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\nSynopsis: Kid is not accepted into any colleges. He creates a \"college\" where he and his friends can party by using their parent's tuition money.
Wow. A Paean to ignorance.
If you believe that we're all OK, man, then this movie is for you. Furthermore, you must understand that:
1. Kids have it all inside them--they just need to let it out.
2. Teaching really stifles the innate creativity that everyone is born with.
3. Someone else should pay for you to follow your passion.
4. 300 teenagers can live together in harmony, as long as you take away those restrictive rules.
5. Extemporaneous speeches are often much more convincing than a prepared presentation.
6. If the Board of Education allows you to open a \"charter school\" with \"nontraditional teaching techniques,\" it's because they have your best interests at heart. (Not that they are willing to let go of low-functioning students who will end up working fast food anyways.)
This movie is one in the college comedy genre, i.e. Animal House. It follows the pattern pretty closely. What's new here though, is a complete attack on higher education, not a parody of the bad elements. It's missing the sympathetic insider, a professor who embodies the worthwhile part of university life.
This lack of balance will doom this film to the back rows of Blockbuster. It is so one sided, that I wondered if it was an ironic self-referential take on the whole genre--for about one minute. The movie has no deep meaning, no layers, no introspection. It's as if they let some kids who never went to class do what comes naturally. And what is natural is what the name of the school is: S***.
(Never thought I'd say this: Go see something with Will Farrell instead. His comedies can be surprisingly sophisticated.)
\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 was downright awful. most of the comedic scenes seem stale and trite, and possibly the funniest scene in the movie had already been given away in previews. the entire premise of the movie is so unbelievable and ridiculous its hard to really get into it. the actors themselves portray the most unrealistic characters. its not just the fact that the movies so hard to swallow, but its how they keep forcing it down your throat expecting you to dumb down and accept it. the plot itself is so shallow and easy to predict. boy somehow gets rejected from every school he applied to(i suppose he completely forgot about attending community college) and decides to create his own school for fellow rejects. all goes well for awhile until the validity of his school comes into question. all the while the dorky character manages to woo his beautiful neighbor into falling for him with his witty sarcasm, which apparently is a skill only he possesses. then comes the final struggle with the students somehow all bonding together and fighting for the survival of the school. of course the main character then persuades the state board of education to allow his school to stay alive with some \"inspirational\" speech. this movie would have been more fun to watch if i was under the age of 16 and still ignorant of all college matters and issues.
\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\nSeriously, I don't understand how Justin Long is becoming increasingly popular. He either has the best agent in Hollywood, or recently sold his soul to Satan. He is almost unbearable to watch on screen, he has little to no charisma, and terrible comedic timing. The only film that he has attempted to anchor that I've remotely enjoyed was Waiting... and that is almost solely because I've worked in a restaurant. But I digress. Aside from it's terrible lead, this film has loads of other debits. I understand that it's supposed to be a cheap popcorn comedy, but that doesn't mean that it has to completely insult our intelligence, and have writing so incredibly hackneyed that it borders on offensive. Lewis Black's considerable talent is wasted here too, as he is at his most incendiary when he is unrestrained, which the PG-13 rating certainly won't allow. The film's sole bright spot was Jonah Hill (who will look almost unrecognizable to fans of the recent Superbad due to the amount of weight he lost in the interim). His one liners were funny on occasion, but were certainly not enough to make this anywhere close to bearable. If you just want to completely turn your brain off (or better yet, don't have one) then maybe you'd enjoy this, but I can't recommend it at all.
\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\nLet me start by saying that there's really no reason to watch this movie. I only sat through it because I was trying to kill some time before going to work.
Basically, it's your typical sophomoric \"comedy\" aimed at the teenage set. There's nothing remarkable about it other than the complete ridiculousness of the story, not to mention that there are plot holes big enough to sail a Carnival cruise-liner through. Obviously this isn't supposed to be a realistic movie, it's supposed to be funny. Sadly, it mostly fails on that count as well. I must admit that I laughed a few times, but mainly in a \"holy sh*t, I can't believe how stupid this is\" kind of way.
If you never see this movie you're not missing a thing.
\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 see absolutely nothing funny---even remotely funny---in this stupid movie. An unrealistic, silly, ridiculous idea--just completely ridiculous. Hard to believe that the main character, who seems so articulate, intelligent and imaginative, would not be accepted to any college. Even more difficult to believe is that no one shut the place down. The actors portrayed characters straight out of Characterville. We have seen their lot many a time over in many films. Nothing new here. I found it on late night TV, and since there was really nothing else on, I watched the whole boring, stupid film. What a total waste. Maybe if you are a teenager, you may find it amusing. Films are made for an immature mind, so teens, go for it. The rest, no way.
