empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is funny if you're the gentleman who was sitting about three rows behind me (repeating every punchline, laughing when there were no gags on-screen, and issuing a gravelly \"haaaa\" at every scene involving a computer or mobile device).
For everyone else, it's a mean-spirited, bungled \"comedy.\" The movie strictly follows the formula of the later \"Scary Movie\" films, as well as \"Epic Movie\" and \"Meet the Spartans,\" though without the flood of heartless pop culture references that made the latter two so irritating. Still, the lampooning of intellectual and peacemaking figures the world over makes it clear that the film knows its audience: people who envy brainpower. \"Superhero Movie\" is particularly and consistently nasty to Stephen Hawking, introducing him as a sex-starved druggie and using his disability as a vehicle for slapstick.
The plot is based on \"Spider-Man,\" with \"Batman Begins\" and \"X-Men\" thrown in just to deliver some physical comedy. Much of the movie is slapstick, but not in any invigorating or interesting way. The longest-running gag is a fart joke, and early on the scriptwriters seem to believe that having the main character get thrown in conspicuous piles of fake animal poo automatically enlivens an otherwise uninspired rehash of the spider bite scene from \"Spider-Man.\" Perhaps the only redeeming feature of this feature is the energy in it, notably absent in other recent parodies. The filmmakers act as though they're doing something new, and the audience can feel the influence in the way the actors bounce around the screen. An extremely abbreviated length (about an hour and fifteen minutes) and the zest of the presentation makes \"Superhero Movie\" tolerable rather than horrifying.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is somehow showing 6.2 stars, It seems inconceivable that the director has that many relations. I am at a loss to explain this.
Avoid this movie at all costs. You have only a certain number of hours on the Earth, don't waste 1&1/2 of them on this retarded steaming heap of Guano!!!
There is no story as apparently the director \"wrote\" (and I'm guessing with a blunt orange crayon) the next day's script at the completion of the day's shooting. The \"story\" has been called whimsical, no it is aimless, there is maybe enough \"story\" to fill a commercial. Don't you hate ads?
Now while both leads can act they obviously decided not to here. And similarly the writer/director can actually both write and direct as evidenced by his next work \"Toy Love\"
So to recap, even if you get this movie for free, even if you're paid to watch it avoid it.
To paraphrase Monty Python's Search for the holy Grail, \"Run flee!\"
\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 terrible! It is like somebody gave a kid a faulty video camera and $30 and told them to make a film. Even then you'd get a better and more professional film than this. The story is so dumb you can say there isn't one. I don't think the guy who made this knew what to do at all -- watching foreign art movies all day long isn't enough to make somebody an instant director. The acting is very bad, really kindergarten level and the writing is just plain awful. The only scene I didn't hate was the one with the caravan accident but even that only means it was just slightly less horrible than the rest of the film. How do people get finance for this stuff? I don't mind alternative films but shouldn't they at least not be a big steaming pile of cow manure? I would call 'Price of Milk' amateurish if it wasn't an insult to amateurs. This would not even be a good film if you were drunk or drugged!
\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 more entertained by watching my wife almost pull her hair out in frustration through most of this movie. I thought something that would tie it all together would be just around the corner of the dairy barn any minute. So I cheated, grabbed the remote, and was relieved to find out it was ending in merely 20 minutes. I should have turned the channel. Cute, it had potential, but yuck!
\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\nFrom hardly alien sounding lasers, to an elementary school style shuttle crash, \"Nightbeast\" is better classified as a farcical mix of fake blood and bare chest. The almost pornographic style of the film seems to be a failed attempt to recover from a lack of cohesive or effective story. The acting however is not nearly as beastly, many of the young, aspiring, actors admirably showcase a hidden talent. Particularly Don Leifert and Jamie Zemarel, who shed a well needed shard of light on this otherwise terrible film. Nightbeast would have never shown up on set had he known the terrible movie making talent of this small Maryland town.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAn hulking alien beastie crash-lands on Earth and soon wrecks havoc upon the populace first using his laser ray gun to dissolve into dust almost every human he catches sight off (that is when his aim isn't terribly off) and later his bare claws with which he likes to rip out and eat human spleen!
