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\nI was a huge \"SNL\" fan back in the days of Chevy Chase, John Belushi, Dan Ackroyd, Gilda Radner and many other memorable stars. But every time I've tried to watch it in the past more than ten years I've been very disappointed and sometimes even disgusted with it. Ten years ago I believed the show couldn't possibly survive, since it had become so utterly bereft of the sort of humor I could understand, and yet it kept plugging along, which I've always found dismaying, wondering how in the world anyone could possibly find its lame humor at all funny. Whenever I've tuned in over the past decade I've never once been glad that I did. Indeed, I've always been annoyed at myself for staying up and wasting my time. For me, the absolute low point came several years ago when a popular young male actor I liked a lot was the guest host. At one point that night he played a big star, perhaps himself, and in the skit, the character \"Mongo,\" I think, played by Chris Kattan, again I think, ended up in the backseat of a car with him. What followed was Mongo being forced up and down and up and down on the actor's lap, with him screaming hysterically as he was presumably sodomized. The audience was laughing their heads off and I'm shaking my head, amazed that they could find that remotely funny, amazed that NBC would even broadcast such a thing. In the years since then I've repeatedly tried to approach the show with an open mind, hoping that it might regain the sly sense of humor I adored for so many years. But, up until just a week ago, for me, it hasn't done so. Not even close. One exception: During the 2008 presidential campaign, I thought that Tina Fey was fantastic, and she was the one performer who kept me tuning in. But those Sarah Palin skits, while hysterical, were still not enough to save the rest of the 90 minutes and I would always regret not turning it off as soon as I heard the familiar \"It's 'Saturday Night!!!'\"
\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 show was an amazing, fresh & innovative idea in the 70's when it first aired. The first 7 or 8 years were brilliant, but things dropped off after that. By 1990, the show was not really funny anymore, and it's continued its decline further to the complete waste of time it is today.
It's truly disgraceful how far this show has fallen. The writing is painfully bad, the performances are almost as bad - if not for the mildly entertaining respite of the guest-hosts, this show probably wouldn't still be on the air. I find it so hard to believe that the same creator that hand-selected the original cast also chose the band of hacks that followed. How can one recognize such brilliance and then see fit to replace it with such mediocrity? I felt I must give 2 stars out of respect for the original cast that made this show such a huge success. As it is now, the show is just awful. I can't believe it's still on the air.
\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 just spent about 1.5 hours waiting for the movie to begin. It didn't. The story is vague and uninteresting, the speed in the movie is absent and the voiceover irritating. I can't understand why movies like this one are even distributed.
\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\nBeats me how people can describe this adolescent exercise as film noir. True there's a gun & a bottle & a dame & the lead is a private eye, but that ain't what makes the genre, folks. This thing plays like reheated TV cop show stuff - lots of bloody beating & lousy continuity - with a dash of Chinatown memories thrown in. Pretty hard to watch beyond the first 10 minutes. You want contemporary feel, watch anything by John Dahl.
\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 show is based on the concept that loud + obnoxious + repetition = funny. The comedic writing is non-existent, in fact I face serious repercussions by even comparing it to entertainment of any sort. Here is the premise. Two girls accidentally get their shenanigans posted on the internet and hilarity ensues after their initial success, they contrive the idea that they should make a web-cast to showcase their brilliance.
OK, so where should I begin? Let's start with the laugh track, the oft used but never successful reminder that, we the viewing audience should laugh. According to the foley guys, this show is the funniest thing on the planet. We should all be dropping loads into our pants because of the brilliance of the humor placed before us. The laugh track seriously goes every few seconds. It quite possibly usurps Scooby-doo for the king of laugh track over-use.
Then the in-your-face-shout-at-the-top-of-our-lungs-the-craziest-grouping-of- words-to-seem-silly trick is also employed with little to no success. Whoa and let's not forget creating new words to sound funny trick. That is web-o-licious and poop-tastic? What the hell...
Finally, the acting. I can't entirely complain here. The actors are young and inexperienced, but this should and can be corrected by good professional help. Because of the inexperience nick should be helping the actors define their craft. Instead, in usual nick fashion, the actors are placed in front of the camera and told \"act\". Which for the most part is robotic recitation of lines, missed timing and overall epic fail.
The lack of anything in this show makes it a disgusting representation of how not to be funny. Don't waste your time. This show is debasing to all of humanity
\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\nYes, we all know about Dan Schneider's odd little fascination with making shows with young kids and iCarly is no exception. See young girls wiggle their toes and stick their tongues out for the camera and wear skimpy clothes and bikini's. Yes, it makes you wonder if these shows were made for teens or for some older degenerate crowd. Either way the show isn't that good when compared to Dan Schneiders other shows like the far superior Amanda Show & Drake and Josh.
