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 grew up watching Inspector Gadget. It was, and still is, one of my favorite cartoons, if not my absolute favorite. I learned a lot of geography and history from the spin-off Inspector Gadget's Field Trip. I wanted to slip on a banana peel and become the greatest detective ever.
But the film has ruined the reputation of the wonderful cartoon.
Matthew Broderick, an actor with potential, was definitely NOT the role for Inspector Gadget. First thing- in the film, Inspector Gadget is smart. Not so in the cartoon. In the film, Gadget solves the mystery mostly by himself. In the cartoon, it was almost always Penny, Brain, and the awesome book (I still want her book!). If Gadget solved the mystery, it was by accident. Gadget in the film seems to be a competent detective, but in the cartoon was pretty dumb, which was where the humor came from.
Another thing is that it's too much \"Good Guy v. Bad Guy\" in the film. It's not just meant to be a silly Saturday morning cartoon. Also, Gadget never should have a love story, but Disney Corporation is filled with idiots.
Also I miss the true gadgets that Gadget had, and especially the Gadget car. In the movie it was a chic convertible. In the cartoon it was a sedan police car and could turn into a van. It also barely had any gadgets and was mainly there to get him from place to place.
But if anything, the one thing that was terrible about the movie was that it was a feature movie. Inspector Gadget was a silly Saturday morning cartoon. The movie was too serious, too overdone, had too much of a plot and wasn't even remotely as funny.
Tip for those who haven't seen it: NEVER see it. EVER. Watch the cartoon, it's a true classic.
\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\nOnce again, Disney manages to make a children's movie which totally ignores its background. About the only thing common with this and the original Gadget cartoons is the names. The most glaring errors are the characters - Penny does not have her book, Brain has been reduced from a character to a fancy prop, Dr Claw is more a show-off than an evil villain, etc. but there are more than that. The horrors start from the first minutes of the film - having Gadget as a security guard called John Brown doesn't help identifying him as the classic Inspector Gadget. And right in the beginning we see Disney's blatant attempt to turn every story ever into a love affair between a man and a woman - they introduce Brenda, who only serves to make this movie Disney-compatible. Add to this the fact that the \"Claw\" seen in this film and the classic Dr Claw are almost diagonally opposite and you'll see this is going to be nowhere near the original storyline. What would help would be a better storyline to replace it - but as you guessed, Disney failed in that too. The whole movie is just Gadget acting silly for silliness's sake and lusting after Brenda. As if to add insult to the injury, Disney introduced the \"new\" Gadgetmobile - it doesn't look, function or think like the old Gadgetmobile at all, it's just the canonical \"comic relief\" figure. Disney obviously recognised that the Gadget cartoons were a comedy, so they made the film a comedy too, but they took out all the clever running gags (like the assignment paper exploding in the Chief's face) and replaced them with Gadget being a moron, the Gadgetmobile being a wise-ass, and \"Claw\" showing off. Someone should tell Disney that \"children's movie\" doesn't imply \"total lack of any brain usage\". Gadget should be targeted for children of 10-12 years... not children of 10-12 months like this movie. Whatever this movie is supposed to be, it is NOT, repeat NOT, the real Inspector Gadget. Because I love the old Gadget, I hate 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\nI used to have a fascination with the cartoon back in college when it was being made. It had much the charm of \"Get Smart\". While it admittedly had its faults, it was rather enjoyable.
Naturally I was very interested in seeing the film version. That was before I saw it. Afterwords I wished it had never been made.
Besides being miscast all around (who on Earth though Broderick was even close to the role?) it just didn't make the grade.
The effects were reasonable and perhaps the ONLY thing I liked about the movie; seeing a live-action version of the gadgets in action! What was missing was a story and treatment which made it funny or charming or interesting.
The original was a wacky cartoon with a very lighthearted attitude. It was FUN. The motion picture became murky and took itself FAR too seriously. If it had seriously had a great plot or went crazy enough to make it seem like a \"cartoon on film\" it might have been enjoyable.
As it exists it doesn't deserve to be considered part of the \"Gadget Legacy\".
\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 grew up watching the old Inspector Gadget cartoon as a kid. It was like Get Smart for kids. Bumbling boob can't solve any case and all the work is done by the walking talking dog Brain and his niece Penny. I had heard the live action movie was decent so I checked it out at the library. I rented this movie for free and felt I should have been paid to see this.
