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\nThe only Riddle in this film was how it ever got made. the British film Industry needs to make films people actually want to watch and not look to get Taxpayers money (a'la BBC) to keep Luvvies in their life style they have been accustomed to, with doing nothing for it.
the Film was every thing wrong with British Films it relied on stereotypes, it had to be about a London were people were either Posh and corrupt, Gangsters, Luvvies or gawd blimey jellied eel types, the story script was just pathetically weak, to the extent when the Police man pulled out his phone and the ring tone was the \"Sweeney \" theme I just expected it. The whole film was a happy shopper sweeney / Minder rip off.
the priceless manuscript I noted got left behind and lost on a few occasions and is something even I with my limited street wiseness wouldn't carry around in my breast pocket every where, to the beach and fights etc Saying that Vinnie Jones is likable which is about the only thing in the film, poor bloke.
When Derek Jacobi walked into the water at the end because he was Dickens, oh my god, what a load of crap, and I am being positive here
\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\nIts No wonder this was free with the Mail on Sunday, slow going, poor acting, and filming (camera flare, near start of movie, is not even artistic) = Straight to video, but not in this case, why not recoup some of your (Film production costs) by releasing it free with a UK Sunday newspaper, at least this way you get a captive audience, and recover some costs.
I have not given this film a 1 out of 10, due to the effort to pull some old actors out their shell, it was nice to see some old faces (Vanessa Redgrave,this an't no Blow Up), but Vinnie Jones as a lead, and I think he was better in Gone in 60 seconds when he did not speak.
This Film is dropping in Ratings every day,i think this will find its true mark at the 3-4 out of 10,in the very near Future
\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 I'm listening to my parents watch this (after I gave up 10 minutes into the film), they have absolutely no idea what is going on. When \"Charles Dickens\" stared into the camera, I half expected him to turn into a demon (yes, he looked like one). Unfortunately, that didn't happen.
This movie had various reasons I did not finish it: one, it was unbearably slow. I mean, seriously, it was SLOWW. You can only understand 10% of what is said, and the characters were poorly introduced.
If you have an English accent and you like a LOTTT of talking, no action, terrible acting, cheesy laughs, and the same music/sound effects played over and over and over, then this is THE movie for you...
1/10 - completely horrible.
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\nCome on now. How did all of these talented actors/actresses end up in this mess? Was it some sort of blackmail/lost bet situation? Vinnie, you are a muscle man. Be what you were born to be.
The hot tub scene? The Scrabble scene? I was expecting to hear the \"needle dragging over the record\" sound at any point.
And what was up with him carrying around the priceless Dickens manuscript with him? Let's see, I'm drunk at a bar, why not pull out the priceless Dickens manuscript? I'm going to meet some questionable thugs down on the edge of the Thames, why not take my priceless Dickens manuscript?
Crapola.
Terrible. Avoid.
\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\nWhoever saddled this piece of drek with a title like Riddle deserves some kind of Award; there are dozens of riddles here like who conceived such a dire project, who funded it, who cast it, who persuaded Vanessa Redgrave to share even ONE scene with Vinnie Jones and so on. The most sane voice connected to the whole schmeer belongs to the person who decided - very, very wisely - that this was unreleasable and not even good enough to go straight to video/DVD which throws up yet one more riddle, why - if we rule out serious payola - did the Mail On Sunday get involved and deign to give it away. This has Golden Turkey written all over it and smacks of being shot in two days in somebody's garage and cobbled on to some library footage of London except somehow you KNOW that someone actually DID shoot this on location when it would have been kinder to shoot him/herself. Vinnie Jones and Julie Cox are not even cardboard cutouts more like tissue paper and I swear Pete Doherty and Kate Moss couldn't have done worse whilst Derek Jacobi is a grotesque joke and the plot moves with the speed of the Irish team sliding UP the Cresta Run. Apart from that ...
\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 didn't know anything about this DVD when I hired it. Had a quick look here at the comments but decided to keep an open mind. Obviously an independent film and low budget but that didn't worry me. I will watch anything with Derick Jacobi and as always he played his part well. What a pity no one else did. I had watched 'Atonement' a few weeks ago with Vanessa Redgrave and she was sublime. In this she seemed to just turn up to read the lines. In my opinion the main mistake was in casting Vinnie Jones. To be honest I saw his picture on the DVD cover but didn't notice that he got top billing. A sticker was strategically placed over his name! It was watchable and I quite liked the Dickens story alongside present day. Maybe with a more capable actor playing the lead this might have worked better. Still it was weak.