The show is about a brother and sister (Carly and Spencer) living alone and having to get by on their own while their father is off in the Army and their mother is strangely absent from their lives. Carly has a mean spirited friend named Sam and they do a very well produced, award winning web show called iCarly with their little school friend Freddie. The episodes deal with their lives in and around the web show and their hi jinx at school.
Carly Shay is a young, all knowing web personality/ business woman/ producer played by Miranda Cosgrove, a young actress who relies on talking very very loudly and fast to get her point across and making odd faces. Her brother Spencer is a somewhat mean-spirited, dim-wit and eccentric artist played by Jerry Trainor, who tries a bit to hard to be like Jim Carrey and whose comedy style seems to be aimed at the young male audience who'd like this type of Joey Gladstone humor. Then there's Sam Puckett, an unlikable, mean little, lying thief of a brat who needs an attitude adjustment played by Jeanette McCurdy who clearly wears hair extensions as you can see them disappear then reappear from scene to scene. And finally there's Freddie Benson the web shows nerdy cameraman and technical adviser, who has a major crush on Carly but will obviously get nowhere with her who's played by Nathan Kress.
Other secondary characters come and go such as Freddies mother, Carly's grandfather, annoying teachers and many of their annoying little school friends to round out the cast. Most of the comedy is mean spirited, like blowing up Lewbert the Doorman as a gag, throwing a water balloon at a teacher and knocking over the table of young girl scouts selling cookies. All of the adults come off as complete idiots while the children are all knowing, and certain main characters have absolutely no morals. Lying, cheating, stealing and violence all are acceptable in this children's show created and written by Dan Schneider, Yes... it's a children's show! What more could the young viewers ask for?? Well, with Dan Schneider we can expect to have the young girls dress in tight clothes and bikini's and do some odd things like sticking their tongues out for the camera and eating banana's.
Shows like this are just what the young crowd likes though and I guess no worse then any of the other garbage Nick shovels at its young crowd. There's always fans to be found for anything seen on TV, at least this is a bit better then most of the stuff seen on Nick like that horrible Naked Brothers 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 won't say the show is all bad, because there are some funny parts, like Spencer, and a few random incidents. But other than that, let's face it, it's just another dry sitcom that kids are buying into.
Miranda Cosgrove was cute and funny as Megan on Drake and Josh. Honestly, she is mediocre in ICarly and is just not as funny as she tries to be. The actress who plays Sam seems to be half-asleep most of the time, and her antics are so clichéd that I would think of them. They're not funny, just annoying. And Freddie is okay, but not that interesting.
Of course, the situations are unrealistic, but it's not all bad. Some are bothersome, though. Here are a few:
1. The girls are 14, and have a web show that gives away too much personal information, with a weekly audience of 27,000(WTF), with little to no advertising, and they can still go on about their lives not being attacked by crazy people
2.Their web show gets too much praise ($100,000 yearly to advertise sneakers, a free trip to Japan, Plain White Ts performance, and so on). Honestly, anyone over the age of 6 would not find their \"comedy\" entertaining.
3. How is it that they are so \"average\", yet they own a three story loft, Spencer does hardly anything and can still afford many basic luxuries, and they have all the equipment for a web show? 4. All of the adults are idiots. ALL OF THEM.
5. No 5 foot high girl, no matter how obnoxious and tenacious, can take down trained cops, unless she's muscular. Sam is skinny and petite.
6. No one can fall down 9 stories in an elevator and live.
7. Kids can handle finding out about criminals better than cops.
The show is stupid. Really, it seems harmless, but making kids think that they can be obnoxious to their elders, live alone in Seattle when they're only 14 with an irresponsible moron, and give out personal information is just wrong.
I'm disappointed to say that my cousin, who is 3, enjoys the show. What happened to the cartoons when I was her age?
\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... No words. No words can describe this. I will try for the sake of those few brave people who stick knives into their toasters... after watching this show.
This... Cosgrove person... Her acting is like watching a female gorilla dance upon the nest of highly agitated insects. Perhaps I exaggerate. However, I have a feeling that the description fits a regular day of writing this show.
The characters in this repulsive pile of raw sewage are as useless as a small piece of space rock that flies into the sun on any day of the week. Though heart attacks have not been experienced while watching them act like fools on the cheaply built sets, I have no doubt that it will happen eventually.
The main plot of this *belches loudly into the faces of the actors* is that of a foolish girl who hosts a live weekly web-cast on the creatively titled iCarly.com with her brainless friends, one of which owns equipment that the producers of this show probably couldn't afford. Her legal guardian is some kind of moron who is apparently her older brother.
