The story might have been salvaged by a real writer and director, but I suspect that such people would not have touched it with a barge pole.
About 1/4 of the way through, I noticed striking similarities with the scene in Sim0ne where Viktor, desperate to be rid of his actress, makes the world's worst movie. I figured I'd check IMDb to see if a similar effect has occurred in this movie, and to my surprise it has. I'd almost be tempted to give a 2 out of 10 just because it's exposed the pretentious groupies, but I won't. It's that bad.
\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\nImagine Diane from Cheers, the self centered over intellectualizing character, now imagine she was trying to make a film moire movie. This would be it. If you just looked at some of the shots without any sound you would think Hmmm.. this could be a good film.
Now if you turn on the sound and listen for anytime at all you quickly realize that the person that made the film knows nothing about films beyond what they read in a book. I was continually thinking is this thing a foreign film, it was that bad.
If you don't remember Cheers, then think of Mr. Beans Holiday... remember the DeFoe character that made the horrible movie... well imagine that horrible movie without Mr. Bean saving it. That is what this movie is. I'm not saying anything about what the movie is other than it is an attempt to make a dark moody film about a hit-man going back home.... at least that's about all I could get out of 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 have seen many movies over the years and I am a big fan of comedies.
But this so-called comedy almost reduced me to tears. It is without a doubt the WORST movie I have ever witnessed, the worst.
I remember hearing about this movie from a friend, and decided to view it. If I could I could turn back time, I would. I will regret for as long as I live, the time I wasted watching this rubbish.
The storyline is so insane; it just makes no-sense at all and leaves you confused. There is a Scottish mob and a German headhunter who are after Pestario 'Pest' Vargas (John Leguizamo), the Scottish mob after $50,000 dollars and the Germans after his head.
In trying to escape The Pest, takes the form of many disguises. But in doing this we witness some of the most annoying, worst, mind numbing acting, dialogue and sounds in cinema history. This movie annoyed me so much; by the end I was full of aggression. I was so angry that I had wasted so much time watching a movie that would surely drive depressed people to almost certain suicide. I mean how can there be hope when a movie like this can be given permission to be made?
I know people have their own opinions, but the most shocking thing about The Pest is that people actually like it. Why? What is funny about a man that is annoying from the very first second to the last? A man who cannot act? Who has an annoying voice and confusing face?
I sat through it thinking the movie would get better, surely it would. It did not. Usually, you want the good guy to survive, but I wanted the Germans or the Scottish mob to find and kill The Pest, anything to put me out of my misery. There is nothing funny, interesting or normal that happens in this movie, its just plain annoying and confusing. The jokes are dead even before they are told. I feel sorry for the cameramen who have no say in how the movie is made, but actually have to film this drivel. I wouldn't be surprised if they are receiving counselling.
If you want to remain sane and part of society, my advice is to never watch this movie. I'd rather lock myself in my room for 5 weeks and go without food and water than watch this movie again!
I don't think I'll ever hate anything more than this.
\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\nOnly watched this to see Joe Morton in an early role and honestly wished I hadn't bothered, he can and has since, done much better than this crap. Cannot understand why anyone finds this kind of stupidity funny but each to his own; it is an absolute mess and not funny in the least. No wait, ONE line only was funny, where Mr Kent (Joe) and his family are having dinner with this nut job as he's been invited for dinner (Lord alone knows why). Pest to Mr Kent: You know what it's like dog, you've been there Mrs Kent: Not lately, Joe's expression was funny but that's it one line does not make a great comedy and this tat is so far away from being funny it should be consigned to the nearest trash cart, it's only good enough for that. Joe Morton - glad to see you don't appear in rubbish like this anymore; you are far superior and a great great actor.
\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...un-funny and un-entertaining, possibly the worst movie I have ever had the misfortune to watch. Think 'Ernest goes to..' humour done even worse. Myself and my girlfriend sat through it just to see if it could be as consistently dire as it seems in the opening sequence... Yes it is. Avoid at all costs.
\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\nThere is a famous short story about a man who becomes the prey of a safari hunter who has lost interest in hunting anything except humans. Its quite good, and its been done and redone in film and TV many many times. Some are notable, but this urbanized version, that injects the tired old racism themes, just flat out stinks. Leguizamo's slapstick is almost as weak as the unfunny script. Chaplin, this guy isn't. There must be people who find a dwarf who cant stop dancing funny, I mean I suppose it is funny in a pathetic freakish way, but its just not enough to carry a movie. You have the usual Nazi holdover or neo-Nazi whatever the heck we are supposed to think, type villain, who's son of course is gay, German accents...get the picture?
\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 can't believe that there are people out there who voted 10 for this garbage! Have any of you gained access to a computer in the madhouse where you are undoubtably kept, or is there a special colony where especially crass people are secretly imprisoned that I don't know about?