\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\nInane, awful farce basically about a young man who refuses to conform or better uses non-conformity to attain his objectives-fool his parents into thinking that he is attending a college. Truth is that this jerk has been rejected by every school he has applied to. After viewing this junk, you will see why.
What a ridiculous name- South Hampton Institute of Technology. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out the initials of this school of nonsense. Problem with these type of films is that in the end, the non-conformist becomes the accepted mode.
Let's step back to the world of reality and call this film what it really is- excessive manipulative junk!
\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 wasn't so impressed with this film, finding it quite tiresome and plain. The plot line was interesting, a kid creating his own college and enrolling hundreds of kids, but the laughs were few and far between. The jokes weren't really funny and i didn't bust a gut at any of the scenes. The characters weren't intriguing and I didn't feel for any of them, even the dawky, fat kid with glasses who tried to enter the frat group. It was a good first watch, but it didn't blow me away and its not one that I would recommend. Comparing it to other films in the same genre, ie, American Pie is just cruel, because there is a film which was laugh-a-plenty. This ACCEPTED failed to raise a smile!
\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 quick, funny coming-of-age matinée romp appealing to the underdog aldolescent in us all. It functions, in effect, as a vehicle for Justin Long who has subsequently erupted onto our screens in the fourth Die Hard via PC vs Mac ads, Dodgeball and The Break Up. He's funny, earnest and young - a big career ahead.
A town's worth of college wannabes find a fake website Bartelby (Long) has set up to delude his judgemental parents and descend on the 'college' like it were a short notice Facebook party. Lewis Black summises the anarchic philosophy as a stand-in Dean - Long's delinquent friends provide support for the subterfuge and consequent appeal to grander traditions of education and friendship (Adam Herschman deserves special mention for his never-flagging slapstick contribution). Well executed, feelgood and instantly forgettable. 4/10
\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\nSaw this as part of the DC Reel Affirmations Film Festival. I hope they got better movies than this, because this film failed to deliver on any of the hopes that audience may have entertained, from the fantasy of seeing James Franco without his shirt, down to more simple wishes, such as decent acting, coherent direction, character development, or actual production values. Plagued by film school effects such as freeze frames to show moments of emotional distress, and obvious influences ranging from My Own Private Idaho to Terminator 2, this film failed on almost every level to engage the audience. After the first twenty minutes of valiantly trying to take it seriously, the audience collectively threw up it's hands and just started to enjoy the inherent crappiness of the film. I could be upset that I paid nine bucks to see it, and it was two hours I'll never get back, but on the other hand, it was an entertaining two hours I'll never get back. This would have been a classic Mystery Science 3000 episode.
\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 Lifetime channel aired this in October but I only got around to watching it now. It's the old eternal triangle again  small-town Connecticut boy Dave Ford (Matt Long) has a quick fling with his best friend's girlfriend, Emily Darrow (Emmanuelle Chriqui), on the eve of his departure for law school in New York, thinks about her for the next five years while he isn't doing contracts and briefs, runs into her again when he returns home after the death of his father on the eve of a big exam five years later, and gets involved with her romantically again. But director and co-writer Matthew Cole Weiss goes way over the top, framing the whole thing in flashback as Dave confesses to murdering Emily, her husband and another one of her lovers in front of (here comes the spoiler) a Lesbian cop who's also a flame of Emily's. Weiss overdoes the \"flanging\" effect by which Dave gets to see chunks of his previous life flash before his eyes even before he's actually dead, cutting those in even while Dave and Emily are having sex and thereby ruining the soft-core porn shots that give even some otherwise pretty lame Lifetime movies at least a bit of audience appeal. I couldn't help but flash back myself to James M. Cain and how much better he wrote women like this in his classic thrillers (all adapted into hit movies) \"The Postman Always Rings Twice,\" \"Double Indemnity\" and \"Mildred Pierce.\" It also doesn't help that the film ends with the bad guys (the bad girls, actually) triumphant and the decent, if naïve and stupid, hero seemingly on his way to the lethal injection table  or that the actors playing the people Dave and Emily are cheating on are both better looking than they are. Incidentally, though this film went straight to cable in the U.S. there were some blank spots on the soundtrack indicating where swear words were blipped, so I presume this got a theatrical release somewhere in the world.