I haven't watched all of this show for fear of developing cancer, or perhaps a cold, but some of the plot points I have seen involve the brother getting stuck in an elevator, the doorman of the apartment almost dieing, and the world's fattest priest coming for a visit. No, really.
Avoid this if you are over the age of unborn or if you have a history of joining mysterious cults due to mental trauma. If you do decide to watch it, laugh when the laugh-track tells you to, as this will drown out the repetitive noise that will eventually put you in a coma if you listen to it for too long.
The show receives a one star rating because the IMDb inexplicably has not adopted the use of negative numbers.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you think Hannah Montana or the Suite Life are at the bottom of tween sitcoms then you've obviously never watched iCarly. iCarly is without a doubt the worst show I've ever seen. From the lifeless acting to the low budget sets the show reeks of cheapness like last week's Chinese takeout left to simmer in your overheated car.
The show revolves around a pretty, perky, and \"supposed to be\" funny girl named Carly, as she and her friends make a live web show called iCarly. Carly lives alone with her older brother who seriously needs some counseling or something, because he's a few cells short of a brain.
The plots of the shows are highly ludicrous and unbearably annoying. But having to watch Carly and her friend, Sam, do their little iCarly show-within-in-a-show is even worse. They basically show weird pictures and stick things up their nose as the laugh-track plays over and over. I mean seriously, every two seconds the laugh track seems to come on for no reason.
So, what's the point of this review? you may ask. Just to ridicule iCarly? Well, yeah, but I'm also warning you to beware of this show. Because seriously, if I had to choose between watching iCarly and Barney? No questions about it, I'd choose Barney.
\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 off, I just want to say that this show could've done well, way better than it's doing now. What brought it down was certainly the acting. Miranda Cosgrove, who acts as the main character Carly, looked almost worthy of her own show when she was on Drake and Josh. Unfortunately, iCarly was a big let down. Not only can Miranda not act convincingly enough, but she's incredibly stiff when she moves. She looks as if she's not sure how the character \"carly\" would move or stand. In the very first episode at the end when she throws the hat up, her arm doesn't ever leave her side from her elbow up. even when she was dancing she looked like a stick in the breeze. And the singing? The theme song was great, only because Drake had been in it, the music was pretty good and Miranda's voice sounded fake. I have to admit, the plot and settings are good, unrealistic, but hey, that's Nick. They're practically known for stupid lines and characters. But wow, is iCarly the worst of them 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\nthis show is just plain awful. I liked to watch Drake and Josh, which was great, and before that The Amanda show, also funny, but this is just AWFUL. in my opinion watching this felt like watching those --- movies from Seltzberg, painful and uncleaver. this is about 3 dumb@$$ kids who make a crappy web-show (while stealing the hole Ithing) while their retarded brother is making sculptures (he has no life). the cast is crap, Megan from drake and josh is carly (AHHHHHH!)a ugly b!tch is sam and some kid they pulled off the street plays fred. all i saw from this (ugg) are random \"jokes\" that include the brother making a clay-mation film, he also played an arcade game called PAC-rat (genious), Sam and Carly being retards on their web show, and Fred being a dork. the only episode a saw (cant remember the title) where Fred gets bad luck by not forewarding an email.i find videos on youtube funnier than this junk. and why the hell do they get youtube jack@$$ fred, get AVGN to cancel the show with his potty mouth. just skip this 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\nOut of boredom and vast curiosity, I decided to check this show out today since my four year old niece loves it. I should have known that it was a show that only a four year old could like. The show was pretty bad.
First of all, the show just wasn't funny. The laugh track went off at the most inappropriate times which was very annoying, especially since none of the jokes were funny. The laugh track went off at some point when the one kid who's the cameraman said \"I'm going to go polish my lense\". How the hell is that funny? The parts in it (like meat drumming) that were supposed to be funny was just stupid to anyone who's over the age of eleven.
Now, I have a feeling that four year olds are not the target audience. However, since I have a four year old niece who watches it, this sort of thing concerned me while I was watching it: It doesn't show very good behavior. In the episode I was watching, it shows Sam stealing Carly's sandwich and pushing her down to the ground, just so Carly can stand up and do the same thing back to her. I would not want to see my niece acting that rude. I also don't like the idea of two young girls having a web show where they give out personal information... If this was real, there would be freaks all over her.
This show would probably be good and funny to someone who's eleven or younger, but anyone older than that, just stay away from it. I'll give this two stars since I guess I can see how it can be funny to a kid.