If I was to say what I really thought of this film, none of it would get published.
To begin with its 'star' is a no talent idiot who acts like a bad impersonator of Jim Carrey who has hoovered enough angel dust up his nose to resurface the Sahara desert. His name will be a total guarantee that I will not watch a future film with him in it - even if he plays a rock hidden by a crowd.
As for the 'plot'. One more crime that we can chalk up to the Nazis is that they were so awful that they can be considered fair game as 'baddies' in tripe like this; mere criminals and murderers would have the audience on their side in a trice.
To the people who made this movie - Give up making films and if not then confine yourself to making advertisements, where your efforts will at least have the virtue of being fleeting in duration.
Finally, a criticism of IMDB - Why don't you have the facility to vote 'Zero' for a film? Or perhaps not. To express my contempt for this tripe I would then have to vote double zero, or something.
\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\nA friend of mine who has a mysterious knack for finding and - horrors! - liking bad movies recommended I watch 'The Pest.' At the time unaware of just how truly pathetic his taste in movies was, I decided to give it a try.
Bad mistake.
The story, although clearly ripped straight out of any sixth grade English textbook as far as the \"manhunter\" theme goes, would be amusing under the right conditions - good actors, writer, director, wardrobe, and so on and so on to almost no end. Clearly these factors are absent.
'The Pest' is supposed to be funny, I think. I say \"think\" because I let crack nothing more than a slight smile throughout the whole film. Not a guffaw, not a laugh, not a chuckle, not even a grin. A smile, at best. And that happened so rarely while watching this film I even remember how often I did smile - maybe 3 or 4 times at best.
So do yourself an immense favor. Never watch this movie. Avoid at all costs.
\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'm normally pretty open minded about movies. I can normally see a good side to a film which has been totally pandered by others. This is an exception.
I won't waste to much energy telling you what happens, but think along the lines of Bill and Ted meets the worst Police Academy movie out of all of them and you won't be far off.
The thing that really got me about this film was the stupid purile racism that was evident throughout. The general theme of latino/black guys = cool, white guys = lame is slightly amusing for the first couple of jokes but when the same joke has been reiterated for the 500th time (not an exageration by the way) it gets both tiresome and offensive.
I spent months waiting for the laws of Karma to get back at John Leguizamo for this film. I had almost given up hope when the 'My VH1 Awards' were screened live in the UK. What followed was Mr Leguizamo performing the rare feat of a comedian bombing on stage. You'd have to be a complete sadist to laugh at him. Ahem. Ha! Ha! Ha!
\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 a turd! I like John Leguizamo but man this is bad. I thought spawn was the worst movie he had been in, but I was wrong. I like all types of comedy from stuff like Ace Ventura 2 to american werewolf in London. This is a piece of trash.
\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 almost tempted to demand my money back from the video store. This movie plumbs the depths of inanity and is almost completely unwatchable. I NEVER bail out of a film early but this was painful to view. A thorough waste of celluloid. My vote 1/10 (it would have been zero).
\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\nThe sole reason for someone wanting to see this film would be because of John Leguizamo. I remember the previews, and it looked to be another second rate comedy. But the fact that Mr. Leguizamo starred, tried to redeem it. His name, how known it was at the time or not, tried to sell it.
I was pretty disappointed with the performance of Leguizamo. His days on \"House of Buggin'\" (an \"In Living Colour\" clone), were his tip-top. There is a fine line between wackiness and idiocy, and we'll just say that Leguizamo crossed it tenfold. He looked like he was trying to be too outrageous and crazy for the camera. As a matter of fact, I'll say that he tried too hard. Madcap humor spilled over into stupidity, and the film was spoiled. I can't say I blamed him, if you were given this opportunity, you'd try as hard if you could, right? Your eagerness cost you dearly though Mr. Leguizamo...
The Pest follows in the tradition of any comedy film, and plays the \"race card\", and more. No group is left out from being poked fun at. Blacks, Latinos, whites, Jews, Koreans, Germans, homosexuals, and the blind are among those singled out. Again here, things get too overboard, and too much tries to get spoofed in too little time. The resolution of the film takes all of five minutes to clear up and move back to normality.
When you have a film, and you're going to bypass plot and reality for comedy's sake, just make sure it's funny, or all you have is 90 minutes of senseless film. Which would sum up Leguizamo's \"Pest\" quite nicely...