\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\nAll I can say is, this movie is made for the Lifetime Channel on TV, which means no solid characters, no particular style, weak acting all kinds of suggested sex but no-breasts and tushs (because boy, that would just catapult the film into the depths of sleaze wouldn't it?) but the heavily simulated sex, well, that's OK.
When watching these films I have to ask myself, when will these types of TV channels and their advertisers ever grow up? I think these companies are actually way behind the times. They really have no clue what the younger generation is in tune with and if they knew they would demand we change. The whole point of many American TV channels like these seems mostly to regurgitate the same sanitized, diluded garbage over and over like a generic movie assembly line. I guess it works for them... or at least it has. Not sure about the future though.
Don't bore yourself to death like I did. Seek out some real TV movies on HBO, Showtime, IFC, Starz, etc. Any channel that puts effort into their work and doesn't have to ask a priest what they can or cannot show.
\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 this movie considering this as a normal Hollywood movie but then came to know that its a Movie made for TV channel.On my DVD cover out of 2 critics comments one of the critic stephen farber from moviline reveiwed it as A best movie of the Year..
All the character were simple and decent performances except the Brain's character which never gets scope which director wanted to keeps mystery till end.. there was suspense till end but when you see the end that lady Police Officer and main culprit had a Lesbian affair seems to be totally stupid idea.God knows what happens to DAVE the male lead character..
The other Critic from Mr. Brown's Movies said that Shocking and Effective but doesn't quite live up to all the Hype... which i saw after watching the Movie .for which i was partially aggree...i should have read this first before taking 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\nI do not know what some of these filmmakers are thinking, by making the same type of clichéd film over and over, where the bad guys (bad girls in this case) win. Weak acting and very predictable. Nothing original about it. This same movie has been made over and over again- not different from GOODBYE LOVER (1989), SLOW BURN (2005), or at least ten other movies with the exact same storyline and ending. There are a lot of holes in the movie too. It is as if they ran out of money and just stopped filming. Or perhaps they ran out of ideas. But do not waste your time with this one. It will only leave you upset by having wasted your time watching 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 was watching the beginning of this on a Friday, mid-day, while working at computer at home, relaxing a bit after a hectic week, and cleaning-up some files and answering some communications. Got interrupted a couple of times, so had trouble getting all the details straight (although it's hardly a work of Hitchcock proportions, where missing a detail can through the whole story off-kilter), and besides it was not exactly an \"engrossing\" piece of work.
So during a commercial, read the only prior comment here (by \"mgconlan-1\"), and pretty much can agree with its details.
Not quite in the category of a film so awful it is fascinatingly \"good,\" but I'd like to catch on tape when run again (rather than seeing it as aired), so I can fast forward as needed and see the parts which I missed this first time.
Give it a \"3*\" because of the attractiveness of the four primary characters.
\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\nFirst there was Tsui Hark's Zu Warriors (2001), which is visually ground-breaking, but much lacking in the acting and writing departments, now this movie, which is visually almost as good as Zu (though no longer ground-breaking), but is even worse in the acting and writing departments. It's really sad that there seems to be an almost complete lack of acting and writing talents in the HK movie industry. I guess you need to understand Cantonese to understand how bad and vulgar the dialogs in the movie really are. It's like some delinquent kids talking in the street, it's that bad. To make it worse, the actors and actresses themselves look like delinquent kids, and can't act even if their life depend on it. I understand that this movie is supposed to be a comedy aimed at the younger generation in HK, but has HK youths really become so brain-dead that they can't appreciate anything but such juvenile and vulgar acting/writing? If that's the case, it makes me ashamed to be from HK.
I wish HK movie makers will learn some lessons from directors like Zhang Yi-Mou or Ang Lee, and finally make a movie that's both visually stunning as well as competent and mature in the acting and writing departments. And stop using young singers/idols/heartthrobs as actors because they can't act however many fans they may have in HK!
\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 borrowed scenes from LOTR, Matrix, Star Wars, etc. The humor is so dry, contrived, and corny, that you can't help but laugh occasionally at its inanity and the fact that you are watching it. Exactly what you'd expect from an HK comedy. The average person would enter with an IQ of 100 and leave with less than 80. Stephen Chow is an obvious omission from this movie. The humor would have worked better with Stephen. The Mandarin version of this movie is not as good as the Cantonese original. The graphics are poor compared to its Hollywood counterparts. There is overdependence on low quality CG. My biggest complaint is its ending. The origin of the white horse is so clearly described in the \"Journey to the West\" (JW), that this alternate explanation does not work well with story line. Despite its many flaws this movie has far more entertainment value than the other movie Nicholas Tse starred in--The Promise.