Broderick comes nowhere near the caliber of acting Don Adams had as the voice of gadget. His voice was all wrong. The girl who played Penny looked nothing like the cartoon Penny. She is brunette where the cartoon version was blonde with pigtails. But she does do a decent job given what she had to work with. Dabney Coleman gives a good performance as Cheif Quimby. Saldy he never hid in any odd place or had exploding messages tossed at him accidently by Gadget.
The gadget mobile was wrong. It never talked in the series and it did fine. Why did they do this?
Gadget was too intelligent in this film. In the show he was a complete idiot. Here he had a halfway decent intellect. It would have worked better if he was a moron.
Also the completely butchered the catchphrase. Borderick says \"Wowser\". It is and should always be \"Wowsers\". It sounds lame with out the 's'. I got upset when they showed the previews and they didn't have the correct phrase.
The ONLY decent gags were during the credits. The lacky for Claw is in front of a support group for recovering henchmen/sidekicks. Seated in the audience is Mr. T, Richard Keil aka Jaws of Bond movie fame, a Herve Villacheze look alike, Oddjob, Kato and more. This is about the only part I laughed at.
The other is at the end where Penny is checking out here gadget watch and tells brain to say somethin. Don Adams voices the dog saying that \"Brain isn't in right now. Please leave your name at the sound of the woof. Woof.\" of course this isn't laugh out loud funny, just a nice piece of nostalgia to hear Adams in the movie. He should have at least voiced the stupid car.
Kids will like this, anyone over 13 won'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\nI was a huge fan of the original cartoon series, and was looking forward to finally seeing Gadget on the big screen -- but I never in my wildest dreams expected something so extremely extremely terrible. The pace was WAY too fast, there was no plot, and 'wowser!' - what the hell is that?? It was 'WOWSERS!!'.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWell. Where to begin. Let's just say this; avoid this movie at all
costs. It's based on a cartoon series. The movie makes the cartoon look
like Hamlet. Filled with emasculated actors who seem embarrassed to be
here, lousy camera work, terrible music, and enough product placement to
make you want to never visit Yahoo! again, this movie is really the
bottom of the barrel. To quote the New Yorker, Matthew Broderick and
Rupert Everett mug their way through this picture with the gay abandon
of men who have spotted a rare species of paycheck in the distance.\"
They should pay us some of the millions they earned for watching it.
Awful.
\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 enjoy seeing what must have started as a 2 hour movie in unconnected bursts of unwatchability, you'll love this film. Otherwise, you'll just wonder how they could have made such a film from something so simple to translate to the big screen as Inspector Gadget.
In the previews for the film, many scenes were shown which were not in the film, and within the film, some scenes just don't make sense. While the movie is slightly less than 1 hour and a half, I can only think of one truly memorable moment, and that is just before or during the credits!

\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one of those movies you think that the makers would refuse to release it because it is so terrible. Obviously they were thinking that children are stupid and are excellent for absorbing endless ads and would think they are entertainment because it is slapstick funny. What is it with the talking car with buttons that say Wendy's, McDonalds, M&M's and Skittles? There was no talking car in the cartoon. (Dr.) Claw is supposed to be evil, not handsome and charming. Why is Rupert Everet 'Claw' anyway? Were the writers on drugs when they wrote these scenes? It looks like they were (badly) lampooning Robo Cop, with the turning a man into a crime fighting android thing. I tried to get my money back but there was a policy where if I watch more than 30 minutes of a movie, you don't get a refund. I'm sorry I watched more than 30 minutes of that pile of crap. After I was told the no-refund policy, I decided to watch the rest of the hideous garbage called Inspector Gadget.
\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 not quite sure why, but this movie just doesn't play the way it should. It should be humerous and fun, but instead is just boring. I think a large part of it is because they way over played the \"gadgets.\" The old cartoon it is based on is much better.
3/10
\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\nSince I had loved the Inspector Gadget cartoon in the 80's, I went to see this movie. I wasted my money. The plot was very thin. Also, the movie could not keep me interested for long. I was glad it was over.