\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\nObviously, this one doesn't aim for the brain : the so-called \"humour\" is based on farting and every cliché about any ethnic genre you can imagine, gays included of course, as long as they are not WASP. And a latino cowrote this ? Besides, John Leguizamo does have talent and charisma, but in such a self-indulgent movie it is a definite waste. What the point in trying to out-Jim Carrey Jim Carrey himself ? \"The Pest\" of the title could then be this movie, almost as funny as Bergman's finest. Prepare to be annoyed, not amused
\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 pathetic in every way possible. Bad acting, horrible script (was there one?), terrible editing, lousy cinematography, cheap humor. Just plain horrible.
I had seen 'The Wishmaster' a couple weeks before this movie and I thought it was a dead-ringer for worst movie of the year. Then, I saw 'The Pest' and suddenly 'The Wishmaster' didn't seem so bad at all.
Bad Bad Bad. Excruciatingly bad.
\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 was unfortunate enough to see this movie at a friends' house. What an utter waste of time. What an utter and complete piece of crap this movie is! Absolutely nothing is funny in it, from the shower scene to the insulting and degrading portrayal of Germans. There is no plot, the acting made me gag and at the end, I personally wanted to beat John Leguizamo with a stick. I thought John Woo movies were bad.....this movie is officially the worst movie that I have ever seen.
\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\nJust to save you the $3, or whatever it costs to rent movies at your local video store, and the anguishing hour-and-however-long-this-movie-is here's a simple plan. Go over to a friend's house, talk them into renting The Pest for you, watch the first 30 seconds or so and then make up some excuse to leave. The opening sequence is really funny, definitely worth watching. Unfortunately, the other 99% of the movie is horrible. Without the shower scene at the beginning this is one of the worst movies of all 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\nJohn Leguizamo must have been insane if he thinks this was a funny movie. I laughed more times watching Remains of the Day. Pathetic plot, unbearable acting. Horrible music -- Michael Sambello IS a \"Maniac.\"
\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 a terrible movie, don't waste your money on it. Don't even watch it for free. That's all I have to say.
\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 the worst movie I have ever seen. I have to admit I didn't watch it from beginning to end as cleaning the toilet was more entertaining.
The 'star' was the most unpleasant character I've ever seen, neither funny nor attractive, in fact, creepy and obnoxious are far too complimentary.
It is painful to watch, there is no acting, especially not from the star who behaves as a doped up mentally deficient take off on one of those loud mouthed black actors.
As horrible as it is to watch one of those can't shut up black actors, watching a Puerto Rican one is even worse.
The name of the movie is descriptive, he is the pest. This movie is a must miss.
\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\nObviously, the comments above that fawn over the movie were made by someone who's on the crew. I don't recall ever seeing a movie that's more insulting to the talented actors or the audience watching. In my 30 years of watching movies, this is the only one I have ever walked out of. Bad humor, bad jokes, bad gags, bad editing, bad plot, etc.
Note to producer: It's never funny to hunt humans based on race. Great that you tried to be politically correct by incorporating all races, but you're still hunting humans based on race, and that's sickening.
\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 actually joined this site simply to write in about this movie. I was sitting in my living room and this movie came on one of the local channels. I made it about an hour through before I simply had enough. Curious to see what the general movie-opinionated public thought of this movie, I looked it up on this site. I was absolutely shocked to see that there were an overwhelming amount of people that thought it was great. I needed to have my say, and here it is: This movie is absolute garbage. It was a chore to sit through. The \"jokes\" were uninspired rehashes from other, better shows and movies, and Leguizamo's manic portrayal of this obnoxious character should only appeal to age ten and below. That actually may be a stretch even for that age. I'm all for slapstick ridiculousness, but there isn't even the faintest hint of wit or cleverness. I have an idea, lets take bad uninspired obvious jokes and play them at twice the speed. Now that's funny. Ha. Ha.
Movies that you should see that take silly humor and add comic timing and originality: The Marx Brothers' A Night at the Opera, Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut,...and the list goes on. Don't lose an hour and a half of your life on unmemorable crap.
By the way, I can only assume that the reason that David Bar Katz (the other writer) did VERY little in film after this movie is because he was instantly blacklisted. I'm actually impressed that Leguizamo was able to recover after this mess.
\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\nAt times when I watch this movie i start to think that the people who made this movie were on drugs.What's wrong with this film I'll tell you Bad Plot,Bad Jokes.Bad Acting and flat-out characters everything just bad.
The movie is about Pest Vargas a two-bit scam hustler who is given the chance at $50,000 to survive for 24 hours by a German hunter who kills people for a living.so now Pest must think of ways to out think this hunter before he gets killed.
I know what your thinking \"What The Hell is this?\" a another wannabe Ace Ventura trying to get money really this plot is just dull and confusing at times it changes the story plot and you get lost during the film.
As for the funny scenes this film I had a straight face oh yeah I did smile a couple times but nothing laugh-out loud.besides the jokes are corny and seen before it's like watching Ace Ventura meets Dumb and Dumber but bad.