\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\nIs this a game FMV or a movie? In all honesty, I watched this one out of \"choice-less-ness\". It is a very big waste of time and money.
It seems HK movies are heading in the opposite direction of the rest of the world.
Try to put more effort and money into a production and make us want to watch, rather than something you want us to watch.
The graphics are so horrible than they looked like something out of the early to mid-90s low resolution games (in comparison to today's).
The way they made this movie is almost exactly what they did in the 90s' Wing Commander game, namely the third installment of the series. Stop regressing and make us Asian look so bad at this compared to the big guns in Hollywood.
Sure! They have big budgets and better actors. But we have some of the oldest histories, the myths and the legends, the best technophiles and possibly the largest computer graphic talent base in the world! So what went so very very wrong? Did you start using the same old companies that have been working with you for so many films?! Please stop wasting our time and money. This is the reason why HK movies are heading downhill so rapidly. Didn't you claim to be the Hollywood of the Orient? Guess not.
\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 horrible, horrible, horrible film. I saw the original when I was a kid and it gave me nightmares into my teens. When I found out a remake was on the way, I groaned. WHY OH WHY remake a good film? Well, we can thank Dark Castle for buggering yet another classic horror film. This time they've replaced a somewhat interesting story with gore, slower than slow pacing, and yawn-inspired characters. Someone previously said that s/he was surprised that Paris Hilton can act. Uh, were you watching the film? She plays a prissy little tramp. Sounds like typecasting to me. Half of the people in the audience actually CHEERED when she died! That tells you why people are seeing this film. If that's your only reason, then find a better one, because like a black hole this thing will suck out more of your life than you'll want. Had I been alone, I would have left 10 minutes into the boring exposition. This thing is like a moron's guide to crap film-making: In bred Southern git, stupid but attractive leads, knives a plenty, gore a plenty, stock menacing truck, I could go on. After watching this film, I began to really appreciate Jeepers Creepers, and I thought that film sucked. Save yourself and avoid this crapfest at every 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\nThe third film based on Charles Belden's play entitled \"Mystery of the Wax Museum\" (1933) targets generation X-tasy. Twin screenwriters, Chad Hayes and Carey W. Hayes, spend more time developing the main characters than other slasher movies--a promising start. Their condition guarantees an authentic point of view. The role of Paige (Paris Hilton) was not much of a stretch for the world's favorite heiress. She peruses \"In Style,\" stripteases boys, chats on a cell, and frets over an ill-conceived pregnancy. Her regular routine has been altered beyond repair. Hilton reached the peak of her performance--not so hot--during the \"1 Night in Paris\" (2004) parody. While the pimp-my-ride is in motion, she zealously \"looks for lip balm\" in her boyfriend's (Robert Ri'chard) lap. Finally, the \"actress\" atones for using the \"N\" word on the sex tape. Director Jaume Collet-Serra molds his take on the twin thing contrary to the theme of the past. Each exhibited opposite characteristics back then, whereas a pair of either good or bad can come out the womb today. However, the latter does not rule out the former. Childbirth constitutes the luck of the draw. Spectators can hardly consider Vincent (Brian Van Holt) a contemporary Quasimodo. Granted, the recluses share some similarities such as artistry, disfigurement, submissiveness, and murder. Yet, one small variable between the two makes all the difference. Vincent is even uglier on the inside than he is on the out. Collet-Serra's \"House of Wax\" pays homage to actor Vincent Price from the first remake in 1953. The film leaves obvious van Gogh puns to the imagination of the audience. Still, the choice to split the antagonist in two eliminates a vibrant twist at the end. Professor Henry (Vincent Price) Jarrod's unmasking receives runner-up, but the most terrifying one in horror movie history belongs to Lon Chaney in \"Phantom of the Opera\" (1925). As far as the new contender is concerned, the aftermath of separation surgery downplays the effect. A surgeon should know operating on Siamese twins scars them--physically and psychologically. Their father needs to call a couple colleagues--Dr. Phil to consult and Dr. McNamara to nip/tuck. Despite what the trailers said, \"Wax\" is not forever. In fact, you can rid yourself of it by burning 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 film is an undisguised attempt to appeal to a younger demographic of fourteen to 24 yr olds', and an insult to all of them. i refuse to believe that that age group is that vapid as to be entertained by this unnecessary \"remake\". early in the film one of the characters proclaims, \"i am surrounded by idiots\". this is the defining moment in the film, which goes steadily down from there. full of clichés, red-herring \"scares\" and unexplained events, the film is also full of characters who are not exactly brainiacs, a formula all too