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 have no idea why people are so crazy about the show. It is so boring. The jokes are not even close to what we usually say funny. It's like, Alex say something that is not funny nor interesting and then suddenly there's a laughing sound background. My friend and I just looked at each other with blank look as if we asked each other, \"What's so funny?!!\". Seriously, every time we watched that show, you wouldn't hear any laughing or coughing. Just a blank look. So we stop watching it. I am personally a fan of sitcoms, so I tried to watch the show. But the show us such a disappointment. This show might be one of the worst comedy sitcom ever...
\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 wondered whether Disney could broadcast a show with a character more spoiled than Paris, more shallow than Britney, more vapid than Jessica and more narcissistic than THE GIRLS NEXT DOOR, wonder no more. The amazing thing is Selena Gomez is, apparently, supposed to be the heroine. She's also supposed to be an outcast from the spoiled, shallow, vapid, narcissistic \"popular\" girls at school, which is no more believable here than it was for Hilary Duff in LIZZIE McGUIRE. Plots range from recycled BEWITCHED & I DREAM OF JEANNIE to \"parodies\" of HARRY POTTER. The older boy alternates between being a magical genius and being unable to master the complexities of his own shoelaces. The younger boy is just another of the smart-mouth \"wisecracking\" brats who have multiplied on TV like cockroaches in New York (and with the same appeal). The dad is the stereotypical dumb TV dad, and the mom... well, she's not totally awful. But all pales beside the hideous, loathsome, and yet horribly fascinating (like a bad car accident) spectacle of Ms. Lopez' smug, self-satisfied, snotty performance . And, again, she's the HEROINE.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nYou might think that a show about regular teens with superpowers would be interesting, but it's far from that. Take the concept for example: the main character(s) have a big secret that they hide from they're peers. It's just like Hannah Montana and That's So Raven. Next, the acting is just average. Selena Gomez seems to be half asleep through many scenes. Lastly, the jokes are either cliché or boring. If they're not using they're colorful, yet strange dialog to make us \"laugh\", they are throwing various props around the room. I really wish this show would use more original and entertaining material. In conclusion, Wisards of Waverly Place is a disappointment.
\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\nFor a series that was inspired by Kolchak, it's ironic that The X Files first attempt at a vampire episode should land squarely on it's ass. 3 has always puzzled me and - at the risk of sounding like the dreadful Hans Keller - I've often wondered if I'm missing the point. The story feels like a jigsaw that has pieces that don't match the box, and the result is you spending a cosy evening by the fire trying to match sky that is really sea. This incomplete feeling remains no matter how many times you revisit the episode and no matter how much attention you give it. I know that this review puts me in danger of being dragged to Whitby by teenage vampires who'll drink my blood while listening to Busted, but that's a risk I'm willing to take. I've always been a werewolf man myself.
\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 prequels, and found the relationship between Tucker and Chan previously hilarious. RH3, however, was a re-hash of the first two without the charm or humor. I think I may have laughed once - and it was during the NGs. Tucker was exceedingly annoying in this film, and his character didn't seem to have any purpose other than to bungle everything up in the most irritating way possible. Chan is always likable, but he seemed tired in this film. I was able to predict EVERYTHING - who the villain was, who the girl was, (SPOILER ALERT) who the good-guy-turned-bad-guy was, etc. I hope to see more movies from Tucker and Chan in their separate endeavors, but not in any more Rush Hour sequels. It's just too tired. I recommend a rental, but not a purchase.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen naïve young Eddie Hatch, a window dresser at Savory's Department Store, falls for a statue of Venus and gives her a chaste kiss, Venus steps off her pedestal and gives Eddie more than he bargained for. This creaking example of what Hollywood can do to a Broadway musical manages to emphasize the inane story and eliminate most of the first-rate songs. The purpose was to make a safe, popular movie without too much investment while capitalizing on Ava Gardner's upward mobility to super stardom. Robert Walker as Eddie gets lost in a thankless role. Eddie's not just naive, but dithering and hapless. Gardner is gorgeous, but the only things that give the movie any life are Olga San Juan as Eddie's loving but jealous girl friend, Tom Conway as the suave owner of Savory's and Eve Arden as Savory's long time, wise cracking secretary. It's a role Arden could play in her sleep, and she's good at it.
The musical opened on Broadway in 1943 and made Mary Martin a big-time star. The only point of a musical, however, is to have music. Since One Touch of Venus was intended to be a social satire of sorts, Kurt Weill, composing, and Ogden Nash writing the lyrics, came up with a series of stylish, witty songs and one masterpiece. Without the satire, or the clever songs or Martin (or an equivalent showstopper), the movie becomes just a weak comedy fantasy where much of the comedy is predictable and the fantasy is worked to death.