\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 watched the Halloween episode...oh my god I wanted to die. The acting was just awful. The lines were uttered with absolutely no conviction. Its a bad idea for a show as well, I mean who would watch some web show like that in real life? Miranda Cosgrove was great in a supporting role in Drake and Josh but doesn't have the force of character to anchor her own show. I'm even more upset because her leaving is a major reason why Drake and Josh ended. She was approached with her own show...she jumped ship on Drake and Josh. They then decided that maybe they would do a thing with Drake and Josh moving to college, thereby explaining the loss of Meagan as a character but Drake had already had thoughts of moving on to bigger and better things and he figured if Miranda did it why couldn't he. The best part of the show was the theme song... a catchy, good tune in a mire of mediocrity. Of course Drake Bell was dubbing Miranda's voice for the whole thing and wrote the tune...
\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\nEver went on Youtube? Well, the definite question to that is YES. Do you see the boatloads of ICarly and Nickelodeon rants? No definite answer.
Many people think ICarly is a dull and idiotic program, and others think it's the best program on the face of the Earth. I have seen many of the loads of reviews panning ICarly in the head and some giving it a bouquet of roses. In my opinion, Icarly is for the kiddies, but the show is just awful.
If you did not read the last review, here are reasons 1-8: #1: Steryotypes #2: Goofed-up drama #3: Everything is silly(taco truck for example) #4: Carly thinks she's nice but she's mean #5: Anyone over the drinking age is stupid #6: Sam is petite but strong? #7: No real companies #8: Mean teachers
#9: The webshow overuses 3DFX. Just look on the webshow to understand what I mean. #10: The webshow also spills personal information. #11: Almost every famous thing is insulted. Icarly insults the Japanese race, Solitare, Mercades-Benz, and Pac-Man, to name a few. #12: There are too many reoccuring jokes(Sam's obsession of meat, Freddy's computer, Gibby pulling his shirt off, etc.) #13: The video games based off the show suck. #14: Freddy has a lack of masculinity. Why? It's getting unoriginal. #15: The show is targeted towards a female audience. I also hate shows directed to a male audiences too, so I prefer Icarly to be for both genders. #16: The words \"nub\" and \"no chiz\". #17: The overuse of laugh tracks.
Part 3 coming in early Spring! Just in time for Spring break!
\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\niCarly is about a teenage girl named Carly Shay (Miranda Cosgrove) who lives with her artist brother, Spencer in a loft in Seattle. Carly has a web show that gets millions of views and makes tons of money a year, so much money she \"doesn't even know its a real number\". Her best friend is Sam (Janette McCrudy) who's as predictable as they come! She says \"normal\" things and beats up Carly's neighbor, Freddie who is in charge of all the technical things for their web show. Carly shouts every word and looks like she doesn't have emotion. Sam chases Freddie around and Freddie screams. In one episode Carly and her friends shoot Lewbert (the doorman) down in elevator and he survives.
I would not recommend this at all, unless you like teenagers shouting, hurting people and making fun of stuff.
\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 time I watched this show it was OK. There were some funny moments and I laughed a couple of times but this show is getting worse and worse. Carly and Sam's web show is NOT the least bit funny. They play a stupid video from the internet, scream at the camera and make some very bad jokes. And then the laugh track goes off?! One problem with the show is that none of the main characters are funny. Carly is not funny. Miranda Cosgrove's acting is lackluster at best. Her acting in this show is nothing like her acting from Drake And Josh. Her friend Sam is very rude and crude and the show is written in a way that makes her look like some kind of hillbilly. I mean they make jokes about her mom driving a rusty old truck, her mom smashing an old TV with a bat, and then there's the jokes about Sam failing in school, getting detention all the time and running from cops. None of that is funny at all. Then there's Freddy who is a computer geek. He isn't too funny unless his Mom is treating him like a baby. The show's only somewhat funny full time character is Carly's brother Spencer. He makes some funny jokes and does some pretty funny things like pretending to drive a space ship while making spaceship noises, knocking over a girl scouts' cookie table for revenge as they did the same thing to him. His material is the only thing worth laughing at. Aside from the characters other things make the show bad too. Like the fact that a couple of kids doing a local web show from a Seattle apartment is a worldwide hit and got them a free trip to Tokyo? Another thing is that how can a 26 year old single guy with no real job can pay for a 2 level apartment in downtown Seattle and raise his 13 year old sister and pay for a room full of camera and sound equipment including a remote controlled projector and a green screen and an HD camera? This sounds like it was written by a 10 year old. The worst thing is that the show contains some pretty questionable content. There are a couple of times when Carly(remember a 13 year old girl) appears on her internet web show in a bikini top. WTF? Then I saw an episode where Freddy tells Carly and Sam that he \"slept in JUST his socks the night before.\" I mean WTF? Then there's an episode where Carly's rival Nevel blackmails her by taking her website rights and agrees to give her the website back in exchange for a kiss. Creepy! And I just saw an episode where Carly meets a boy who just moved into their apartment building and he has some kind of back injury and he takes off his shirt and Carly stands there drooling over him. I can't believe Nick even lets them show that kind off stuff and I can't believe that this was created by the same guy responsible for Drake and Josh. This show is not appropriate for kids under the age of 12 and that's even questionable. iCarly is just another addition to the long list of awful Nick programming.