familiar in dumb horror movies. and that crappy \"it's so dark i cant see\" scenes stolen from Chainsaw Massacre but merely annoying, not building any tension, nor horror. it's difficult to film in the dark, and sometimes darkness is a great vehicle in a film that's suppose to have tension. but my own feeling was that the less you see in this case, the better. maybe he didn't want to wait until morning because he didn't care, other than it might cost him more money to do night scenes well, or he doesn't know how. who knows? unless you have never seen a horror film in your life, or you are two or three years old, every aspect of this film is predictable and done before. warning: Paris Hilton is in this movie. enough said. all in all a blasé slasher film which begs the question, where the h*ll is the wax?it was treated like a lost leader. if you're bored as possible and all other rentals are out or you're just in the mood for a bad horror film, which isn't really scary,or you'd like to see Paris have a pole smash through her head, go ahead and take a chance. it's not the worst movie i've ever seen, but if this is what the producers of this film thinks a younger audience wants, i pray that they are deluded. a profit-driven film with no attempt to achieve any kind of art nor respect for the genre. you know, smart characters make for a scarier movie. i believe this is Collet-Serra's debut as a director, besides commercials and music videos. he has another one coming out in 2006 called Goal 2. hopefully his goal is to make a better 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\nWhen they announced this movie for TNT I was excited. A Travesty from Donald Westlake's \"Enough\" was one of my all time favorite stories. After I watched it I was not all that thrilled. Recently I had the chance to watch it a second time with my aunt, and once again I was disappointed (she didn't like it much either, and she'd never read the book). In this movie they managed to sap all the charm from the book and turn it into dull mush. A big part of the problem was William H. Macy. I like him fine in other films, but he played (Terry/Carey) Thorpe as a stammering, incompetent yutz. In the book Thorpe takes a lot of valium for his nerves, but remains outwardly collected at almost all times which is part of the fun. SPOILERS follow: They also left out a big part of the story (other than a 2 second glimpse at the embassy), where Thorpe solves not 1 but 4 homicides for the police. This is important not just because it's funny, but because it helps set up the relationship between Fred and Thorpe. In the movie Fred's betrayal in the end is not nearly as affecting, because they don't seem all that close. In the book they become pretty good friends especially on Fred's side, which makes it all the more ironic that he is he one that arranges Thorpe's downfall. Fred also suffered a bit from casting, I love Adam Arkin but he was not a cheerful, happy to be alive upbeat sort of Detective, character traits which book Fred possesses which makes it more obviously out of character for him to mess with evidence and thus more shocking. Patricia and Edgarson were pretty close to the book, and James Cromwell was great despite not looking much like Martin Balsam. The whole boring boat house scene which was entirely added for the film was much less interesting than the police finding Edgarson's body after Thorpe ships it to Seattle and blaming the death on the mob. Kit was okay although she was mostly rewritten, and it would have been nice to see her die as she did get slightly annoying. I don't mind changes to books to make movies, I know they are necessary because of length and difficulty, but it would have been nice if some of the changes in this movie had been funnier or smarter instead of duller.
\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\nAs a recent convert to Curb Your Enthusiasm, which prompted my viewing of all season's episodes, I expected more, much more from Jeff's efforts.
When I view a film offering a slice of an average 'Joe's' life I need reasons to be interested, to care, to feel and believe. And with Jeff Garlin at the helm I also expected a bevy of shining comedic moments. This film failed me time and again.
Jeff plays a living with mom, plump sad sack who is a social disaster. He has not had a relationships, real or even casual, for many years. He appears to be mostly unemployed and, as noted, shacks with his mommy dearest. Can things get worse? Sure. In short order he gets sacked by everyone around him including Silverman, Second City (his comedy workshop) and his agent. All reinforce his 'loser' status. Silverman's 'fatty' experiment was as cruel as it was absurd. His obsession with the role of \"Marty,\" as the means of his career's salvation, also hits a big dead end.
While the film's final moments offer a glimpse of better things to come the cinematic 'journey,' albeit with occasional golden glimmers, was sadly lacking.
\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\nGreat ensemble cast but unfortunately a bunch of undeveloped ideas make the film drag. One feels not fulfilled at the end after waiting for some kind of conclusion, closure, or at least an ironic twist.
It had that familiar \"Curb\" feel without dare I say it, Larry as the annoying polar opposite. The music was there, the 'show about nothing' scenes pop up, but without any common thread or suspense - it falters as a solo project that ran out of budget.