\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 fact that this film was distributed free with a certain national newspaper which I do not care for did, to a degree, put me off of watching it, but as I had come across a copy that a local charity shop was giving away for nothing I felt I could watch it with a clear conscience.
The film does have its moments, the evocation of the Thameside location is nicely done, but it does suffer, I feel, from a few too many faults. Firstly, Vinnie Jones is simply not convincing as the journalist. Whilst Vinnie himself is an interesting character, the truth is that he simply does not have the range of acting ability to pull off a role like this.
Secondly, who would carry around with them a lost manuscript that they have been informed is \"priceless\"? It seemed that everywhere Mr Jones went this manuscript went with him! Thirdly, the whole Dickens aspect of the story, whilst appearing to be important, gets in the way of what could have been an interesting film of corruption in high places. Maybe I'm just a bit thick, but I really could not see the point of the story-within-a-story Dickens style. This added nothing to the film, and only served to confuse matters when things started to become interesting within the modern day story line.
The one bit of praise I will give the film makers is that at least they did attempt something a little different. I am all for British Independent films that try to be 'out of left field', but this is not a 'Red Road' or 'This is England'. What it is is a bit of a mess, and an over-long one at that. Yes, it entertains in part, but in the end it felt like two films merged together to make a whole, and failing both by doing so. (Also, I can not help think that I have seen something similar done recently on TV by Ian Banks, set in Edinburgh with a story concerning Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes).
\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 shame that some good talent was wasted. This is a tedious and overly self-conscious movie, that could tell its story in half the time. Is that Derek Jacobi under that beard doing two roles? Gosh, who would have guessed.
The emotional payoff a the end was weak and unsatisfying. Certainly not worth enduring the padded length of the movie for. I felt quite let down.
The sound was dreadful. First, they used stock music. Second, it was so loud during some of the dialog, that the words were hard to make out. Only three sound crew, and a trainee? There were more people listed in the credits for either the accounting or the legal.
Some of the camera work was quite good though, and the actors did a good job with a mediocre script.
Not a good use of viewing time, at least for me.
\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 must have looked when it was being pitched at development stage and getting a Redgrave and a Jacobi on board must have excited the money men. All I can say is that they clearly did not have anything on that week. Jacobi camps it up in the way that only Jacobi can do and I thought that he seemed to more of the actor that he parodied in his cameo role in Frasier a few years back. Vinnie Jones is not exactly bad, he is just clearly out of his depth as a leading man. He is really quite amiable throughout and if this was a pilot for a TV series, it may have just got picked up. However, the scipt and the camera work were appalling. Quite why this \"jounalist\" and a press officer from the Met would ever work together is never explained. It certainly cannot have been because of the sexual chemistry, of which there is none. There is nothing wrong with a ridiculous and far fetched plot that you can pass off as original, but the whole thing is just so contrived that the two stories just do not make sense at all. It was like two stories confusingly edited in to one just to make up two hours. Go watch some paint dry for a couple of hours. You life will be more fulfilled than watching this rubbish
\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 was pure trash. Not the worse film ever. If it were to be broken down, the acting was good enough to get the job done but the script was SO out there and so stupid that one was left thinking, \"Where did my life go?\" Even Vanessa Redgrave~ whom I love (and is the reason I watched this) was wasted. Utterly wasted. She didn't even leave an impression. The directing was so distant that non of the characters left me much of anything, but to see Redgrave leave nothing. Her part was nothing. She was good as a mean boss but that was it. Do depth and she's given depth to small roles~ see Venus and Atonement. I would not waste my time and was upset to have spent the $5 on this movie...I wanted it back. No returns. Skip the film. It'll only bring you grief...and boredom.
\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 the least some of the sitcoms that churn endlessly out of the US are honestly bad. This junk, however, portrays a \"heart warming\" parenty side to a clothes horse. Acting laughably \"learnt\" with glances and phrases delivered in the \"I'm SO important and thin and beautiful\" fashion. In the episode I just sat agog through, someone's \"job\" was at risk simply because a colleague had \"placed\" a phone call, slagging her capabilities off ... !! Really, this is the lowest of the low. What kind of damage does this foist on the watching masses, seeing only glitzy glam-puss people parading around \"working\". Utterly sick making. When the titles rolled, I thought, oh well, it provided jobs for the boys. You know who you are.