\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 Off Acting Is So Terrible Except For The Actor Who Plays Spencer. Mirinda Cosgrove Does Not Deserve Her Own Show She Should Have Stick With Drake And Josh.The Only Person I Like Besides Spencer Is Nevel Hes Super Bad@$$ He Kicked Carlys Crews @$$ And I liked It
The Episode I Hate A lot Is Imyourbigesstfan I Hate That Young Icaly Fan She Made Me Almost Kill Myself Fake Is A Well Word To Describe This Please Don't Watch This Nothing On TV Is Good Go With Classics Like Family Matters Good Show Ban Icarly Lets All Go Back To Doug Nick Version Only Please Don't Watch I Hate Icarly Oh Also Nathan Kress Is A Wannabee Fredie Highmore
\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 actresses bra in a changing room--well I guess they are preparing young children for changing room time? (Boys you must close your eyes at that scene A humongous bra (34C which definitely neither of the actresses size) dangling and supposedly talking--oh don't worry if your son takes your bra then Stripping boys (a girl pulls down a boys pants) to reveal his boxers--kids try that at home and in school Beating a girl with male briefs--nothing wrong. The show likes to show underwear--panties next?? Actress--at an age below 18 in a revealing bikini--mom can you buy me one when i reach puberty? So many sexual innuendos to learn:eg: \"Don't doubt my ball skills.\"
\"I like to dance. With my shirt off.\"
\"Wet and sticky is very icky. Sticky and wet make Mommy upset.\"
\"I just wanna stick my face in this pie and go 'bbbbbbuuuub.'\"
\"I come up with my best ideas when I'm wet.\"
\"He sliced my banana!\"
\"Come on boy, let's do it\"
you'll never guess where I found this fish\"
\"I'll leave you two to do..it\"
\"Carly (about Sam): She just ditched iCarly to go play with Jonah?!\"
\"You won't get respect if your back's not erect.\"
\"How's it hanging\"
\"What can I say, I'm a great ball handler\"
\"Watch me spank your daddy!\"
Spencer: That's big. Freddie's mom: Thank you
\"Hey! Could you keep your hands off my equipment?\"
Freddie: Oh, and last night, slept with my socks on. Sam or Carly: So? Freddie: JUST my socks
\"They wanted no part of me or my fudgeballs\"
\"Freddie, you know how I feel about you handling tools!\"
\"You don't even wanna know where the batteries go\"
\"It's like she stuffs waffle cones in her bra!\"
Spencer: \"Well, it spread...to places.\" Freddie: \"Where?\" *Spencer motions for Freddie to come near, then whispers in his ear.* Freddie: \"Ugh!\"
\"Wow, it's just that you've always seemed . . . so willing.\"
\"I have to take my daughter to a special doctor\"
\"I send a lot of guys, a lot of places\"
\"Yeah, you've been having all kinds of fun this morning.\"
\"I'm looking for some 'cheap entertainment'...\"
(mom I learn how to say **** indirectly today!!) All in all very educational for young children. Lesson to be taken: if you want to know more than where babies come from kids, watch this 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\nNickelodeon has gone down the toilet. They have kids saying things like \"Oh my God!\" and \"We're screwed\"
This show promotes hate for people who aren't good looking, or aren't in the in crowd. It say that sexual promiscuity is alright, by having girls slobbering over shirtless boys. Not to mention the overweight boy who takes off his shirt. The main characters basically shun anyone out of the ordinary. Carly's friend Sam, who may be a lesbian, beats the snot out of anybody that crosses her path, which says it's alright to be a b**ch. This show has so much negativity in it that nobody should watch it! I give it a 0 out of 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\nFirst of all, I'd like to say I am a teenager so this is all marketed towards me, and I can safely say that iCarly very poor programing, and the fact that it's accepted among both genders baffles me. It contains some of the worst attempts at comedy I've ever witnessed with mediocre acting to boot. The supposed humor within the show is all based on saying someone's lines again with poor sarcasm, poor sarcasm, saying bad one-liners, and, well, you get the picture. Also, I should mention that I do still watch Spongebob, which I know I'll get a negative backlash for, but that's quality programming with some honestly funny moments in it, less we forget something iCarly's missing; WIT. The show's about a young girl, Carly, putting on a web-show with her friends, which I can say is without a doubt a nicer version of the internet. That's fine, but the show's just...well, not funny at all, as previously stated. If this is what children's programming has come to today, parents, show them something that's ACTUALLY funny; Spongebob or Rocco's Modern Life would work.