Not only did the producers of the movie toss out almost all the Weill/Nash songs, they brought in the movie's music director, Ann Ronell, to write new lyrics for one of the songs that survived, turning sharp observation into lovey-dovey romance. Ronell was no hack; she wrote Willow Weep for Me. Wonder what she thought about while she replaced or tweaked Ogden Nash's clever work.
The one bright spot in the movie is that Weill/Nash masterpiece. \"Speak Low\" is as great a love song as anyone ever wrote. It's given one of those ultra-professional and lifeless treatments by Eileen Wilson dubbing Gardner. Dick Haymes contributes a chorus.
As for Ann Ronell, she was one of the few women in Hollywood to become a major music director, as well as composer and lyric writer. Yours for a Song: The Women of Tin Pan Alley is a fascinating documentary of some of the women who made it in the business, including Ronell, Kay Swift, Dorothy Fields and Dana Suess. And for those who would like to hear what little of the Weill/Nash score was recorded by the original Broadway cast, you might be able to track down the CD, One Touch Of Venus (1943 Original Cast) / Lute Song (1946 Original Cast). The music is paired with Lute Song, another Broadway show that starred Martin.
\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'll never understand why when a studio like Universal buys a musical it then butchers it when bringing it to screen. My first thought when seeing Ava Gardner and Robert Walker were starring I would be seeing something from MGM which did musicals best at that time. Boy was I wrong and disappointed.
One Touch Of Venus which starred Mary Martin, Kenny Baker, and John Boles on Broadway ran for 567 performances in the 1943-1945 season and Gardner, Walker, and Tom Conway play the roles that Martin, Baker, and Boles did on stage. The Kurt Weill-Ogden Nash musical with book by Nash and S.J. Perelman was a comeback vehicle for Mary Martin who reestablished herself as the Queen of Broadway after a disappointing venture in Hollywood.
Look at the names that went into this show. Given who was responsible for the book I expected to see some sparkling wit in this production. Instead I got a rather pedestrian screenplay, it was like all the wit was drained out of it. Doing her best to make up for it is Eve Arden playing her usual girl Friday role with Tom Conway, but it's even too much for Eve.
The story concerns department store window dresser Robert Walker who kisses a very valuable statue of Venus who springs to life in the person of Ava Gardner. Of course when the statue goes missing, Conway yells for the law and is suspicious of Walker, the last person to be with the statue.
The rest of the film is Walker dealing with Gardner and what will happen to both of them. For reasons I don't understand, Ava was of course dubbed by Eileen Wilson and Walker sings only a couple of lines. The singing is carried by Dick Haymes and Olga San Juan playing Walker's friends and coworkers. Of course on Broadway the songs were done by singers Mary Martin and Kenny Baker. You would kind of think that Haymes would be playing Walker's role at least. It was awkward to say the least.
Only three songs survived from the score, Don't Look Now, But My Heart Is Showing, That's Him, and the incomparable Speak Low. Haymes's silken baritone is shown to best advantage in Speak Low which was sung as a duet by Martin and Baker on Broadway. For some reason the lyrics of one of the greatest men of verse of the last century, Ogden Nash, were done over by Ann Ronnell. I suspect the infamous Code was at work here.
In Lee Server's biography of Ava Gardner he makes mention of a brief fling Ava had with Robert Walker when she had had a spat with her current man, Howard Duff. When Duff and Gardner reunited, Walker took it badly and didn't speak at all to Gardner off camera. I'm sure the fact that both of them were not in their best work didn't help matters either.
Hopefully some repertoire company will do One Touch Of Venus and you'll get to see it the way, Weill, Nash, and Perelman wrote it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is, arguably, the worst of the major Ava Gardner films. Yes, she is gorgeous. But that can wear thin over time, especially after the corny and predictable movie ending.
In this turkey, Robert Walker has to pretend that he's Eddie Bracken (which surely embarrassed him). Olga San Juan plays the Jane Powell (golly, gee) part. Dick Haymes plays a sort of dim sidekick (!), and Eve Arden plays Helen Broderick (and a host of other wise-cracking female semi-comedians). Yes, the film contains a major popular song, \"Speak Low.\" But check out the other, entirely forgettable, pieces. Dick Haymes sings very well, of course, and so does the uncredited vocalist dubbing for Ava.