\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\nBaby boom was bad enough, basically making a series of every straight mans nightmare is worse. Yeah watched a few always made me feel better after a bad day, it reminded me it could be worse. Guy was rich successful, single(smart man), and dating celebs from singers to actresses, then his screw up of a cousin dumps his biggest mistake on him. In reality it would have been straight to foster care I'm sure, this was definitely a chic series. Oh and what's all the wining about the baby change, most the time it's probably a doll besides at that age it's nothing more than a prop anyways.
Any case I'm glad it didn't last more than a year.
\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 an extremely competent movie technically. The camera work and direction are excellent and the acting is fine as well--especially the fine acting by Daniel Auteuil as the Marquis. I really thought there were no problems at all with these aspects of the film. Instead, I was a bit annoyed by the way the Marquis was portrayed, as it didn't seem all that honest and seems to be a very revisionistic view of history. In fact, in recent years, the Marquis has undergone a bit of a transformation to a defender of freedom with great insight, not the fat sado-masochist rapist he really was. In a way, this is highly reminiscent of the whitewash given in THE PEOPLE VERSUS LARRY FLINT--where these men are elevated to hero status. Even if you don't think that the Marquis' perversions weren't all that bad (they included rapes and extreme violence), his portrayal in this film as a \"sexual social worker\" in this prison seems pretty silly. Instead of the violent and selfish Sade, he spends a lot of time carefully grooming a young virgin and slowly helps her to explore her own sensuality. What a nice and kind man. In fact, now that I think about it, this performance reminds me of the man Maurice Chavalier played in GIGI (but without the singing)--a cute older man who loves the ladies. I strongly doubt the real-life Marquis de Sade would have recognized this character at all!
The film, surprisingly, doesn't have a lot of nudity, though what it does show is extremely explicit. Only a maniac would let their kids see this as this is a very adult drama. It's very well-made and pretty entertaining--just not all that truthful. The director admits that the film is largely fictional in the interview among the special features on the DVD I watched. So go ahead and see the film if you'd like--understanding it just isn't very good historically. During the 18th century, sexual libertines were quite accepted in France as they were pretty broad-minded, so despite what the movie implies it wasn't SEX that was the issue, it was the violence and rape that was (and still is) the problem.
\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 title is a misnomer:the movie depicts barely one year of the so-called \"divin marquis\" .Twas a hard time for him 'cause he was threatened by the guillotine :the quiet joys of the reign of Terror .
Historically speaking,the background is rather sketchy: \"the fête De l'et re supreme\",Robespierre's failed attempt to create a secular religion,his downfall ,a heaven sent opportunity for showing Doctor Guillotin's sinister machine at work (full speed).
As far as Sade is concerned ,it's a downright mediocre affair :he's waiting in a former nunnery with other nobles ,a golden cage if you compare it to ,say,Marie-Antoinette's or scientist Lavoisier's fates,and he exchanges futile conversations with a young virgin about death,love and other trivia.There's the obligatory \"daring\" scene but you've got to be patient because it's a long time before it comes on the screen.And anyway ,by today's standards ,can we call that risqué? Cy Enfield's \"De Sade\" ,which enjoys one of the lowest ratings of the IMDb ,is at least entertaining ,and Keir Dullea was a more credible marquis than the aging Auteuil.And it featured John Huston.
\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 expecting to this to be hilarious and it was mediocre at best, the only funny character is, believe it or not Andy Dick. The timing was just horrible on most of the jokes & gags and the writing was bad, I mean I know its supposed to be like blaxploitation but it just did work. besides this whole genre has been beaten to death already, with all the austin powers movies & undercover brother, it just seems old, it also just feels like a rip off from undercover brother (which also wasn't hysterical, but a lot funnier than this). Also, for an comedy/action movie the direction was kind of bland. I don't know if this is going to be released in theaters, but it definatley is made for TV.
\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 Hebrew Hammer is a clever idea wasted, as the execution is weak. As if often the case with iconoclastic humor, it relies overly on outrage to generate laughs, which simply isn't enough. Poor-taste humor has two elements -- poor taste and humor -- and both are needed here, but the humor is pretty scarce. As a result, it is often painful to watch, all the more so because of good attempts on the part of the performers, particularly Adam Goldberg as the HH himself. The Shaft references are funny, though, but only to those who know those movies, and they certainly don't carry The Hebrew Hammer.