Also, compared to it's brothering show, Drake & Josh, it's terrible, which was implied. Seriously, please watch something worthwhile. Even for a children's show it's poor.
\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 off... I have to say acting isn't very good. Miranda Cosgrove is the main character but is not such a good actress quite frankly. Spencer, her brother is a way much better actor. Spencer is easily my favorite character because he probably is the only one that knows how to act. Carly on the other hand tries to act her heart out but... sorry, it just isn't good. Sam doesn't even get credit, I mean come on... ICARLY... pretty self centered eh? Freddy isn't bad, I don't have a comment. I must add that Carly and her puppet Sam change their attitude whenever they go to film a web cast, they go shouting out all their lines.It's sorta bad influence in a way because Carly has a web show and if kids will copy this, they might be giving their own information and that not pretty safe.
The only nice things is that it has SOME funny parts of the show which makes it entertaining. At least this show isn't boring, it has nice plots, pretty strong. Many kids will like this because they don't look for flaws.
Overall this is a bad show but it's not boring.
\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\niCarly is all that's wrong with the world. All the main characters but Carly's brother and Freddy are morally bankrupt.
Sam damages other people on whim. She breaks a kids locker and he is forced to pay a 100 dollars to fix it, and all she says is \"Tough luck\" and moves on to smash Freddy's cellphone. She just caused at least 300 dollars worth of damage and she is more focused on getting some food. What the hell?. The only time she's every felt guilt is when she made fun of Freddy on the show. And that's only cause Carly nagged the crap out of her.
Carly is the \"I'm perfect, everything I do is nice.\" type of girl. Everything she does is for her own benefit and she is often shown only having remorse for herself. What's worse, she encourages Sam's crap. Sam ruins some of Freddy's clothes? She laughs. Sam ruins a kids grades? She shrugs it off.
Don't even get me started on the humour. The laugh track is played at every moment.
Sam: He's not that hot Carly: Yes he is Sam: Yeah you're right *INSANE AMOUNT OF LAUGHTER*
The shows humour consists around degrading others and saying obscure words and occasionally bantering on about trivial matters using similar sentences.
Not to mention all the 'super cool special techno effects' they do can be done in Windows Movie Maker.
\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\nMiranda Cosgrove is known for her debut in \"School of Rock\" with Jack Black and her role as Megan in the show \"Drake and Josh\" and she has become a fan favorite amongst the Nickelodeon public, so it isn't a surprise that Dan Schneider would create a show just for her. Unfortunately, it ends up being as bad as, if not worse than, \"The Amanda Show\".
\"iCarly\" is about three friends, Carly, Sam, and Freddie, who have become idols in the junior high community through a webcam show called \"iCarly\". Carly and Sam are the hosts and Freddie shoots and puts it up on the internet. Carly also has an older brother named Spencer, acted by the hilarious Jerry Trainor who is known for his work in \"Drake and Josh\" as Crazy Steve.
Well, let me tell you this. Don't believe the 8.3 out of 10 this show received because it is pathetic in nearly every aspect. Dan Schneider probably went through about 5 minutes of studying teenage interests because all I see is him saying \"iPod? iPhone? iHome? Aha! Teenagers love anything beginning with 'i'!\" and a majority of gigs that were used in \"Drake and Josh\", if not, then they are just really dry and forced jokes that don't even count on a generousity chuckle, such as \"You want me to turn up the AC to 60 degrees?\" \"No. We want you to turn it up to 60 pickles!\" Not only that, but if you look closely, nearly all the sets in the shows were used in \"Drake and Josh\" and \"Ned's Declassified\" that were simply spit-and-polished with random stuff to try and make it look different.
The scenes where the show is showing a broadcast of the iCarly network is just as terrible as the entire series itself. The dialogue in them is atrociously bad, which may be accepted by some since it IS just two friends playing around in front of a camera, but what's the deal with the really odd, humorless antics they do like \"Random Dancing!\"? And it just gets worse from there.
In terms of acting, Miranda and Jennette aren't at their best, by far. Nathan Kress, who played Freddie, isn't believable at times, but he does an okay job. The person who really steals the show is the humorous prowess of Jerry Trainor, who fits in his \"protective older brother\" role very well and his wide-eyed loud-mouthed acting can make for some pretty funny segments. Too bad they aren't frequent, because that might have given the show an extra star in my opinion.