All in all, it's pretty silly stuff. I do have to give it some points for being somewhat fun at times. I actually enjoyed the mindless ray gun battle at the beginning and some of the later over the top gore effects. However it doesn't help when the monster provides the movie's only truly entertaining moments and he isn't on screen for a large portion of the film's running time. The acting throughout this is just plain awful and amateurish and our lead hero Sheriff Cinder is much too unattractive to be bagging the film's hottest chick. I also have to take off points for blatantly copying THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD (1951) on several occasions. When the monster isn't on a rampage, NIGHTBEAST is far too dull and eventually his attacks become so repetitive and predictable even they become less fun. Watch this one back to back with the 1951 THING and see the difference characterization, attention to plot and detail and creating suspense makes to a monster on the loose 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\nOK, when I say \"wow,\" I mean, \"Jesus, please help me.\" I have an old VHS copy that was printed before Troma got a copy of the title. The movie is about an alien crash landing on Earth to terrorize us with a gun that blasts people into oblivion. WATCH OUT!!! And by that, I mean watch out for those special effects. There is an amazing number of mistakes. The acting is terrible, but I'd say the only one putting forth any effort would be the Sheriff. The film itself is really grainy and poorly lighted. In one particular scene, it is day outside and then the shot shows the Night Beast shooting his gun with night behind him. Then it shows day again. *Shakes head* I usually like low-budget horror films, but I had to force myself to finish it because I never watch a movie without finishing it. The only accomplishment this film achieved was an alien that wasn't stereotypical. So for that, and ONLY for that... I give it a 3 out of 10.
Don't watch this movie if you've had a bad day. You'll be even more depressed at the failed attempt this movie makes.
\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 want to truly experience the magic (?) of Don Dohler, then check out \"Alien Factor\" or maybe \"Fiend\", but not this. Alien Factor is actually rather imaginative considering the low budget and it's fairly creepy, but \"Nightbeast\", which I guess is sort of an updating of Alien Factor, is just plain dumb. Actors sleepwalk through their roles, especially Mr. Monotone sheriff, and the monster is some dumb Halloween-mask kind of thing instead of the wildly imaginative (but kind of stupid) looking critters from Alien Factor. A spaceship crashes on Earth and there's a critter inside, of course, who runs around vaporizing people. And ripping off arms, etc. And he has a cool ray gun that he uses to vaporize people too, until it gets shot out of his hand. And that's really about it. \"Alien Factor\" beats this mess hands down, if you really want to see a good Don Dohler movie, check that out instead. And RIP Don Dohler, 12/2/06.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have been an avid Jane Austen fan for many years. I had never seen this adaptation, so when I had heard of it, I came here and read all the excellent reviews. On that basis I eagerly ordered it from Netflix. What a cruel disappointment! They have taken one of the most subtle and bright comic novels and made it dull. Each character seems to have been dealt a single facial expression, a single tone upon which to base their flat characters. Although this adaptation seems to have used every word that Jane Austen wrote, they appear to have been passed around to characters in a random fashion. Even though it was done as a miniseries, this adaptation manages to confuse and feel as rushed as if it had been done as a movie of the week.
Mr. Bennett too harsh, Mrs. Bennet just a chattering chipmunk, Mr. Darcy as lifeless as a nutcracker, the Bennett girls almost indistinguishable and Mr. Wickham a man who no one would look twice at - hardly the appealing cad! I'm quite put out!
\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\nPerhaps if only to laugh at the way my favorite of Jane Austen's works has been portrayed. Perhaps I am too severe on this adaptation, but I'm afraid I am biased to the A&E version. I have a hard time imagining Mr. Darcy portrayed by anyone other than Colin Firth.
The characters seemed shallow, and often dialogue forced. Lizzy seemed to lack the real feeling that is so evident in the book. Her fancy for Wickham was overplayed, and then her sudden like for Darcy was not believable.
Darcy was portrayed tolerably well, I will grant him. He managed to maintain the aloofness that is required, but I felt he did not project the feeling and inner struggle that makes his character so delightful, especially in the proposal scene.
Mr. and Mrs. Bennet were also played well, but seemed lacking in many ways. The mean temper of Mrs. Bennet was not completely captured in her performance.
Mr. Collins' was a good portrayal. Very much in line with the book.
I will refrain from commenting on Lady Catherine except to say that she is possibly the worst portrayal in the entire film.
Other problems I saw were the few liberties they took with the order of events such as Darcy being present at the first meeting with Lady C., and also that Miss Lucas and Sir William did not join Lizzy on her visit to the Collins'.
The choreography was dreadful during the dancing scenes. The scene where Lizzy and Darcy dance loses much of its intensity because one cannot get past the feeling that they look akward on the ballroom floor. At least this BBC version left out the dialogue between Lizzy, Darcy and Sir William when he commends the two on their dancing, as they performed very ill indeed.
There were occasional moments that it kept me interested, but overall I find this version to be a disappointment. I would not advise this film unless you're like me, and you are excessively diverted by such follies.