The sets are cheap, the script is filled with clichés and failed humor, and Tom Conway looks as though he has been battling with liquor (as indeed he was). In short, if you want to see Ava in her prime, buy a photo and stay well clear of this movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI cant go for long describing this tittle, simply because I do not feel strong about it. I read a few comments and I see that only proud and patriotic Frenchmen seem to like it, that's all I can say...
Boring Long Sometimes even stupid...
p.s. 7.4 out of 10, the viewers must be going crazy
I cant go for long describing this tittle, simply because I do not feel strong about it. I read a few comments and I see that only proud and patriotic Frenchmen seem to like it, that's all I can say...
Boring Long Sometimes even stupid...
p.s. 7.4 out of 10, the viewers must be going crazy
\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 really is that bad, and I'm normally a sucker for bad movies, but this was too much. Seeing this is like OD'ing on pure SUCK. Now, you may think you've seen the bottom of the barrel. You may have waded through every title from Full Moon and Troma, all the movies of Edward D. Wood Jr, Uwe Boll, Albert Pyun and direct to DVD-flicks from faded men-of-action. You may even have seen Death Tunnel, Ghost Lake and a vast array of the movies that MST3K covered, but in their original form. But you do not know truly awful film-making until you have seen Darkhunters. And if you haven't, you shouldn't. Don't bother. Not only is this movie amazingly poorly written, directed, shot, edited, acted and splattered in crude, cheap aftereffects. First of all, it's a pretentious mess. But not good, Greenaway or Lynch-style pretentious or hilariously messy in an Ittenbach or early Waters sort of fashion. It's the kind of pretentiousness that comes when someone incredibly stupid thinks they've come up with something incredibly smart. Sort of like M. Night Shaymalan (sp?), only that man seems like a freakin' messiah when compared to this trainwreck (and this coming from a rampant Shaymalan hater). It's also boring. Not heavy going-type boring, which is okay, if the movie awards your patience. Darkhunters does no such thing. It's boring in a \"Oh my fu(king God, if I see another shot of a cat set to an obnoxious audio cue I am going to fu(king kill myself!\"-kind of way.
Btw. anyone who claims to like this film is a boldfaced liar and anyone who claims this film is complex or deep knows what their mother is like in bed.
\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 really can't understand how some people \"enjoyed\" this movie. It's the worst thing I have ever seen. Even the actors seem to be bored...and I think that says it all!
However, I have to give my applause to the opening credits creators - that team seems to have a really good future. That's why I recommend the big studios to watch ONLY the opening credits, and one or two special effects sequences (if they're watched outside this movie, it almost looks like a good movie).
Better luck (or judgment) next time for the producers of this, this... this \"thing!\".
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHm. Where do I start? I usually ignore whatever rating IMDb has when looking up a movie because I think I might like it anyway or whatever and I should at least give it a chance, but this time I wish I'd paid attention.
I know some people liked it, and I'm not trying to say that they shouldn't. It was semi-amusing at some parts. But if you're like me and you don't like watching cats prancing around in the undergrowth for 20 minutes, random fast motion cloud scenes, dogs barking in cages for another 20 minutes set to 'thrilling' music, and close-ups of faces while people are speaking, then you might want to avoid this movie. The actors were either positively wooden or way over the top, and the film quality was awful, fuzzy and grainy and bland and not in an artistic way at all. And I know that we were supposed to think that Carol was not just a crazy maniac with a gun shooting innocent people with this weird religious psychosis going on, but... well, she doesn't really convince me otherwise. In fact, I ended up really disliking her crazy character. And what was up with the souls in space? I understand this is a fantasy movie, but come on.
I will say, the angel at the end was freaking creepy. It was the creepiest thing in the whole movie, WAY more creepy than the Darth Maul lava-face demon. I give them props for that scene, it was good. But not good enough to actually see the movie. And the opening credits were great, but don't be fooled! I would've rather they used whatever money went into those credits to make the movie better.
Bah. I wish I hadn't bought this for even the $2 that I paid for it, I could have bought a candy bar instead. :/
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is truly one of the most awful movies of all time. It's dull, ponderous, badly acted, and teeth crawlingly pretentious.
I watched for about an hour waiting for some kind of drama to unfold, before realising there wasn't any. The shot on a shoe string budget was particularly painful. These have to be the worst day for night shots since Plan Nine from Outer Space.
The only barely redeeming feature is the ludicrous 'demons' wandering around the countryside with a plastic cat basket. How scary is that? And I did like the moggys used as extras, I suppose they are least cheap. Though it did seem a bit obvious that they had been enticed into camera by the careful placement of some tuna.