Another problem is that many of the jokes rely on knowledge of American Jewish culture, and many in the audience will simply not understand the jokes.
\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 dreadful. It has absolutely zero laughs. Hebrew Hammer (Adam Goldberg) sets out to save Hannukah from Evil Santa (Andy Dick). Perhaps a promising enough basis for a plot, in actual fact the film does not progress beyond this premise. While there are some (far and few) nice touches and the plot is relatively coherent, it is laboured, hackneyed and ultimately, mindlessly boring. This despite the fact that Goldberg, Dick and Greer (Hammer's client/love interest) all have quite considerable screen presence. Despite being played for what might be described as whacky over-the-top gags, this film is consistently middle-class middle-of-the-road muck. DO NOT waste 85 minutes of your life on this. (note- the music was good..!)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw the *star* of this movie on The Daily Show, and thought I might tune in (the movie premiered on Comedy Central, Then went into theaters). Oh Vey!
This makes \"Shakes the Clown\" look like \"Citizen Kane\"! Avoid, avoid, avoid at all costs. Not one laugh, not even a grin. This movie will make your face come out in pimples and your eyes burst like the last remants of \"Raiders\". I can't even think of a worse movie, be it \"Manos\" or \"Ishtar\". As the Pythons beckoned, run away, run away! Why did anyone green light this unless they used their own money? The horror is that there is not ONE good line, not ONE good joke, and only ONE bad thing...the making of this movie.
I feel that, if made properly, this would have been hilarious. As it is, I need a new pancreas for retching so loud. Damn anyone involved in this travesty.
\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 picked up this movie because it caught my eye as movie with a Jewish comedy focus - something I had not seen before.
I approached this film with an open mind, and was interested in the way it began. The opening is well put together, and the first half of the film gave me many reasons to laugh, and this is good.
However, the humor soon became repetitive, the plot became confused and strained, and I realized I was no longer enjoying the film. I have tried to avoid saying this, but the movie became rather \"cheap\" - not a bad thing for a comedy if the humor holds up, but it didn't. I confess that I may have missed some of the humour, not being Jewish myself, and having little experience with Jewish culture. However, considering how heavily telegraphed the bulk of the humour was in this film, it's unlikely I missed much.
The idea is a good one, and perhaps if a little more thought was put into it the film would have been watchable all the way through. I wish I could give the movie a higher rating, but strictly speaking it would have been better as a TV series or as a series of skits. There was just not enough worthwhile fresh material for a full-length movie.
One thing to say about the casting - the lead role looked as if it had been designed with Ben Stiller in mind, but I don't think the movie would have been any more worthwhile if he had been in 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\nTechnically speaking, this movie sucks...lol. However, it's also hilarious. Whether or not it's intentionally funny I don't know. Horrible in every aspect, it also is the only movie I know of that has 1) a fat kid being played by a slim actor in a (very obvious) fat suit, 2) an attractive 30-something actress playing a character who's supposed to be in her late 60's, and 3) the most compliments for plastic yard daisies ever. Don't take this film seriously, just watch it for laughs....a great party 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\nYou can see that if the flick ain't directed by his brother, this is the best he can do. And sad to say, his best just doesn't cut it. \"Ice Cream Man\" is a very bizarre horror film, that's a real blast to watch if you're in the right mood. In the wrong mood, it has been known to cause people to lash out violently at loved ones, so please, watch with caution.
Clint Howard stars (Does anything really star Clint Howard though?) as the \"evil\" \"psychotic\" \"bizarre\" (Yes all in quotes, he's not quite any of these, but he's getting close) ice cream man, who tortures the local children with bomb pops that are really melty and ice cream that has chopped up humans and dogs in them. Ick.
Anyway, the plot's really just an excuse to show of the...well, the...um, well it's a plot. Oh wait, I know! It's an excuse to show off all the loser actor cameos! There's Jan Michael Vincent and Lee Majors II (The sequel?) as cops tracking the elusive man o' ice cream. And even Doug Lleyweln appears as a supermarket clerk.
Even better than that, are some of the bizarre goofs in the film. I really like the fact that for some reason, instead of hiring a fat actor to play the unhappy \"fat\" kid of the group, they just make this one kid wearing padding under his clothes. And the entire premise that anyone would by scoops of ice cream from a ice cream man. Who buys ice cream scoops from the ice cream man? Then there's the entire psychiatric ward scene, in which Jan Michael Vincent's acting ranges from mildly interested, to bored beyond the state of consciousness. These are the cops who also scour the Ice Cream Man's place for clues but manage to complete gloss over the ice cream truck (where, of course, the various bodies and such are kept). Oh well, better luck next time troops.