\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs a professional poker dealer for over 25 years I found this movie very hard to watch. Too unreal. It seems the producers of this movie either had done little or no research or just didn't care. The card tricks are something you never would see performed in a real poker game. Common sense right? Plus it was full of film cuts and such during the tricks. Who couldn't do that? The cheating was amateur stuff. Palming, marked cards, etc. Would you sit in a high limit game where they use opened deck cards? Would you sit in a game where the players push their chips into the middle of a pot (constantly), mixing them in then just verbalizing how much they bet? C'MON ! I gave it a 4 because the twists and turns might be interesting to some people but for those who know how to play the game it will be pretty painful. Next time they should use real players and get some insight on how to do it right. OUCH!!!
\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 cast...and what a waste of it. Seriously, when a movie has Gabriel Byrne, Jamie Foxx, Thandie Newton, Stuart Townsend, Hal Holbrook, Melanie Griffith and Sylvester Stallone in it you would expect some quality. The movie is however one big mess with a unlikely story that can't seem to stop putting twist and turns in it. Yeah, I think that they thought they were really being clever with all of it.
The story is not only messy and unlikely, it also isn't exactly terribly original. It uses elements from earlier and much better poker game based movies. But to me it were really the many pointless twist and turns in the movie that did it. It made the story such an unlikely one to watch. On top of that the script remains filled with a lot of holes silly poker game errors and things that just don't make an awful lot of sense. Why would any one above all things want to play against a card player that is known as the best cheater in the game. This is what the movie is about and builds up to but just didn't ever made a lot of sense to me.
Despite that the movie has a great cast, it still feels as if most actors were miscast in their roles. I don't know what it is about Stuart Townsend. He is a good actor but in most roles he plays he always feels out of place. Perhaps it are his looks, I don't known. This basically also was the reason why he got replaced in \"The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring\". Also Thandie Newton isn't much good and actually quite annoying in her 'strong' female role. And what was the point of having Melanie Griffith in this? Oh, I guess I could go on about the movie its casting and could complaining even some more about the way too limited screen time the Jamie Foxx character gets but I guess you get my point by now.
Damian Nieman just isn't much of an original writer/director and on top of that he also doesn't handle his own material very well. Scenes often feel disjointed, it tries to put in way too many characters and everything about the movie is shallow and in a way predictable. On top of that the movie features some bad editing at times, which also doesn't help to make this movie look like one seamless whole. The movie was also one major box office bomb and no wonder that Damian Nieman hasn't made a movie ever since.
A too big mess to make you enjoy this movie.
4/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHow did so many talented or at least charismatic actors wind up in this baloney? Nothing is very good about this movie but the worst things probably are the screenplay and the directing.
Apparently this is director Damian Niemans heart-piece as he's both written and directed it (and acted in as well). He's a card magician himself and seems to have named characters in homage of other famous magicians. This was his first feature film as far as I know, and chances are it's his last.
It's hard to point to exactly what makes it so poor  but I'd say the story and character's are not believable (the screenplay) and the directing doesn't give it any boost (the director). Plus  the poker scenes are bad in the worst Hollywood manner (super-hands, Hollywood rules)! The supposed twists in the movie are either totally predictable or totally unbelievable. They just end up tying a knot to a story that at best can be described as \"a few decent scenes\"!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs a fan of C.J.'s earlier movie, Latter Days, I really wanted to like this film.
The nicest thing I can say, however, is that it's NOT an awful film. There are some good performances, and a few funny scenes. In particular, Tori Spelling has a couple of great scenes where she's talking to her fiancé's ex-boyfriend.
Overall, though, it's pretty week. The script falls back on weird coincidences and clichéd movie moments way too often. (The main character went to Stanford on a golf scholarship, and his high school buddy doesn't even know that he plays the game?)
Most of the time, this movie had no idea where it was going or what it was trying to say. There are a lot of scenes that are mildly cute, but ultimately turn out to be a waste of time. And you could easily cut half the characters from the film without losing anything.
Still, for all it's faults, I would have to say that this is one of the better gay films of recent years. Which says a lot about how bad most gay films are.
I'm hoping C.J.'s next film will be better.
\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 oft-used line, but it really sums up this movie...\"If this is the current state of gay cinema, then we're in real trouble\". I saw this film at SIFF because of the high IMDb rating (7.6) and if there was ever a case of vote stacking on IMDb, then this is it. Just watch the number fall over the release weeks of the film.
Easy plot...Boy finds out his high school ex (boyfriend) is getting married to a female friend of theirs so he goes back to his old hometown (still carrying a 10 year old torch) to see what happened.