This film is so dreadful, it should have a public health warning. There was a queue at my local video store when I took it back, of people demanding their money back. I kid you not!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt's hard and I didn't expect it... But it's really the worst film, me and my wife saw. Awful dialogs that extend incomprehensibly through time without any apparent reason except to fill time. The storytelling doesn't follow a comprehensive intelligibly way everything is a mess. The action and the dialogs appear at jumps. The thing that disappointed me most was to see Dominique Pinon one of my French favorite actors involved in this uh I don't even know how to describe it without being polite The rest of the actors where at the most poor. Susan Paterno made a terrible interpretation of her character, making a flat inexpressive performance. Poor special effects. I don't think that it was a complete waste of film but it's close to If I'm to say I would advise everyone not to see this movie. I think it would be a complete waste of time. Sincerely I never though I would say something like that about a movie but there's always a first time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAt what point does a film become so bad it's good? Compelling in it's awfulness, Darkhunters stands out as a shining example of c**p cinematography and for that alone, probably deserves some kind of award.
The plot revolves around the age old battle of Heaven and Hell for the unclaimed souls of the recently dead. In the case of Darkhunters, the representatives of good and evil manifest themselves variously as a herd of cats, a hooded Grim Reaper figure with a face of flickering flames similar to a coal effect electric fire, a Philip Marlowe-a-like with a seriously bad manicure and a female psychologist who appears to be on day-release from Kwik-Save.
The protagonists are competing for the soul of a newly dead teacher who spends most of the film running around a foggy field and bizarrely, a boarding kennels in an attempt to evade his pursuers.
The plot is spread thinner than a dieter's sandwich with no character development or attempt to build suspense. The acting is laughable, comparable to a school play - although that would be an insult to many educational establishments. And the dialogue .......... oh, how my sides ached! With the unclaimed souls of the dead being described as \"life's unwanted gherkins\" by the flame-glow demon, you wonder whether Hell really is a McDonalds.
But is is bizarrely compelling, you find yourself watching just to see how bad it can get - at just over 80 minutes, it's worth the time spent for the unintentional giggles.
\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's a shame. There's an interesting idea here, but it gets completely lost in a confusion of Commodore 64 style computer effects and bad storytelling. The plot, such as it is, concerns a bounty hunter of souls. It should be a fairly straightforward hunter/hunted kind of story, but the director and/or the writer seem like they forgot what the movie was supposed to be when they were about three days into shooting. Things aren't helped by the fact that the main baddie looks like he's wearing a cheap Darth Maul mask, which they tried to disguise with flowing CG colors. Not much to recommend here, even the title seems to propel it into obscurity.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI don't even understand what they tried to accomplish with this movie, i mean really. You got this guy running from a bunch of cats, because he's dead, but in order to be really dead this girl has to shoot them? And they leave a corpse even though normal people can't see them because their dead? The script already has a hole in it the size of Nebraska, then you have the main character played by Susan Paterno who just drones up her lines in a monotone, boring voice and with so little emotion on her face she might as well have starred as a female terminator robot. It's absolutely horrendous and I don't even understand how I managed to see it all the way to the end of the movie. The end being just as stupid as the entire movie mind you, and with absolutely no reward in it for the viewer what so ever. They might as well have called this movie \"the little movie that could choo-choo ka-choo.\"
\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\nHey guys and girls! Don't ever rent, or may God forbid, buy this piece of garbage. I have rarely seen a film in any genre as bad as this one. The acting is actually worse than me and my friends did when we were 7 and in the 1.grade had to act in front of all parents and siblings. In fact, we would have been taken up to evaluation for the Oscars, if we were to be compared to the actors in Darkhunters. The story is terrible, the makeup is terrible, the filming is terrible, the set is terrible, the directing is terrible, etc. I can't actually find ANYTHING worth the money spent to see this film.. Maybe except all the cats, which my girlfriend thought were kind of cute. Please, use your money on other things than on this film.... I couldn't even see the last 15-20 minutes of the film, it was that terrible.. If anyone really liked this film, I would REALLY like to hear from you, and I will try to see if I can get you some counseling at a psychiatrist's office near you..
0 out of 10, actually below if possible.. Not worth the DVD or tape it is on..