Howard himself overacts like he's making sure people two towns over can see and hear him. It's all just plain dumb. And fairly fun to laugh at in the fine tradition of The Pumaman or Gymkata. You'll have a GOOD laugh with the right sense of HUMOR. I love that one.

\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 only good thing that this movie created was that it made me hungry for ice cream, minus the dead body parts in it. The movie is one of the most cheesy I've seen in a long time. When the \"Ice Cream King\" dies in the beginning, I was laughing so hard because the kid took the ice cream from him and started eating it. His mom asked him to say something and should should have said \"Leave me alone and let me eat the free ice cream so I can watch my acting career go down the drain at a young age.\" That seems about right for a line. Then I wondered why the ice cream prince was behind the bars of his ice cream truck. Was someone going to rob him of his twenty cents? I've never seen bars on a ice cream truck window. It seemed pretty stupid. You might as well forget about the acting because it is just awful. Forget about this movie and go down to dairy queen and get an ice cream.
\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 conversation about how Jan-Michael Vincent is a lush led me to foolishly re-visit this mid-90s DTV entry. A kid is traumatized when he sees an Ice Cream man gunned down in the 1950s and he grows up to be a psycho Ice Cream man (Clint Howard). Something happens and people disappear and end up in the ice cream. Blah, blah, blah.
Director Norman Apstein (credited as Paul Norman) made a career of doing porn before this and went right back to it afterward. That is what you get for having all murders happen off screen. And for casting a skinny kid as a fat kid and making him wear a fat suit. Just cast a fat kid! Also, there is a scene where Vincent stoically reacts to a group of escaped loonies surrounding him. He was either totally drunk and was frightened for his life or the filmmakers captured his \"Have I really sunk this low?\" shame full on. Despite being low budget trash, this did line up a few good names including David Naughton, Olivia Hussey, David Warner and THE PEOPLE COURT's own Doug Llewelyn. How you can make a boring slasher with that cast is beyond me.
\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\nClint Howard, brother of more talented Ron, stars in this abysmally awful horror comedy about a mental case who serves ice cream to children and kills people. Striving to be a movie that's of the 'so bad that it's good' variety, this film misses that mark by a good mile and instead has to be seen as 'so bad that it's...well...BAD'. Wheter it's the constant 'shoe ad' cinema, the pillow stuffed 'fat kid', or the sleep inducing 'horror' that soured me on the film, i don't know, all I know is I loathed the film (and this from a guy who has a soft spot for B-horror films). Paul Norman choose to continue making films in the porn industry both before and after this, his only 'mainstream' film. A wise choice indeed as horrible acting, nonsense storyline, and ludicrous dialog are much MUCH more palatable while seeing a porn starlet do her thing. Funnily enough this turkey has absolutely NO nudity (another reason to steer clear)
My Grade: D-
\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 bought this movie at a thrift store. Months before, my friend told me about it when we were talking about dumb movies we've seen. Once I spotted the cassette, I knew I had to have it. I watched it that night. I could tell it was going to be very cheesy and cheaply done. . . That's what drew me to it. I popped it in and I laughed the whole way through. I recognized Gregory (The Ice Cream Man), but I didn't recognize his name and I couldn't remember where I saw him. Later, while watching the Andy Griffith Show, Clint Howard (Ice Cream Man) was featured as an extra since he is Ron Howard (Opie Taylor)'s brother. I saw the credits and I gasped. I turned to my mom, who was also watching the show, and said, \"That's the Ice Cream Man!!\" She, too, gasped. This movie is great, but only for laughs and criticalness. It is the perfect example of a cheesy horror flick. If you feel like laughing as well as poking fun at low-budget movies, rent this video.
\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 of all, this movie is gross to the point of nauseating, and my advice is to avoid it at all costs if you ever want to eat ice cream again. I tried watching it because it looked like it might be funny, but it soon became quite disturbing with the ice cream made out of body parts and surprisingly graphic effects. It opens with a boy named Greg witnessing the gruesome murder of an ice cream man (Greg subsequently goes crazy and grows up to be the title character) by what appear to be mob assassins. There is no explanation for this murder, making it the biggest WTF moment in the entire movie. Other, lesser WTF moments include the surreal asylum Greg goes to (featuring evil clowns), a woman speaking in tongues because she has been possessed by the Holy Spirit (what this has to do with anything I don't know), and the fact that Olivia \"Holy crap has her career tanked this badly\" Hussey is in it.