First off, I liked \"Latter Days\", the director's last feature, despite its cookie cutter characters and plot contrivances, but you're supposed to become a better director with each subsequent release. I don't know how you get horrible supporting performances out of so many TV veterans (Robert Foxworth, Joanna Cassidy, Tori Spelling), but somehow he managed to. The writing was Lifetime Network quality (way back when they were REALLY bad) and the situations were unbelievable AND uncomfortably hard to watch. I kept reaching for a non-existent remote control to fast forward, but ultimately made myself stay to the end, hoping for a decent ending. Ugh...no. Even the gratuitous male nudity that popped up during the movie was so blatantly gratuitous that it seemed to be there to keep people in their seats.
To be fair...the 2 leads, especially in the gratuitous nude scenes, were gorgeous. There was also a real sweetness between them during their rekindling friendship as they uncovered how they went separate ways. And the film looked great...good quality and color saturation for an independent film.
How is it that network TV can give week after week of great, entertaining weekly episodes (Like \"Ugly Betty\", \"Desp. Housewives\", etc.), but so many feature releases in similar genres can be as bad as 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\nWow, Kiss the Bride wasn't that bad, but it wasn't that good either. It sure was no \"Later Day Saints.\" The movie sags in the center...perhaps cutting out about 30 minutes would have made a more enjoyable film. But the film gets bogged down again and again by annoying subplots and throw away scenes - the whole gold outing sequence comes to mind.
Even though \"Kiss\" was made for theatrical release, it looks and sounds more like a made for TV movie. Every scene is lighted like a department store. So many characters are so throw away.
And dear Tori is actually a pleasant surprise. She steals every scene she appears in.
One scene really annoyed me. It was the rehearsal dinner in this larger room with scores of tables - all decorated. But only 5 or 6 people in a room for 250! Where did everyone go.
Gay cinema has sunk to a new low...but not as low as the horrible films being produced and shown on the Here! Channel.
\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 can I say? This was one awful movie to watch. I am normally not very critical of gay cinema in general, due to the fact that most are usually low-budget, but this really pushed me up the wall. I mean, is this was has happened to gay cinema? Haven't gay producers and directors learned anything from Gus Van Saints and Ang Lee's films?. Just having to sit through the entire movie was like being in a dentist's chair and having my wisdom teeth extracted. I kept on praying for moments where I would feel any sort of connection with any of the characters, but that never happened. Most of the characters performances were just not very convincing. It was like watching one of those badly produced made-for-TV movie specials on a local access TV stations. I cannot tell u how greatly disappointed It was seeing this film after being a big fan of Tori Spellings other works and the directors last work on \"Latter day saints.\" It was definitely not worth the wait. Definitely, a few hours of my life I will never get back and will certainly not be purchasing it on DVD.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere were nice characters in here, played by pleasant-looking actors and actresses, plus it had a famous band and some famous dancers.....yet the film just didn't work. By the time this was almost over, I was bored to death. The dialog was dumb, the humor (mainly Milton Berle's) was downright stupid and the music was just not up my alley.
I've never been a big-band fan, anyway, and if I hear \"In The Mood\" one more time I'll puke.
This was my first look at famous skater-actor Sonja Henie and I have no complaints about her. Almost part of the problem, at least with the humor, is that it's so dated it isn't funny anymore. Berle, Phil Silvers, Bob Hope, Red Skeleton, Abbot & Costello, etc. etc. were hilarious to the crowds in the 40s and 50s but humor changes, and what was funny back then is not today.
\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 series and Elon Gold were being HYPED as \"the next big thing\" in sitcoms for NBC. Well, they weren't. Dennis Farina was terribly miscast as the father in-law. He just seemed so uncomfortable and out of place here. The term, \"Private 'convo' time!\" was supposed to become the \"Dyno-mite!\" catch phrase of the 21st Century. Well, it wasn't. People were asking then, as they still are today (When his name comes up.), \"Who the hell is Elon Gold?\" I saw him on an episode of \"The Mentalist\" this evening. I mentioned his name, and my girlfriend asked, \"Who?\" Not funny. Total waste of airtime. NBC had really HIGH hopes for this show, but it just fell flat.
\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 knew this was headed for disaster after looking at the clock within 7 minutes of air time. The story line: Two people get married. They move into the wife's parents home. And husband doesn't get along with father-in-law-and if you haven't seen this plot before you probably have not watched TV for the last 15 years or so.
\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 Toxic Avenger...