\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 one and the one prior \"Toulon's Revenge\" and the next one seem to be completely different from the first two movies where the puppets were not so nice. It is basically choose your series, the first two go together and paint the puppets as killers, while the next three are a series of them being the good guys. This one plays out to much like some cheesy television series episode to be as good as part three was and I never really had the urge to try and watch part five of the series. Basically, a kid gets the puppets while some strange dark lord or something sends his evil puppets out to kill, this dark lord looks like some sort of enemy from one of those live action Japanese shows like Ultraman. The movie is over before you know it though so it has to get credit for not inflicting you with a very painful to watch movie. Just to many plot holes and things in it for it to be considered an okay movie. You do get to see the guy who played Toulon in the last movie though then you have a very anti-climatic battle and wham the movie is over before it really begins.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film has some flaws, and most of those flaws are a lack of anything happening. Possibly the greatest film to show the direness within Fly-Over Country, \"Rolling Kansas\" is a film in which nothing happens and you don't care about anybody. Like life, it starts, it moves, and then it ends. A few attempts at humor are made, but everything falls very flat. The occasional cameo just reminds the viewer that they could be wasting their life doing something besides watching this movie and the one rock song they bought and used at every single instance.
Do yourself a favor and go see a good movie. This is free and repeatedly frequently on Comedy Central because nobody went to see it, nobody wants to see it, and it's marginally better than dead air. Not to damn with faint praise, but the movie's one rock song is worth listening to. Too bad the movie isn't worth watching.
\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 retarded a cheap movie that tries to be a stoner movie because the characters are looking for pot but none of them are smokers just a bunch of garbage Thomas Hayden church should not direct anymore especially this movie which is a waste of film. People who liked this movie gave good comments but from all the people on here some are just retarded and don't watch movies so they think that any bad movie is good the actors suck and the movie sucks balls.
I think that many people are going to be upset because this movie tries to make itself look like the ultimate weed movie when it is just the worst movie about weed that I have ever seen I hope that people will stop the director from directing crap like this even weed cannot make this movie funny or entertaining .
\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 time I see a film like this I get sick to my stomach. When I watch a movie I like to see what I see in everyday life. As I go through my day I see blacks, whites, Asians, Latinos etc...How do you cast a film and don't even think of the possibility that other ethnic groups will walk past you? I'm sure they didn't do it on purpose but pay attention. I don't care if it takes place in Kansas or South Central. All I saw was one token black. This was typical in the 80's. Hey! it's 2007, with all the rappers, singers and athletes working as actors Thomas Haden Church could have paid more attention to his cast. Aren't actors supposed to be more liberal?
\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...Or better yet, watch Fandango if you want to see a really intelligent and funny male college age road flick. Rolling Kansas sounded promising (in fact the program guide gave it 2.5 out of 4 stars which usually means it's fairly watchable) but I pretty much fast-forwarded through it. Usually road trip movies have great music, but I can't even recall whether there was music. The only high point was a small role with Rip Torn as a wise old hitchhiker/guru. Otherwise the jokes and timing missed all along the way. The four main characters are unknown actors and I don't remember seeing any of them in another movie. (Oh, yeah, I see that Thos. Hayden Church was in it, but he's in everything, good, bad or indifferent). This movie is about as funny as watching someone else stoned when you're not.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was extremely disappointing, I thought it would be another 'marijuana comedy' but don't be mislead, it's not at all. There are barely any weed-related jokes that come to mind, I don't even think they smoke any weed in this movie. The marijuana field is merely a plot device.
My impression after seeing this film was that four friends were bored one summer and decided to write up a script full of (their idea of) witty dialog and make a movie. The product is bland dialog supported by mediocre acting, to say this movie has no 'hook' is a huge understatement. Don't waste your time or money.
\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 mean, nothing happens, 5 dumb kids go to Oklahoma to find a magical forest of marijuana... this could've been fun, if it hadn't been for the 5 worst actors in the world. And the dialogs weren't even half an inch of fun. The only thing that I almost showed my teeth of, was when the dumb cops stopped the teenagers in either Oklahoma or Kansas... The plot could have been fun, had it not been for abysmal interpretation. If you even think about watching this piece-of-crap movie, don't. How dumb is it, that the guy gets away from the cops by telling them he's gay, like his friend did (just that he wasn't pretending...) and there's that dumb hick joke about the several meanings to the word \"gay\". I'm laughing my hair off.......NOT....... Anyway... WORST MOVIE I'VE EVER SEEN!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nYes, I admire the independent spirit of it all, but it's like Road Trip with a bad cast and no budget.
I chuckle when I watch American comedies, I don't laugh. This movie made me laugh, but only because of the abundantly obvious attempts to simulate high-budget American high school/pot-flicks.
If you want good independent American comedy with pot-references, go watch Kevin Smith or Richard Linklater flicks or something. Don't waste your time on this piece of sh't movie.