Dan Schneider must have made this show for the sole purpose of giving Miranda Cosgrove her own cable-born playground to hop around and spew unfunny jokes and pathetic cue-card lines in every direction, because everyone else has exceptional talent buried underneath the poorly-done script and weightless acting. Dan Schneider did a great job with \"Drake and Josh\" so it's a real disappointment that \"iCarly\" is such a failure. Jerry Trainor's acting saved this show from a 1 out of 10 rating, but he alone can't save \"iCarly\" from being as horrible as it is.
\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\nFlatland is one of my favorite books, thus I was looking forward to this film. Unfortunately, the film is absolutely horrible. The dialog is so bad it sounds like improv half the time. The new storyline makes me think they took the book and a couple of newspapers, threw them in a blender and used what came out for the screenplay. It's a disgrace to the book and independent film making. The only reason I even managed to get all the way through the film was my hopes that it'd get better. Unfortunately, it only got worse, climaxing in a really retarded ending.
That's not to say EVERYTHING about the movie is bad. The CG is acceptable, in a 1990's \"Reboot\" sort of way which I assume is what they were going for. And I suppose you can't go wrong with \"people\" getting chopped in half and gushing blood all over the place.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWell, I got and saw this movie based on the rather high score here (7.1 now), and some of the good reviews. Usually IMDb is a good guide when it comes to score, though in this case I was very much deceived.
The movie is a present-day detective story, with Vinnie Jones as the investigator journalist, who investigates the death of a construction worker. Mixed with this is a made up Dickens' novel (called The Riddle, set in the 18th or 19th century), which also deals with a murder story. Both story lines are connected through the discovery of an unpublished manuscript.
Sounds interesting? It could have been, however this movie horribly fails in a number of areas : 1) Acting. Mediocre at best, but it is watchable. No worse than your average UK sitcom, though for a movie one expects a little better. Especially with a score of over 7. 2) Music. The music used is simply horrible, it distracts and it is annoying. Especially the pub music, and the music which plays in the journalist's apartment. 3) Storyline. This is a big joke. There are gaping plot holes everywhere and even the obligatory love story is so unrealistic that it's almost funny. Furthermore, without going into any detail, I can safely say that the ending is absurd, and one of the worst pieces of acting and storyline of the year. 4) Camera-work. At times camera positions and views are distracting, and serve absolutely no purpose to the \"story\".
I'm a bit of a movie fanatic, and watch on average 1 to 2 movies a day, but this is easily the worst movie I've seen in months. Don't waste your money or your time on 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\nWhat more can I add? This is without doubt one of the worst films I've ever seen. Terrible acting, a daft script, tediously slow pace - even visible microphones dangling from the top of the screen. I could go on, but I really can't be bothered. I watched this for 90 minutes before the sense of losing the will to live became too great for me.
I can only assume that the first set of comments and votes were from people associated with the promotion of this insult to British film-making.
And worst still, I had to buy the Mail on Sunday to get it :-) The only reason the DVD hasn't now been redeployed as a coaster is that it now takes pride of place in my Top 10 Worst Films Ever collection.
Definitely one to be avoided.
\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\nWords fail me for this appalling waste of two hours of anyone's life. The story is contrived to the point of complete incredibility.
The acting is leaden and so much of this is laughably dreadful. Vinnie Jones - so wonderful in Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, is unbearably awful and unbelievable as Mike Sullivan, journalist.
I honestly can't ever remember seeing a worse film. It's only worth watching for the appalling continuity lapses. After Jones is handed a huge beating he emerges without a scratch on him. His girlfriend upends a drink over him and he chases her, emerging from the pub bone dry. It's quite dreadful, made all the worse by the talented actors who appear 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\nA pretty awful film, I'm amazed the likes of Derek Jacobi & Vanessa Redgrave agreed to be in it, it's like an overlong episode from a poor TV detective series.
The biggest flaw has to be Vinnie Jones, he simply can't act, whoever had the bright idea of casting him as a leading man wants their head examining unless he put his own money into the project? He should stick to playing thugs, looking menacing & NOT speaking!
Also was central heating around in Dickens times as there were three big radiators behind his desk??
No wonder they gave this away free with a newspaper as no one would pay to see it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nEver notice how so many really bad films attract so many 10/10 votes? Not much of a Riddle how that happens, but this is not much of a film. There are two ways of looking at it being given away in the Mail On Sunday.
1. It's free, so you can't complain about it to much. 2. It's free, so it can't be much good.
My vote is number 2. The free DVD in the Sunday papers things is a recent trend and some great old movies have been given away. They're ones that have been out for ages and have made most of the money they'll ever make, so it's a case of anything else is a bonus. It's the last stop for old films, not the first for new ones, so you can guess how bad this must be to skip TV and DVD rental.