The idea of this movie is that a person that the common population would call this person a looser and then after being thrown into a barrel of toxic waste, mutated into a superhero that is completely disfigured sounded OK even for 1985. This movie is listed as a horror... I even have read of a cult following with this series....
Now this movie even given when it was made was so bad that I couldn't stop watching... the acting is horrible even for an independent film that I think was to be the horror part of this movie...
drug dealing, sumo, Godzilla entrance.... I'm all for movies that promote anti-drugs... heck I even like Godzilla and well sumo... I'm not into it but even still I think that the heights of sumo would love to give this movie the 1000 hand slap and ground salt into the eyes of the people that made this movie...
Personally I am almost ready to write to the film company that made this and ask them for the 87mins or so of my life back.
To me 1 out of 10 is too high it's too bad that there isn't a 0 (zero) or even negative integers to place on a movie here.
In other words this movie is J-U-N-K...... would rather watch paint dry and deal with explosive diarrhea then have to watch this movie ever again... I would be the first person that would use not only the packaging of this movie as kindling but I would be up for a good'ol movie and script burning.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is the worst of the toxie series by far. The acting in Tokyo is horrible and you can understand them about half the time. The major problem with this film is all the sudden changes from the original. Like there's a different girl friend of toxie's in this one or it might be the same character just with a different name and played by a different chick. Why is this film made like a Disney movie. After about fifteen minutes it starts getting good with the gore and all. There's 2 awesome killings then the movie goes straight to poop. After the films 20 minutes are up the film is bearly entertainment. H*LL IT'S BEARLY WATCHABLE. Well unless your drunk then don't watch this film. YOU'VE BEEN WARNED.
\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\nGone is the wonderful campiness of the original. In place is a c-grade action no-brainer, wich is not all bad, but pales in comparison to the original. All the meaningless sex and violence is gone, and replaced with crappy jokes and unexplained plot pointers. See it, but don't expect the thrills of the first.
\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 toxie film was dark, gory, and hillarious. This film is un-gory battles to cheezy jazz music, no real gore at all, and the worst toxie mask I have ever seen! His deep voice is now a light, happy voice, characters from part 1 reappear by actors that look NOTHING like them (Claire, Mom Junko), characters names change (Claire or Sara?). It is lacking all the brutal violence, dark humor, and political incorrectness of the first film. If it weren't for nudity, this movie could have been rated PG. Really lame. I am a HUGE fan of part 1 though, just cant stand this 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 Toxic Avenger, hideously deformed creature of super-human size and strength is back in this sequel that gets mostly everything wrong. Toxie goes to Japan to find his father at the suggestion of his psychiatrist, whom is in cahoots with an evil corporation who just want the avenger gone to get a stranglehold on Tromaville in his absence. With new actors for Toxie and his girlfriend, who has a different name in this one, a much less grim, much more comical tone, and a plot line that can't hold a candle to the original. Even with the totally uncut version that one can only get if you buy the Tox Box DVD set, the gore is the only thing going for this one. And if you happen upon ANY other version forget about getting any enjoyment from this one at all. While the first one is a low budget classic, this simply is not.
My Grade: D+
Eye Candy: Erika Schickel has a very quick nip slip; Phoebe Legere goes topless; one villianess gets fully nude; and a few extras in a bath house scene show various amounts of skin
Tox Box unrated director's cut DVD Extras: Intro and Commentary by director Lloyd Kaufman; Second commentary with director Lloyd Kaufman, Troma editors Gabriel Friedman and Brian McNulty; Toxie on Japenese TV; Interview with Fangoria managing editor Michael Gingold; Interview by Videohound's Mike Mayo; the same damn Radiation March that's on EVERY Troma DVD; Clip from Lisa Gaye; \"Toxie 15 Years Later\" mockumentary; 2 PSAs; Troma Intelligence Test; Troma Studio Building Tour; Ad for Lloyd Kaufman's autobiography; Stills gallery; Theatrical trailer; and trailers for: \"Toxic Avenger\", \"Toxic Avenger 3\", \"Def by Temptation\", \"Class of Nuke 'Em High\", \"Sgt. Kabukiman N.Y.P.D.\", \"Tromeo and Juliet\", \"Bloodsucking Freaks\", & \"Surf Nazis Must Die\"
\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 enjoyed the first \"Toxic Avenger,\" but the sequel just didn't work. There are some funny gags in the opening, involving members of the home for the blind, but past that point I was simply bored. The sequel is also filled with much quirky, low-brow humor. Only this time it's not funny! Much of the gags revolve around crusty Japanese stereotypes. Almost every Japanese character seems to be chopping fish. Does everyone in Japan chop fish? The Troma films are known for being more than a little irreverent, but if you're gonna use humor involving racial stereotypes, at least make it funny. I can't laugh if I'm handed the same crap I've seen a million times before! One thing I have to give credit for is the gratuitous nudity. There's even more gratuitous nudity than in the first. But altogether I was very disappointed, and the film ends with a tedious chase scene which had me huffing and puffing, dying for the movie to fade to black. At least there's one hilarious line from the film which had me bawling with laughter. After the villain says a line from Shakespeare to one of the local citizens, the citizen (an elderly woman) responds by saying, \"F**k you--that's from David Mamet.\"
My score: 3 (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\nOh dear! What can I say about Half Past Dead? I was really disappointed in it. I was thinking....A Steven Seagal movie! Cool! We'll get to see him kick people and flip people and break bones. We might even get to see him have a stick fight with somebody! Excellent!