I mean, how can you take these comments seriously when most people are complaining about the characters not smoking pot!
And by the way: in Norway it's called \"Dude, Where's My Pot\"!
\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've read the positive comments on this movie. I assume people who were in this movie must've come to this site to give it some good press because this was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I always watch the whole film despite the quality or lack there of which explains why I watched this whole movie, but I don't think I laughed even once during the duration of this film. The jokes were mostly very bad, but when the jokes had some promise, the delivery was off. If you liked it, maybe you should lay off the buds because you need to preserve the 5 or 6 brain cells you have left. This movie had a poor script, bad acting, poor directing, weak plot... nothing of virtue and was not entertaining. If you haven't seen this movie, don't.
\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\nCruddy, innocent..no smoking, drinking or bikers, but Jeremy Slate (good actor) and Jocelyn Lane (good actress) make this moronically feasible for a bad biker flick, post-biker (exploit) time. They knew it, we knew it...Adam Roarke and Slate are wasted..but they lived on.
A 3 out of 10. Best performance = Jocelyn Lane. Lane is the ONLY really to catch the final exploit biker film after RUN, ANGEL, RUN (which also has good actors - like Don Stroud, etc.). It was over. They knew it. They were trying to make a living. But, Jocelyn Lane (from two Elvis bad flicks, TICKLE ME and something bad one) in yellow and leather is the modern hot chick with J. Slate fighting for honor. It's worth seeing, but it sucks. But check it out. Well worth non-biker, non-smoker, non-boozing, \"biker\" types with hot chicks.
\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\nSome people say this show was good in it's early years! I disagree with all of 'em. The show is just plain stupid and pathetic. My mum hates it, I hate it, my dad hates it, I don't know about my sister but oh well. Here some reasons why:
1. THE CHARACTERS: Babies being used as grown up style characters are stupid. The babies are just precocious and annoying. The grown ups and adults are dumb and unappealing. The worst character is that Angelica Pickles (she really does it in for your ear drums when you had a long, hard and miserable day at the office) and also that Kimi Finster who appears later on; she is too over optimistic and a pain in the butt. She can't decided whither she is French or Japanese: it doesn't matter know; you are a American Citizen know and that's that! Oh, what am I talking about, all the characters from this show suck!
2. THE STORIES: The stories are unoriginal and dumb. The make it like the babies go off on a great adventure, yeah to the back yard shed. In one episode, that little goofy brat, Tommy Pickles the Leader broke in to a television's control room and literally almost destroyed it. Don't give kids any idea to smash up normal T.V Station's control rooms (they pay a awful lot of money for them in real life). I can imagine what the broadcasters must of felt like airing this episode, they will probably start staring at their machines throughout the day scared that a baby will brake in. Sad!
3. OVER RATED!: The show has been dragging on for years now and people are still making up stories and new series and spin-offs for this. Get off! The Simpsons have been going for nearly the same amount of time as this but they are much better and funnier than babies. The show is just plain over rated! People, where is your common sense!
Anyway, I surprised T.V Stations across the world want to air this series even off today. The show is utter junk and should have never been produced. The two movies for this cartoons sucked just the same! 2/10
\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\nI'm a fan of this generally excellent though sometimes rather dull show but Season 3 has taken some terrible plot directions. The episode HERO is an example of what I mean.
The story as it eventually unravels is that the Cylons deliberately allow Bulldog - a pilot captured several years earlier during a black ops mission - to escape, steal a Cylon ship and get back to Galactica. The plan is that when Bulldog gets back he will figure out that Adama left him to his fate and be so enraged that he will kill Adama, which he very nearly does.
Now the problem is this - the Cylons set it up so that Bulldog thinks he has escaped by himself. This means that Bulldog gets off the Cylon ship with no assistance. So he kills a Cylon and walks out of his holding cell - that much we see. Then, we must suppose that he walks to the flight hangar, manages to get into a Cylon fighter ship and learn how to operate it, takes off and flies back to Galactica. Just like that.
Now Starbuck managed to get one of them working in Season One, which was barely believable in itself, but she only had to fly it visually out of orbit before making contact with Galactica. Bulldog has to programme his ship so that it makes several jumps through hyperspace and manages to catch up with Galactica somewhere thousands of light years away, in an unknown direction. How does he manage to programme a ship that contains completely alien technology? Cylons connect to their computers by touch, there are no visual consoles or keyboards. And having managed that miraculous feat, how does he then know where Galactica is, bearing in mind that Galactica took off some 3 years before and is trying ever since to evade the Cylons - it does not leave beacons behind? Even allowing for the suspension of disbelief that must apply to any sci-fi show, this episode still absolutely no sense whatsoever.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere is something about this show that keeps me watching and hoping for the future of it. In the writing, the jokes are few and far between, and the story lines are a bore, so I figure it must be the physical comedy and the visuals.