None of these are good enough reasons to watch it. The only reason is for the character Tuna, who is a skinny kid with pillows stuffed under his shirt so that he looks like a fat kid. For some reason this struck me as hilarious. I stayed up far longer into the night than I should have watching this movie just to figure out if there was some reason they couldn't use an actual fat kid for the role. Although I fell asleep before the end, I've gathered from other reviews that Tuna ends up losing the \"weight.\" Okay, so they didn't have the budget to pull this off realistically. Suggestion to the director: how about making the character... not overweight?
That's it; if the prospect of Tuna has not interested you enough, there is no other reason to acknowledge this film's existence. If disgusting horror movies about ice cream are your preferred source of entertainment, check out the far superior \"The Stuff\" instead.
\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 one of those movies you find when you stay up too late and only have basic cable. It's hard to believe this movie was made in '95, considering it looks like something out of the late 80s. Plucky youngsters with varied home problems face a demented ice cream man who's on a mission to make the best flavor ever: Soylent Cream!!!
This movie is extremely demented and is only scary in how creepy and absolutely, ridiculously gross it is. Actually, the really scary thing about this movie is the nature of the problems these kids face at home. The fact that these kids have no escape from their silent suburban sufferings makes any random loony loose in the neighborhood seem like a walk in the park.
The most laughable part of this movie is the fact that the stereotypical \"fat kid\" is so obviously a slim pre-teen with a mountain of padding under his baggy sweatshirts. I guess that either a) they hadn't invented/ couldn't afford a fat suit, b) the casting director was too lazy to find a pudgy child star or c) we are honestly supposed to believe that this child is starving and has an enormously distended belly.
So if you're up at 2 am and need something ridiculous and disgusting to rip on with your intoxicated friends, go ahead and take a look. Personally, I'd rather be sleeping.
\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 often hard to decide what the best film is that you've ever seen, since this may vary by genre, preferences for actors/actresses, or even the mood you're in on a particular day! Having said that, this movie is by far, in my opinion, the WORST movie I've ever seen!! I thought the acting was terrible (was there any?), the plot was just idiotic, and the props were totally fakey. Could a lower budget production be created without being an amateur production? I don't think so. Even the friends I watched the movie with agreed that it was the worst video we ever rented, and to this day we still joke about the night we saw this movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAfter reading other reviews on this site, we weren't sure if we were going to be able to critique this movie because it didn't sound bad enough. However, 2 minutes into the movie, we knew we were in for another flop. No summer is complete without ice cream, but this movie served up a melted, sour, broken-bottomed ice cream cone (you know, the kind that leaves you sticky and dirty and looking for a wet-nap). The biggest problem with this movie was the plot. What was it? It appeared to be a psychotic ice cream man driving around the neighborhood. That's it. Nothing else happens. First of all, what are the qualifications for becoming an ice-cream man in this crap town? 1. Spend several years in the most ridiculous mental hospital known to man. This hospital was plagued with clowns, graffiti, fake plastic sunflowers, and oversized syringes to the head. 2. Have extremely poor hygiene and a mutant face to scare the kids away. 3. Make sure your truck is stocked with severed body parts, roaches, and don't forget the eye whites!
The actors in this movie are pure B-Movie caliber. Mixed in with a bunch of unknowns is, who other than....a trailer-trash version of Macaulay Culkin!! Even his bratty charm couldn't save this kick in the pants. There seemed to be no rhyme or reason for any of the murders in this movie. The whole concept of the movie reeked! Who would kill an ice cream man in a drive-by shooting? Gangsters? Fiends? Vanna White? Who? We are still struggling with this question.
Whoever was in charge of the wardrobe for this movie should be immediately blacklisted from Hollywood. Did they honestly think a pillow under a kid's shirt would make the audience believe that he was really fat? Did they forget about the arms, face, legs, and all other body parts? Second of all, this movie was made in 1995, yet the wardrobe seemed to be picked from a lame 80's movie, evidenced by the big brother's white, crotch-hugging high-water pants.
While we were watching this shotty production, we both developed severe cases of ADD. We found ourselves leaving the room to walk around aimlessly. At many points it the movie, we found that staring at a blank wall behind the T.V. set was more entertaining than the actual movie. We were stunned that this movie didn't make it to the Bottom 100. Afterwards, we took the tape out of the VCR and left it on the black top to melt like a sub-standard ice cream cone.