However, I was in for a rude awakening. This film can be summed up as follows:
Take an episode of the A-Team, remove the lovable and roguish characters such as Murdoch, Hannibal, Mr T and Face. Then get a writer/director to pen a plot even Ed Wood would be ashamed of and who's too big a fan of The Matrix and John Woo movies for his own good. Throw in a bunch of people with really bad acting ability and who don't have real names. Finally, add in a main star who's getting saggy around the midriff and doesn't appear to be able to do his own stunts anymore.
The result? Half Past Dead. An action movie so ridiculous that it at least made me smile right the way through. The plot holes are stupendously, glaringly large - for example, prisoners who, when the jail is invaded, fight the invaders rather than attempting to escape. Or how about the prison itself, which has an armoury that contains heavy machineguns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers? You also have a helicopter (bearing a striking resemblance to a Huey) with some kind of video game machinegun mounted in the nose.
Then there's Seagal himself. I like the guy. He CAN fight. He's even witty in a way that Jean-Claude Van Damme will never be. But all through the movie I kept hoping for that one great, defining fight scene. Never happened. Instead we got people firing guns a lot and not hitting a whole Hell of a lot. I mean, when someone runs down a narrow corridor and you fire a sub-machinegun at them, there isn't a whole lot of places the bullets can go other than down the corridor and into the target. Yet somehow they miss? Even the A-Team would cringe at this foolishness. And then when it gets to any kind of one-on-one physical stuff, we get treated to a shabby Matrix rip-off, without the benefit of bullet-time. People getting kicked twenty feet through the air and sundry other ludicrous acrobatic nonsense.
C'mon Steven, you're better than this. Your career can't be over. Say it ain't so!
This is instantly forgettable (except I'm forcing myself to remember for the purposes of this review) and if you watch it, try to find it amusing in an A-Team kind of way. But I doubt it'll be high on anyone's \"re-watchable\" list. Out for Justice this ain't. More like Out to Lunch.
\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 best thing about the movie is the name, as it both describes the plot and the acting. At least they cannot say they didn't warn you... Kind of like the button labeled, \"Don't push this\".
Segal must have run out of things that move like planes, trains, and ships but the plot remains the same. Under cover guy who fights slowly, but still beats like 40 mercenary types and doesn't even blink when doing so. What amazes me is that Segal is now as big as a barn and the bad guys still cannot hit him in a hallway with a machine gun and 50 clips of ammo. Where do all these bullets actually go to? The only redeeming feature of this movie is watching Nia Peeples pound Ja Rule (real name Jeffrey Atkins doesn't quite sound so punk) into the floor. I could spend days watching that woman kick her foot over her shoulder like that... especially wearing an outfit like that! It was just a bonus watching Jeffy get is *ss kicked, and fun hoping one of those kicks actually landed. Sorry, it's just time we get stupid wannabe tough guy can't act rappers out of the movies. PLEEEEEASE! Who came up with idea anyway? I'd lay odds it was the person who decided that Cameron Diaz and Drew Barrymore would pass as witty athletic Angels.
The only surprising twist in this movie is that they don't do the politically correct thing and have Jeffy come in and save the day. No doubt if Snoop (otherwise known by his momma as Calvin Broadus which again doesn't sound so cool when you refer to him as Cal) had been in the movie, he'd throw some signs down on her and probably saved Segal's life or something.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs if the world needed another Seagal movie. Add a bunch of actors who, well... are not really actors, a bunch of heavy metal music to compliment the rap and of course, a hot looking crazy chick in leather with no hips, and we prevent ourselves from being half past budget. Why, oh why do people sabotage themselves by participating in such films?
FBI capture two buddies and send them to \"New Alcatraz,\" where the prison's first inmate to be executed has unexpected guests.