As for character development it's dry and flat.You don't learn much about the main character Pest all you know is he's a annoying scam hustler but that's it he doesn't change his image or be a little smart just corny.as for The German hunter all you is that he's crazy and wants to go back to Germany.really you start to wonder why is this guy living on an island if has money to go to Germany.The hunter's son Himmel fares better but not much.He's really a coward and is snake-obsessed for reasons by the end He stands Up to his father and sides with Pest.
As for the acting no only were there any memorable perforamces but just over the top.For example John Legizomo is so over the top with performance and dosen't fit in his role he's out of place as for Jeffery Jones who plays the hunter same thing but gives a stereotypical performance as well.as for the rest either just no used enough or just over the top.
overall bad comedy that you'll find for $2.00 at K-Mart.
\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'd like to start by saying I would not go see this movie again if they were giving out popcorn made of solid gold and the ticket granted me eternal life. This movie was terrible. I can't give this it a truly honest rating because there are no negative stars. The acting is absolutely terrible. This movie is a travesty, based on the classic, \"The Most Dangerous Game\". If you really want to torture yourself for 90 minutes rent something like Gigli. At least J-Lo provides some better scenery, Ben should pacify the ladies viewing it. I'm not upset about the $7 I paid to see the move, I'd just like the 90 minutes of my life back.
\"Can you give me my time back!?!\" Samuel L. Jackson, Changing Lanes
\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\nLike most everyone who views this movie, I did it for the stars Michael Madsen and Dennis Hopper. The two are extremely underrated and sadly, because of that, have to headline a lot of crap. In this film, Hopper plays a guy who accidentally kills a blackmailer and is offered help from the mysterious Madsen.
The film actually isn't as terrible as it could have been. I've seen both in much worse, both independently and working together (LAPD, horrible film). The direction was pretty poor and the script needed a few re-writes, but both give the best performance possible with the material offered. Also the ending is pretty strong, so you can tell the story had potential. But when a glowing review of a film is, \"It could have been much worse\", it doesn't say much for the film itself.
All in all, this is one that can easily be skipped if neither of these actors draw you in. But if you're a fan of either or both, give it a watch. They both give strong performances that outshine the obvious flaws of the film. Trust me, there are much worse options out there.
\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'A comedy of biblical proportions!' Those masters of hyperbole, the movie-tag-line-writers, at it again; the sequel to 2003's Bruce Almighty, raises barely a chuckle. The only thing which raises my interest in this movie above total indifference is its dogmatic Christian undertones. Sorry, make that overtones.
Steve Carrel, ignoring Jim Carrey's good sense to decline a role reprisal, plays Evan Baxter, the smug news anchor from Bruce Almighty, who has just been elected to congress. With a new life in Virginia and the stress of moving into a house the size of the Acropolis, the pressure of all the change takes its toll on his family. His wife (Lauren Graham), evidently airlifted in from Stepford, and three sons (Jimmy Bennett, Graham Phillips and Johnny Simmons), who do a stilted job of looking sad to a piano accompaniment, pray for the family to become closer, and almost out of guilt, so does Evan.
In what must be the greatest shock of all time, God (Morgan Freeman) actually shows up, but does the whole pesky 'working in mysterious ways' thing all over the place by telling Evan to build a Noah-esquire ark in preparation for a great flood instead of just giving him a pool table or and X-box or something. And in true mischievous deity style, he also forces Evan to grow a beard, long hair and wear worn and tatty robes. Now, back in the day I'm sure razors were hard to come by so the beard was somewhat of an inevitability for Noah, but I'm almost certain it had nothing to do with spirituality. Same with the robes; a massive construction job is surely made all the more difficult by such impractical clothing. Couldn't God have conjured up a pair of steel toed boots and a hard hat for the poor guy? Apparently not.
To paraphrase Bill Hicks, I find the idea that God is messing with us somewhat unsettling, and so does Evan who fights him every step of the way. And who wouldn't? God essentially gets him fired, drives away his loved ones, makes him a laughing stock and at one point actually threatens him. Of course God turns out to be right, and the rational, hard working family man who was getting on fine by himself is forced to eat a large slice of bittersweet humble pie. It's almost as if to be left alone by God, Evan had to tolerate and humour him. What kind of message is that?
Evan Almighty does have a highly commendable environmental slant, with the underlying theme being that the Federal Government is blind to the damage being done to the world around us. It is also the first film ever to offset its carbon emissions and this should surely be considered a landmark achievement by a Hollywood studio. Were it not for the trite, condescending banner of American Christianity flying high above it, Evan Almighty could have been an inoffensive family movie, with a praiseworthy environmental record. But with its confused religious dogma and relentless 'blind faith' message, it ranks as one of the most repugnant movies of all time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"