I do enjoy the camera movement, set dressing, and wardrobe. It's amusingly highly contrasted against the dullness that reigns. And I'm pretty sure every time I have laughed it was because of John or Molly's physical comedy. The two of them make a sickeningly cute couple that make me laugh and want to puke at the same time.
So here I go ready to sit down to Kath & Kim one more time tonight to see what path this production will go down (or up as the case may be, looking forward positively).
\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\nMe being from Australia and loving the series, I wasn't expecting much from the American version of Kath and Kim but I thought I'd watch the first episode to see if it was really that bad.
Well,whats there to say. Its nothing special.Selma Blair is OK as Kim and actually had a few good lines, Molly Shannon is not a good Kath though. The good thing about Jane Turner's Kath is that when she speaks with all her funny accents (such as when she says Yumor or Noice) it sounds like its just the natural way that she speaks, but when Shannon has a go at the accent, its clear that she is acting and trying to be the same as Turner. And the show really misses Sharon or some one else to give us something to laugh about, because the Kal and Craig characters in this version are really not funny.
So far only the first episode has aired and it is clearly not up to the standards of the Aussie version, although if it was a stand alone television show with a different name, not being compared to the Aussie version it would perhaps be viewed as being a little bit better. But if there is nothing else to do on a Sunday night (or Thursday night in America) then you cant do much harm in watching it, or better put on some of the Aussie version if you've got 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 watched the first episode and I found it to be a very wooden performance.
I have watched the original from it's early days on Big Girls Blouse to the last series on Channel seven. Kath and Kim was a great Mocumentary and it's humor is something that most people get.
However in this American version I found it to be dull, Molly Shannon is to fashionable to be Kath Day, Kath's wardrobe is supposed to be stuck in the 80s with her frizzy perm. While Selma Blair's figure hugging clothes isn't as good as what the original Kimmy wore. I also found that Selma seemed to be puffing her belly out a lot, she is obviously a (Australian) size 12 where Kim should be (Australian) a size 16/18.
The exchanges from Molly and Selma is obviously so scripted and there is pauses where there shouldn't be pauses or the pauses are a bit long, as someone suggested there could be a laughter track in there during those pauses. It's like Molly and Shannon are not used to each other, there is no Mother/Daughter chemistry.
Phil was okay he had the eccentric air around him like Kel. However Craig was to handsome and not the sweet plain humble Brett from the Aussie version.
I found watching this was like watching a very bad stage play. The acting was pretty much wooden and the exaggeration of Selma's expressions wore the funny off after ten minutes. Especially her sulking scenes.
To sum up, I find this show to be a waste of time, the script obviously has been dumbed down for Americans which most on the board say they prefer the original. If NBC wanted to show Kath and Kim why not pay the producers the money to screen the original.
All I can add is Magda you are one smart cookie for not letting the producers use your character of Sharon.
\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 I can say about the American version is that Jane Turner and Gina Reilly must be raking in the money for this crap. Yes, the American rip-off was shown for about two episodes in Australia but didn't rate; probably by curious viewers who were wondering how bad it would be. Answer: DEPLORABLE, a complete waste of time. The actors are relatively unknown and they don't take readily to the nuances of the Australian-written script. Bad luck for them as they are doomed to plummet with this turkey. My advice to USA viewers is DON'T.
Americans should be best advised to find DVD's of the ORIGINAL VERSION on eBay, but be aware that some DVDs are in a different 'zone format' to those issued in the USA. Otherwise, some DVD players will operate discs from both/all zones.
\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 isn't TOO bad, but ultimately it lacks the quality that the Australian series has.
The jokes are few and far between, the actors are attractive (they shouldn't be), the film makers think far too much about the cinematography (it's supposed to look like a home video) and it's just like a serious version of Kath and Kim... it's stupid.
It's too normal to be Kath and Kim. Kath and Kim are supposed to be two curvy, middle-aged women who think they are hot and wear ridiculous clothes. There are no \"Look at me Kimmy!\" jokes. The fat friend of Kim is not fat at all and she's not even slightly stupid. She's a stereotypical black/Latino chick.