Spoilers: The movie title speaks about cheese but she prefers the rice pudding. Is cheese a better selling title than rice pudding? He prefers just any junk food, regardless of the sell by date. Maybe I want someone to eat 'cheese-dogs' or ice cream in a pirate suit would have at least tied some scenes together.
Marty: this is just not funny and overdone. People just don't care about a 'show' within a show. A coffee book table about coffee books was funnier.
Unless you are big fans of the cast, save your time and eat some cheese. It doesn't even have to be with anyone.
\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\nHow i deserved to watch this crap??? Worst ever. The acting was awful, when i read that this was a comedy i expected at least to smile, once - or twice, but.... If you are wiling to loose hour and a half of your lives, this is the right movie. I recommend just look in a wall or something, anything else but watch this \"film\". Yoy can even watch a documentary (if you are a guy) about pregnant women, i guarantee it will be more entertaining :)The actor in this one (i forgot his name) is not that bad, and i am surprised how hi accepted the role. Anyway \"I want someone to eat cheese with\" is the right film if you want to punish someone.
\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 absolutely awful. It's everywhere & nowhere & doesn't have any sort of point. I have never understood what is good about Jeff Garlin or Sarah Silverman. Bonnie Hunt is so above this drivel she must have been personal friends w/people involved because there is no way she would have read any part of this so-called \"script\" & thought, \"Yeah I wanna do that!\" Most movies I can find at least one or two things that are redeemable or funny. There is ZERO of that in this. It's extremely dumb. There really isn't any other word to describe this. This is quite possibly the biggest waste of money on making of film that I have seen in a long time. Skip this at all cost, you'll be glad you did.
\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 is about a struggling actor trying to find satisfaction in life, especially love which he has not had a taste of for 5 years.
It basically is a film featuring a man with very poor social skills, and he says wrong things all the time. The plot is hollow and contrived. The main character, James, is lonely, but this theme of loneliness is not adequately explored. It is more like an empty statement which other subplots stem from. Sadness and disappointment after being dumped are superficial. There is a serious lack of emotions in the film.
It is not funny as a comedy either. There are some funny one liners but that is it. It lacks the happy and uplifting atmosphere to infect people with happy mood. I don't find \"I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With\" funny.
\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 experimental silent film, made in Switzerland by an independent British film company, is chiefly remembered as Paul Robeson's first film. It's very artistic, with shots often seeming meaningless to the story, which is difficult to understand anyway because of the lack of enough inter-titles. From what I gathered, Robeson's wife, Adah, is in an inter-racial love affair with a white man called Thorne. It doesn't bother the cigar-chomping owner of the bar/hotel where Thorne lives (and she seems to be having a lesbian relationship with a barmaid), but an old lady expresses the town's point of view in an inter-title: \"If I had my way, we wouldn't allow negroes in here.\" Thorne is also called \"nigger lover\" by someone in the bar. Adah tries a reconciliation with Pete (Robeson), but eventually leaves him. Thorne's wife, Astrid, goes off the deep end, brandishes a knife, cuts Thorne's arm and cheek, and somehow dies. Thorne must have been accused of murder because we learn he was acquitted. As for Pete, he gets a letter from the mayor telling him it is best for everyone that he leave town. So the film is more about racism than anything, but in an up note, the owner tells Pete \"The sad thing is, they think they're right. That's the way we are.\" The meaning of the title is a mystery. It may refer to Adah being light-skinned (a borderline negro) or to the borderline behavior of of the main characters.
\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 usually a fan of \"art\" and \"foreign\" films, but when I saw this one my reaction was \"it must be called experimental because it makes no sense.\" The \"action\" is static, while at the same time it bounces from one location to another. There aren't enough titles to make it clear who is who and what their relationships are. Apparently the main point was to show that in the face of murder, adultery and generally weird and dissolute behavior, the cure offered by the powers that be is to banish a totally innocent black man.
\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 did I buy this movie on DVD?, Well the short answer would be: I really don't know. As for the longer version, it pretty much comes down to the fact that I genuinely like Tatyana Ali and she plays Alicia in this.
Now does Tatyana Ali give a genuinely good effort in this movie? I must say that it is one of the better, and she is shaping up to be a rather decent actress. I am very much looking forward to see her in action, when better material will be available.
This being said, this movie was terrible - and my score is given based on this: 1 star for not being the worst movie I've seen, 1 star for the performance of Tatyana Ali, and 1 star for not thinking that it only deserves 2 stars, there are worse movies for that.