\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 abomination and the sequel ONE MORE TIME (no thanks) and the hideous Jerry Lewis disasters like Don't RAISE THE BRIDGE LOWER THE WATER (why not just flush instead) drove cinema owners to close their doors rather than be forced to run these films. True: in the 60s block booking of films was still enforced on hapless suburban and country cinemas... this means that in order to get a good film the cinema was forced to run woeful timewasters like these: I remember well in 1974 keen to screen FIDDLER ON THE ROOF or something good like that, I was bailed up in the United Artists booking office by some sozzled salesman who waved a sheet of flops before me and squinted, bellowing: \"Now before we get to that one, lemme see ya date these ones first\". which basically means: \"book these duds and we will give ya a tired hit\". This is how and why so many cinemas closed, forced to screen and annoy their waning audiences with these assembly line failures with lame comedians and bored talent. Cinema owners, exhausted with arguing simply closed, sold to a petrol station and saw the cinema demolished. These days the same type of films (eg: I NOW PRONOUNCE YOU CHUCK AND LARRY) get banished to the 20 seat cinema 99 in a mega google plex instead. Not much has changed. FREDDY GOT FINGERED... 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\nI bought this DVD for my young son who loves the ToyStory movies. I never expected it to be in the same league as the Toystory movies but what I got was just another lazy Disney cartoon, way below what I expected from Disney/Pixar. The story is unoriginal, the characters are dull and two dimensional, the animation is below par, even Buzz isn't that great. The movie could have been so much better. I especially hated the paint by numbers storyline. I know it's meant for kids, but even kids know when something stinks to this level lameness.
Although I did enjoy some aspects of the movie, I really liked the opening section of the movie, with the slag mutant monster, it just went downhill from 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\nMan were do I start,everything about this Cartoon from the Episodes,to the Stories,Script, an Animation is to me the Stupidest,Dummest and Most Annoying Cartoon that Walt Disney Television Animation ever CREATED and MADE ,Im so glad that Both Toon Disney (2006) and Disney Channel to Stop Airing it in the U.S. as Of This May 2008.
Believe me it's A wise choice to skip this out cast and black cloud of A cartoon,if you watch it don't say I did not alert an warn you.
Your in for A Boring and Down right Dull and Confusing Time,I wish and pray I never even saw 1 Episode of this Cartoon Buzz Lightyear Of Star Command. If I could I would have the Part of my Brain removed that Remembers watching it,yes it is and was 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\nWe sat through this movie thinking why is this or that scene in the movie, what does this have to do with the plot? We hoped that by the end everything would be slightly more clear. It was not to be.
I think the director in a fit of pique threw the script up in the air and then some minor (and vengeful) underling reassembled it randomly with no regard to the scene being filmed (possibly with scissors and glue-stick).
The film's motifs include: Communism bad? Nihilism bad? Poor parenting bad? Threesomes bad? TV bad? Coherent scripting bad? Deconstructionism good? It's really not clear.
Finally, no German water taxi would EVER have an unchained staircase that would let passengers fall in to the water. The abundant quantity of \"achtung\" signs everywhere is testament to this fact.
\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\nTo begin with its a rip off of the Japanese film Battle Royal except it's missing the one thing that made BR unique, balls. It's a weak satire at best and as far as the real TV phenomena it attempts to comment on well everyone knows how warped and stupid that genre can be so why was this film made?
\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 possibly the single worst film i have ever seen - it has no good features at all.
It looked as if it was made in about 20 minutes with the other time filled with title graphics.
The lead male transformed from deaths door to superman - eh you what
Other than that totally predictable and not at all interesting.
I left the cinema feeling cheated.
Needless to say i could not reccoemnd this film to 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\nThis is possibly the single worst film i have ever seen - it has no good features at all.
It looked as if it was made in about 20 minutes with the other time filled with title graphics.
The lead male transformed from deaths door to superman - eh you what
Other than that totally predictable and not at all interesting.
I left the cinema feeling cheated.
Needless to say i could not reccomend this film to 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\n*Spoilers ahead, but that shouldn't matter since i hope you wont see this one anyway*
If you planned to see this one i have to strongly advice you not to. Because this was one of the most wasted 1½ hours I've experienced.