It's just not as stupid or funny as the Australian series. It doesn't compare. Nothing is the same. I admit, this show is pretty funny at times, but it is NOT anything like the Aussie series. I was looking forward to an American take on a bogan family. They failed. It's supposed to be REALLY stupid and hilarious, but the actors don't act stupid! To me, this is just a typical American TV show. It's a let down if you want it to be anything like the Aussie show.
2 Stars because it is an OKAY show, just nothing like what it should be.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe original Australian Kath & Kim is brilliant. Why do American producers need to remake & ruin yet another classic show? Remember the original version of \"The Office\" with Ricky Gervais, It was an absolute masterpiece, and there was no need to remake it. The producers said that the British humour from \"The Office\" and the Australian humour from \"Kath & Kim\" would not translate to an American audience......... WHAT??? So basically they are saying that Americans are too dumb and stupid to understand the jokes, so they need to remake the shows with over-the-top childish gags, so that the Americans can understand the humour. The original Australian version of Kath & Kim is fantastic and very funny. Avoid the American version like the plague!!
\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've tried watching it twice, though I haven't been able to make through either episode. For me, it's basically just not funny. I can tell where I'm suppose to laugh, but I can't. I've never seen the original, so I'm not comparing. I also love comedies, including off-the-wall comedies like Married...With Children and Family Guy, but this show just doesn't' do it for me. The jokes are lame and flat, and the acting is mostly annoying. The commercials made it look interesting, but it isn't. They're trying too hard to be different, and tying to force the humor. That style usually doesn't work too well. I don't think this show finishes the season. Of course, I could be wrong.
\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\nNeed I say more? The reason the GOOD Australian version of Kath and Kim was, as mentioned, good, was because of it's hilariously funny originality. The reason this new American-ised version is so terrible is because a lot of it is taken straight from the original. Not to mention the unfaithfulness to the characters. Kath is meant to be a dag. Kim is meant to be fat. Kel (or Phil as they have dubbed him) is meant to be pathetic. Brett (or Craig) is meant to be a loser, not a person who acts like he's on heroin and finishes every sentence with 'dude'. Thank God Szubanski didn't sell her rights to Sharon, she'd probably end up being a tall thin blonde who Kim likes.
Kath and Kim are MOTHER AND DAUGHTER. They are not meant to look 2 years apart. And they are not meant to giggle like school girls. This show is a disgrace to even share the same title as the Australian version. America: get your own television shows.
\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\nHard to believe - but it is! I shouldn't be surprised. Commercials try to show how unique and \"funny\" a show can be. Yet not only didn't the commercials announcing this new show have the slightest iota of humor to me, I've not spoken with anyone who found the commercials amusing, either.
I don't recall ever seeing a pilot so devoid of cleverness, cuteness or humor. The characters were insufferable for the most part. Especially Selma Blair's (which is astonishing she would agree to be in a fecal sample of a show like this). The few moments where the characters were slightly redeemable were considerably hackneyed and trite.
Rare is the show with no redeemable qualities at all. And this is not one of them. Kath and Kim has exactly ONE redeeming quality - and that's Selma Blair. Despite wearing repugnant outfits and acting like a pitiful, whiny stupid excuse for a young woman who seems like a cross between Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian, Selma is still nice to look at.
But if you want to look at Selma, go rent Hellboy. You'll at least maintain a modicum of respect for her instead of searing this abominable character into your brain to associate with her.
All in all, Kath and Kim is a waste and truly epitomizes the worst that TV is or ever has been. It sets a new low.
\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 this film mistakenly thinking that it was that other radio station zombie flick. The shonky production values and low-rent cast soon gave away that this was another one of the those cheap sci-fi channel style knock offs.
The central performance from Bill Moseley is initially quite engaging as the dubious radio shock jock but as the film goes on becomes less and less convincing as he is actually required to act. The rest of the cast have little to do other than look concerned and have no depth whatsoever.
The cinematography is dull, flat and completely uninspired, like so many of these kind of films. It doesn't even manage a decent bit of convincing gore, the zombie make up is literally pathetic apart from one notable exception towards the end of the film.
The film tries to inject originality and a message into it's concoction of half baked and ripped off ideas by somehow equating this outbreak with intolerance towards Islam and the war on terror. This is woefully handled with all the intellectual clout of a 6 year old. As the characters and seemingly the writers are unable to distinguish the difference between race and religion - describing all people of a certain skin colour as \"muslims.\" Most notably one character is revealed to be Muslim by skin colour alone. At the same time the \"muslim\" terrorists who cause the outbreak are the usual psychopathic stereotype.
Presumably the far far superior Pontypool had a similar budget as Dead Air yet shines everywhere where this film fails miserably.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"