Ja Rule should stick to rapping, not my favourite rapper to say the least, but some seem to like him - and if he is contained there, I would be delighted not to see him contaminate the acting scene.
Ving Rhames: Ah man, Marcellus Wallace what are you doing here - you used to be cool man. Just because Michael Caine is a fiercely brilliant actor, who has been in so many terrible flicks as well as good, you don't have to copy him Ving.
The rest of the semi big names in the cast: It's OK, there are bills to be paid, and we all have to do things we're not proud of time to time.
The movie itself. It so massively flawed, it's pretty difficult to know where to start. It's more like a bunch of scenes thrown in together, as were the director to say \"we need to tell this, and we need to tell that\". There is a story, unfortunately there is nothing surprising about or within it. To say the least, the plot changes in the story were overly obvious and it was therefore predictable what was going to happen all the time.
To sum up in one word: Reallynotgood
\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 difficult to rate a writer/director's first effort. After all, it is one more movie than I have written or directed. James Hunter wrote a story that was interesting, but suffered from an uneven flow.
After all, the idea that a man (Ja Rule) has to choose between the thug life and going straight is common, and even falling in love with the daughter (Tatyana Ali) of the man you killed has been done. Doing it again demands something that is original, and originality is lacking in this film.
I was drawn by the inclusion of so many favorites: Tia Carrere (Trues Lies, Wayne's World), Pam Grier (Jackie Brown), Frank Langella (Dracula, Good Night and Good Luck), and Ving Rhames (Rosewood, Dawn of the Dead). They did not disappoint in their performances, but they had little to work with.
Direct to video is becoming more and more common, but that doesn't mean it has to be a waste of time. Maybe the sophomore effort of Hunter will be more enjoyable.
\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\no dear god i suffered having to watch this film FOUR times in my sisters house and was it dreadful a story of sex and guns and very cheap unexplained acting unless you are at gunpoint being told to watch this avoid it Ja Rule just proved he cannot act Ving Rhames also gave the most dreadful acting ever in any of his films there was not one part of this film made me laugh or make me jump or feel any emotion i would be surprised people actually enjoyed this i have seem some dreadful films in my life but this would be in my five worst films ever the music in it wasn't good and the storyline i think was made up by a couple of guys who ordered a pizza and just sat down wrote ten bullet points and then made it into a film absolutely dreadful
\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\npeople, get a clue! I mean, the writers dont have one, so I would expect you to...this show is SUCH a pale imitation of the '60 show that you can laugh at it! and the sixties show is the one with the cheap special effects, and is in B&W fer Chrissakes! Yet the mood and the writing on the old show is MILES ahead of this drivel. Get HiP kids! if 98 Degrees or Brittany told you to watch it, you would! You know it! Just bypass them and tell all your friends you were 'IN' with the 'scene' BEFORE it became too cool!
\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 first 4 episodes of season 6 are just to throw up, to predictable and the worst scenario i've seen. Won't and hopefully i din't buy it. Also seen in seasons back that episodes about space they did, suck even more. All i want to say to the people who make this is: don't do whole episode about space, because they suck. The point is that season 6 sucks even more than the seasons before. Gets worse from season to season. I got so disappointed and frustrated watching first 4 episodes of season 6 that i just had to write this. Only people who are brain washed can watch this crap. Seems that people writing the scenario are getting out of ideas for a long time. Think that my 2 year old nephew had a better idea for the episode than these people do.
\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\nRob Lowe must have eaten up the entire budget, but I can't fault him for running with the money. Even he would have to agree, there was nothing good about this movie. Filming, editing, direction, dialogue, sets, makeup, writing, casting (especially the young girl and imposter child psychiatrist), and the story all were just the worst. I have never seen such a horrible movie. Pass this one up for any other rental selection, or find yourself shouting out vile comments at the TV. Dead Silent should be silenced for 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\n\"Julia Kerbridge (Catherine Mary Stewart) is working hard to become a doctor. Suddenly, Julia finds herself the guardian of her young niece, Amanda, after her parents are found murdered. Julia has a new neighbor, the mysterious Kevin Finney (Rob Lowe). Her hectic life comes crashing down when it becomes apparent that the young Amanda holds the key to a terrible secret. For she too is now the target of the killers. Julia must discover whether Kevin is friend or foe, and unlock the sinister mystery before the murderer strikes again,\" according to the DVD sleeve synopsis.