The plus points are that Vinnie Jones does try hard and Derek Jacobi is good as Dickens. The minus points are a longer list. Trying isn't the same as succeeding for poor Vinnie and Jacobi's other tramp character is talkative ham that's gone off. The story is very weak. The Dickens story does not have anything to do with the film's murders and feels like another movie slapped onto the script to make people think it's a British Dan Brown without the religion. The supporting cast are either there for the money (Vanessa Redgrave must be really hard up) or because they are friends or girlfriends of the filmmakers. It is also very, very long for what it is.
Vinnie taking his priceless Dickens story with him in his jacket pocket everywhere is good for a couple of laughs, but that's it. Not funny and very not good even for free.
\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 riddle as a concept is an interesting idea, but i'm afraid is miscast, Vinnie if given the Hard man role is his element as in Lock Stock and Snatch. In this movie Vinnie plays a Newspaper sports writer (greyhounds to be precise),who during the course of the movie is easily is beaten up with ease and bundled over a balcony by a man who 10-15 years his senior. I'm sorry Vinnie is tough looks tough and has so to cast him like this is foolish. Trying to investigate the double murders of a friend and a drug addict found near the Thames. He takes on the role of policeman, whilst the real police are bit part players, interceeding with flashbacks from Charles Dickens.
When Vinnie is on screen his reputation precedes him he looks tough but does'nt in this part need act tough, snarling at the camera in parts. If you watch the Mean Machine, he is perfectly cast, and believable and does a very decent performance.
Getting back to the movie what confuses the matter somewhat is the flashback to Charles Dickens who is narrating a different story with characters who are also appear in present day, these two stories are it appears unrelated apart from the same actors are used.
The sound on the movie especially from Julie Cox is inaudible at times, and not really fleshed out what her role in the movie is short of Vinnies Love interest, she starts the film as a Detecive, but quickly becomes the Girlfriend.
The Death of the Prostitute is sort of answered but yet/not answered . Strip out the Charles Dickens stuff and you may have a decent movie.
Vinnie, is slowly becoming Britans Steven Segal, stick to the supporting actor role, your'e quite good at 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 could not believe the original rating I found when i looked up this film, 9.5? Unfortunately it looks like I am not alone.
The film, is slow and boring really, one of the sad things is that if the film had been given a realistic rating of around 5 or 6 then the expectation would not have been so high.
Unfortunately, this was not the case, so when watching the film, and seeing the poor story and acting, I am left giving it a 3/10 score.
Vinnie Jones is superb in Lock stock, and also Snatch, and he plays a great hard man, however, he should stick to this role. Its a bit like when Stallone and Schwarzenegger have done comedy films, they just don't work.
Neither can he play lead actor, he plays better as supporting or otherwise. When he plays lead, his acting talents are too 'in view' and shown up as not really very good. Mean Machine is another good example of this.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt doesn't surprise me that the makers of this hopeless movie couldn't find a UK distributor, and then had to release it as a free DVD with a Sunday newspaper. The distributors could clearly see what the film-makers and the Sunday newspaper couldn't, that this was one movie that just wasn't going to recoup its costs.
Since it's a thriller about riddles, it would have helped if they'd picked a lead actor who could enunciate properly, rather than the mumbling Vinnie Jones who appears to pronounce \"riddle\" as \"riell\". And it would have helped if the dialogue hadn't been swamped by noisy locations or scenes flooded with distracting and inappropriate music. The plot is ludicrous: The lost Charles Dickens story supposedly helps our hero solve a series of modern murders, but so would a copy of Herge's Adventures Of Tintin, since the link between Dickens and Jones is more non-existent than tenuous. And we have the ridiculous premise that a would-be investigative journalist who lays his hands on a previously undiscovered Dickens manuscript, would take several days to read it, just so that flashbacks to Dickens can continue to be played throughout the movie, as if they had some connection to it. Which they don't. I mean, if you found a new Dickens manuscript, wouldn't you just go somewhere quiet and read it ? The film ends with one of those surprise revelations that have become mandatory since The Sixth Sense, but in this case it doesn't so much surprise you as insult your intelligence. If the film is suddenly going to turn supernatural at the twelfth hour, then revealing that Vinnie Jones is a robot might have been more acceptable. It might not have seemed so turgid if the film had been stylish, but it isn't. And in several places it appears decidedly amateur: There's a scene where a table is laid with a 60's jump-cut technique, but they haven't made sure that the person actually laying the table is completely out of frame between the cuts. Consequently, you can see things changing at the edge of frame, when you're really supposed to be watching things changing at the centre of frame. A good rule in movie-making is: If you don't understand how to do a technique then try something else.
The real riddle is why anyone thought it would be a good idea to make this movie in the first place.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"