First rate acting all around, particularly any scene involving tragedy for the good guys. Seriously though, the director did try, and pulled a modern, hard edge for the movie the best he could. Be he went to the well too often and HALF PAST DEAD gets boring too soon. What else can you do when the inmates just hang around talking while the hostages continually ask what makes the main bad guy motivated? A mindless action flick that amounts to little, if not \"a-ight.\"
\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\nMy Take: Steven Seagal is obviously too boring to be a lead in an action thriller, even a totally dull one.
Remember Steven Seagal? You don't? Don't worry, there's not much to catch up on. After starring in admittedly enjoyable crowd-pleasing films like UNDER SIEGE and EXECUTIVE DECISION, Seagal hits the low grounds of the bad movie abyss. Now, he stars in low-budgeted B-level action vehicles, some of which are made-for-TV \"Movie of the Week\" entries that lost their way to the big screen. HALF PAST DEAD is among these, shall we say, dead action movies. A loud and lousy action film, sloppily directed and lazily written (and worse, badly acted). This is one of those bad movies that I don't need to watch until the ending to know it's bad. I didn't have the guts to have all my braincells die while wasting my time with this. It it this kind of bad films in which you realize, those other films you hate are not bad after all.
The plot (and the locale) is completely lifted from a similar picture, Michael Bay's THE ROCK, although similar may not be the word to describe it. Both movies are summer movies, and not meant to be taken so seriously. But in comparison, even THE ROCK (which isn't much in the writing department as much as the lights and sounds) has better characters, a more compelling plot, better action sequences and overall, a more entertaining atmosphere. Although there are action scenes in HALF PAST DEAD, none of them are exciting. All of which are sometimes tedious and predictable.
Although predictability seemed to be a welcome asset in summer action films, predictability has never tasted more sour in ones that aren't fun, and HALF PAST DEAD is never really fun, a lot of times it's just a pain in the head (hearing the bad rap music repeat over and over again throughout this film makes me yearn for an aspirin every second I hear them). The acting is horrendously mediocre, the plot is derivative, with no compelling or appealing characters whatsoever. Seagal's character, an undercover agent sent to Alcatraz to stop a criminal mastermind (Morris Chestnut), a very boring villain, is nothing to get excited about. Seagal's character is also provided with a sidekick (played by rap star Ja Rule) and a bunch of amigo inmates, and there's no chemistry going on here.
If starring in a series of other forgotten action vehicles (what were those films again?) killed of Seagal's career for good, HALF PAST DEAD is overkill. And audiences be warned: you're invited to feel the pain. Advice: avoid it at all costs.
Rating: 0 out of 5.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is, for different reasons, a very very bad action movie. First of all, Seagal is terribly out of shape. He looks old and fat, plays like he has to fulfill an annoying obligation and his fight scenes require creative editing or plain replacement. Secondly, his opponent is a very weak villain. This is about a smart and mean masterbrain and Chestnut does not deliver. So what about the action ? Well, the two parties permanently shoot at each other in different locations of the Alcatraz jail. They shoot wild and bad, because compared to the amount of required ammunition, the bodycount is rather low. There is nothing to save this movie. There is not a single good line and not a single good joke. The little psychological interlude with 49er One and judge McPherson is ridiculous. So what does it have? Well, the usual Bell helicopters, silhouettes moving in blue light and slow motion, doors riddled with bullets and 1000 Watt lights shining through the holes, characters jumping through the air while shooting, loads of weapons coming from nowhere, a long black coat containing a bold black guy and a thin wooden box containing 25 tons of gold. The pain continues to the very last take, a hopeless approach to lighten up the closing credits. Californian beachboy Don Michael Paul was writing and directing. At least this mountain of boredom comes from just one simple mind.
\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(spoiler warning) I seem to keep giving this guy his last chance. Strange how an action hero who once was keeps attracting an audience. Anyway, this movie is about a character (Seagal) being kind of a mysterious rough-neck hero. That's it.
Next.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this movie yesterday, and like most allrdy wrote \"i also expected a Steven movie\", god i love this guy just because his fighting style is unique and very humerous. In had a little doubts cause i read that \"Ja Rule\" was playing in it, but i thought hopefully they give him a smal role, so i don't get irritations by watching him. And offcourse the opposite happend, goooooooooooooooooooood steven what the heck were you thinking going to join a sry *** crew like this. Steven was broke and needed cash? bah =( what a big dissapointment. If you like Steven movie, pleaseee skip this one its pure drama, you only get a few special effects that made me vote 3/10. But the \"acting?\" of ja rule screws up the whole movie aswel for his buddy kurupt with his irritating hood talk.