First of all, this is an complete rip-off of the great movie \"Battle Royale\". It is as stupid as watching any lame American TV-show like \"Cops\" or \"Candid Camera\".
The plot are totally predictable. One challenger pregnant and another is a nurse, anyone doing some logic thinking understands in the beginning what should happen between those.
The concept is ripped as mentioned before and the movie lacks the violence necessary of making this movie enjoyable. I mean, the preggo shoots a guy in the back and no blood or not even any trace of the hit in the back.
I could go on forever without finding anything good about it, so take your money and get a copy of Battle Royale instead of watching this piece of crap.
1 out of 10, too bad i couldn't rate it lower. Almost makes Scream 3 a masterpiece..
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDespite the potentially fascinating premise, Series 7 is weak attempt at attacking reality television. Aside from its bargain basement production values, which present an eyesore 10 minutes in, the overall tone of the film is misguided. Several reviewers have attacked the acting in the film, but I think the real problem is this lame attempt to make the film into a farce. Aside from the fact that the jokes are not funny (a pregnant woman swears a lot, a young girl gets a bunch of guns), it doesn't gel with the overall tone of the film. Had the makers actually made Series 7 to bear a striking resemblance to actual reality TV-colorful yet hollow edits, lame sound effects, sweeping camera motions-maybe their point would have been more solid or at least more palatable. Instead Series 7 meanders through the already harried world of death and game show. You can just imagine the director slapping himself on the back for stating the obvious
\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 turned this off about 50 minutes into it! Whoever the moron was who decided to steal the idea of Koushun Takami's book(Battle Royal), & make it into a pathetic reality TV show scenario, deserves to be shot!
It has done the Film Industry a good turn though. Now Directors like William Malone(Fear Dot Com) can say \"well at least it's better than Series 7\" This piece of crap & Dracula 3000 tie for first place in the worst 100 movies ever made!
Be warned this is not a 'So bad it's Good'Flick!
This is a disgrace to Film Makers everywhere!
Never see this movie!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nthe people who came up with this are SICK AND TWISTED FREAKS how the hell can you exploit people like this? tricking people into thinking that this is real? which i probably don't doubt that it is... i saw this thing for the very first time today series 7 and it made me sick to my stomach i almost threw up. i just couldn't stop crying my eyes out for these poor people and if that woman really did have that baby you SHOULD ALL BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES!!!!!!!!!! i have a 4 month old daughter and it is just absolutely appalling that would put a \"real\" pregnant woman in SO MUCH FRICKEN DANGER! you people are bloody ANIMALS and should be locked up for life allowing something like this to put on t.v. if this so called \"reallity show\" is for real then why isn't anyone being put in prison for allowing people to die and not doing a god damn thing about it. YOU ALL DESERVE TO BE FRIGGEN HUNTED DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
\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 film last night, a satire of the reality style programs that seem to be making the rounds at the moment.
What can I say. I absolutely hated it. About as interesting as watching paint dry and with maybe one or two only slightly amusing moments.
Maybe it had something to do with me definately not being a fan of the Survivor and Big Brother type shows, but if this had been a video/DVD or if I'd been watching at the cinema on my own I would have definately not endured more than the first 5 minutes.

\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 little more than an ersatz Verhoeven. The filming is supposed to be tele-realistic, but is simply sickening. The parody disappears after about 15 minutes to be replaced by a story which seems to take itself seriously. The Brechtian pauses for non-existent advert brakes are tedious, and even painful; undoubtedly there was no actual intention to render this film Brechtian, it was just an accident which happened like that. If you want to see a parody of reality tv, watch Celebrity DeathMatch - it's funnier and wittier, and most importantly shorter. I have rarely felt so much pain whilst watching a film. To be avoided like a rabid rabbit.
\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 coincides with Mike Allred's comic book mini-series, \"Red Rocket Seven\" and tells the story of an alien who escaped to Earth to wait for \"Astroesque\" which ties into the book of Revelations and the apocylpse. This is only part of a bigger story (if the movie confuses you, read \"RR7\" too). You can easily tell that Allred is used to telling stories with pictures. The direction is very good and the effects aren't bad for a $500 budget. Unfortunately, Mike used many friends to play the roles and probably didn't have the heart to say that they couldn't act. Also, Mike is not showing his writing skills in this movie. His dialouge spoon-feeds the plot to you and doesn't let you enjoy the characters. This was actually disappointing considering his tremendous writing ability shown in his comic books. 4 out of 10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"