This thriller quietly falls apart at the seams, but it is interesting some of the time. Stalker Sean Devine's background telephone scene (outside the police station) and Mr. Lowe's violin (restaurant) are tensely played. But, early on, it's difficult not to miss the fact that one of the supposedly sophisticated killers purposely twists his foot in some red paint at the murder scene. Unfortunately, this is not an intricate plot point; and, there are worse story stumbles afoot. Overall \"Dead Silent\" is not a bad way to spend some time, if there is nothing better on, or you're into Lowe and his co-stars.
**** Dead Silent (1999) Roger Cardinal ~ Catherine Mary Stewart, Rob Lowe, Arlen Aguayo-Stewart, Larry Day
\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 story starts off in the home of a little girl who is going to have a Birthday Party and both the mother and father seemed to act rather quiet and reserved with each other. They proceed to give their daughter her present which is from both of them and it stuck me funny the expressions on the two parents faces as they gave their child this gift, it was almost like, 'I hope she likes it'! There is a killing in the film and Catherine Mary Stewart,(Julia Kerbridge),\"Reaper\",2000, gets involved with the case because of family ties. Julia is working hard to become a doctor and this particular murder disrupts her entire life. Rob Lowe, (Kevin Finney),\"View From The Top\",03 is a next door neighbor in the same apartment dwelling as Julia and he eventually goes to bed with her and tries to help her in other ways. This is not a bad film, but it is certainly nothing to go crazy about, unless you like a film location in Canada and a good looking Catherine Mary Stewart, a native from Canada.
\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 movie uses motifs that could be plagiarized from \"Wait Until Dark\" (1967), a much better movie by Terence Young, starring Audrey Hepburn. \"Dead Silent\" is a pale paraphrase. There is nothing new here -- the hidden object in the doll, the bad men wanting it, the bad guy posing as a good guy. The disability, though, has shifted : Audrey Hepburn couldn't see, the child in DS cannot speak. But both stories hinge on the handicap. Where \"Wait Until Dark\" built up unbearable suspense, \"Dead Silent\" lets you guess the outcome, the story being such a stereotype.
\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\nSigh. I'm baffled when I see a short like this get attention and assignments and whatnot. I saw this film at a festival before the filmmaker got any attention and forgot about it immediately afterwards. It was mildly annoying to see it swiping the Grinch Who Stole Christmas heart gag along with the narration, the set design seen many times before, the whole weak Tim Burton-ish style, and the story that goes nowhere. And we got the \"joke\" about shooting the crows with the 45 the first time, alright?
But I guess what's really unacceptable is that it even swipes its basic concept from a comic book circa 1999 called LENORE, THE CUTE LITTLE DEAD GIRL by Roman Dirge! As any quick internet search will reveal. I mean, what is this? This is what they base a Hollywood contract on and opens doors in Canada for a filmmaker? \"Give your head a shake\" as Don Cherry might 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\nYou may like Tim Burton's fantasies, but not in a commercial-like show off lasting 8 minutes. It demonstrates good technical points without real creativity or some established narrative pace.
\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 10 year old kid fed up with his parents arguing decides to hot wire a car and go on a surreal journey across America to find Motorama cards, which is a gas station card game, that if he can find to spell out \"Motorama\" he has a chance to win 500 million dollars. He meets many bizarre characters along the way. No one can make an 'instant cult classic', Joe Minion's previous \"After Hours\" achieved that by sheer merit & an amazing director, but it wasn't instant. This movie, on the other hand, is just bizarre just to be bizarre. No rhyme or reason to any of it. The plot is incidental at best and seems to exist just to showcase various cameos. It's just not a fun film nor a thoughtful one. It's way too slapped together. I've heard many comparisons between this and David Lynch films. That's damn near heresy as even Lynch's 'worst' film (worst in quotes, as he doesn't have an bad films really) is still miles above this dreck.
Eye Candy: Cynthia King is topless very briefly
DVD Extras: Trailer for \"Joe Dirt'
\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 oddity contains Bunuel-like touches, but doesn't sustain one's interest. A 10 year old roams a bizarro America in a stolen Mustang, while the usual cult movie suspects (Dick Miller, Mary Woronov, Susie Tyrell) commit malicious acts in the name of comedy. Like his AFTER HOURS and VAMPIRE'S KISS, the screenwriter delights in making you squirm. I remained unaffected, due to the broad acting. You know you're in for it when Meat Loaf and Flea give the most appealing perfs. (And what did this kid's screen test look like? He's insufferable.) Recommended to the dozen or so fans of SONNY BOY ('87).
\n
assistant\n0
\n"