My beer went from tasting fresh to water we do the dishes in. The story didn't had any \"good\" about it. To me it felt like a 3 year old produced it.
Hopefully Steven makes me happy again in a future movie. People this isn't even worth renting simpel as that.
To bad and pitty :-)
\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\nSteven Segal's movie career is a tribute to horrible cinema. I have been tragically bored with every one of them as soon as I realized that they were even more unrealistic than Jean Claude VanDamme's. Has anyone else ever noticed that he never gets hit?! I mean, give me something to root for...a hard fought battle with a bad guy who's scary. TWENTY YEARS and he's still filming the same fight scenes. Fight scenes can often distract you from the fact that your hero cannot act. The boring choreography of a Segal film places his painful lack of acting skill in sharp relief. Worse yet, he's woefully out of shape. Just what we need, a fat stiff who THINKS he's a leading man. There's not one iota of redeeming cinematic value in all this movies ninety or so minutes. Do NOT watch this unless you feel like throwing away an hour and a half of your life.
\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\nHalf Past Dead was unlike any Steven Segal film I've ever seen. Very little of Segal, himself in action and I agree with the last review I read, Nia Peeples steals the show.
I saw nothing really new here, just the same old stuff from other flicks changed around a little. The best action scenes were Nia's as she once again kicked butt. It was interesting seeing her as the bad guy after watching her for two seasons on Walker, Texas Ranger, still kicking butt, but for the good guys.

\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nEvery now and then some amateur will come out with a tired piece of action film making. this one is just so wrong I don't think i even need to comment about the plot, acting, script, camera work. because it have none!! If putting a muscle guy in cool leather jacket walking in slow-mo and throw in a funky rap song is the main ingredient of making a great action movie, then sayonara action 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\nSteven Segal has done some awful films, but this is probably one of the best since his career took a dive about ten years ago. The cast is better than usual, and while the story and the plot are a total joke, at least most of the action scenes look pretty good.
The plot is probably one of the worst in film history. Someone is being executed because he stole some money? Some Mercenary types kidnap a Supreme Court Justice? Their goal is to exchange the Judge for the prisoner so they can find out where he has the money? Meanwhile the Execution chamber is full of trap doors and false floors and looks like a set from one of the Cirque Du Soleil Circus Shows.
Then there is the issue of the prison. Here, the Warden is a Homie, played by Tony Plana. The prisoners all have their gang colors and signs, and the guards are there to serve the meals and keep the prison clean. Nothing like a bunch of prisoners fighting and beating up some guards while the Warden is watching. What happens? The Warden gives them a stern talking to. He might punish them next time.
There are a lot of moments in this movie that are good for laughs. However, Nia Peeples looks pretty good, and Ja Rule tries to be an action hero. Lots of fun watching the prisoners all \"do the right thing\" and get armed so that they can free the Supreme Court Justice from her captors. Regardless of how bad Half Past Dead may be, when you watch it keep in mind that it is easily the best movie that Steven Segal has starred in since Under Siege in 1992.
\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\nSeagal fans beware- He does no action scenes until almost an hour into this mess. Instead, Seagal RUNS AWAY from numerous fights, letting Ja Rule convincingly lose every battle. Actually, Ja Rule could be an up and coming action star, but Hollywood needs to let him at least hit puberty (which should happen in a few more years...) Also, what sort of commando/terrorist wears a bare-midriff outfit? The chick in this atrocity looks like a backup singer for Christina Aguilera.Back to Seagal- When he finally does cut loose, it's his stunt double (HEAVILY PADDED to resemble the bloated Seagal) doing a lot of the work & taking the falls. I don't remember any aikido, either. It's just your standard kicks & punches you'd see in any straight-to-video martial arts turkey. Not even \"so-bad-it's-funny\", either. Just plain dull...
\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 really tried to like this film about a doctor who has the possibility of a new life with a young woman if he can comes to terms with the death of his wife. I suppose this was to play like a quirky light romantic comedy but the theme is a little uncomfortable for me.
But putting that aside, I found the dialog was too much like a stage play despite being based on a novel and also,the mediocre acting was embarrassing to watch especially by the young lead Vincent Spano.
I have been sort of trying to catch up on all the eighties movies I missed during that decade. It has been my pet peeve that eighties nostalgia buffs seem to focus on the same core canon of films usually featuring the brat pack actors and actresses and neglecting the other films like Creator that have fallen through the cracks. But in the case of this feature I have to say I can understand it. Not all of these eighties films were magical and Creator is proof of this.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"