If you want to see Inspector Gadget, watch the cartoon instead. It was much better than the movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nLuckily I did not pay to see this movie. Also, I cannot even reveal any spoilers because I willingly WALKED OUT after forty minutes of the movie. It was that bad. I laughed once, when the Yahoo! billboard fell on the guy, and the theme song came on. However, that was only because I thought it was making fun of it, but then I realized it was yet ANOTHER product placement.
I loved the cartoon. I used to watch it almost religiously. (although i missed the last episode. I heard that they show Dr. Claw and it was nothing more than a Claw, somebody comment on the show's page) The cartoon had Penny and Brain alot more than the movie had, as to that point. I hated the setup of the whole thing, reminiscent of Robocop. Then Broderick screws with the whole feeling of Inspector Gadget. He is not nearly as clumsy as the cartoon was. Another fact is his gadgets actually work to the point I saw, except for the oil slick. He also screwed with the tone of \"Wowsers\" which used to be in an excited tone. I felt so disappointed that they slaughtered the cartoon so badly. Everybody else felt that way too. Us 14-17 year olds remember the cartoon fondly and we loved every minute of it.
I went into the movie with an open mind, knowing that they would have screwed with the cartoon. I was taken aback at how retarded the movie was. It relied on sight gags, and stupid dialogue for humor. Disney relies on pain and physical humor to push a kids movie along. Product placement is pointless in this film, and it shows. The wise-cracking car is not that good at cracking wise. The gadgets look nice, but they were almost overly glossy. The cartoon was a better look. The silly scenes were crap. In the 40-45 minutes I watched the movie, not one laugh was heard, and they laughed at the Dudley-Do-Right preview. This movie should not be watched by people who want intelligence in their family entertainment. I highly recommend \"The Iron Giant,\" which was sad, but very very good. This movie is a travesty to the whole family drama.------------1
\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 wanted to like this movie - the location shots were mostly filmed in Pittsburgh and the trailer had some wonderful photography. But, even for a filmed cartoon, it was a really badly-made movie. The continuity and pacing were both simply awful. The best bits in the movie are under the ending credits, so it's (almost) worth sticking it out to the end (though, oddly, it does pick up a little over the last half hour or so).
When the best performance in a movie is by Andy Dick, you know there's got to be a problem...
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhy?!! This was an insipid, uninspired and embarrassing film. The embarrassment comes from being from the city where they made it...Pittsburgh PA! Why did they let these people do such a BAAAAAD movie there?
When this movie was originally to be released...it was more of a romantic comedy...and no ROBO-anything. That all got changed along with cuteness courtesy of Disney. WHY???? They did a terrible interpretation of this classic comic character. Seeing Matthew Broderick make fun of his own movies was not fun either. Sheesh!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAfter Disney's witty live-action George of the Jungle, I had high hopes for this flick. Major disappointment. Thread bare plot, bad acting, bad visual effects. This film relied on lame one-liners, idiotic ( and pointless) product placement, and the lamest most annoying side-kick in that gadget car thing. I took two young kids to see it and they where bored out of their mind. The only laugh received from this movie was bad standby of when needing a laugh show a guy getting it in the groin!
\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. I think the TV show is kind of cute and it always has some kind of lesson involved. So, when my kids decided they wanted to see this movie, I decided to tag along. I wish I'd stayed home and watched the TV show instead.
The fact that the humor is silly and unoriginal is the least of the problems with this movie. The plot is next to non-existant, the characters seem to exist in a vacuum, and, worst of all, Gadget does not carry any lesson whatsoever. It appears that Disney took all of the things that make Inspector Gadget work on TV and tossed them all. To be fair, my younger child (8 years old) liked the movie but the older one (10 years old) came away thinking it silly (he was too old for the youth humor but too young for any of the adult humor).
Generally, I like Disney films but this one misses by a mile. It is OK for a very narrow age band (say 7 to 9) but a must miss for everybody else.
\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\nDisney's done it again. The company that made \"Mr. Magoo\" and \"George of the Jungle\" has made another movie that barely resembles the cartoon on which it is based, and keeps none of the spirit of the original.
\"Inspector Gadget\" was one of my favorite cartoons when I was a young one, and for a movie of it to exist may have been a dream come true back then. Now that that movie does exist, I was severely disappointed, even outraged.
First we have the characters.
Gadget himself has the gadgets that made him such a fun character in the original cartoon (with well-done special effects accompanying them), and he even has some of the naivete of the original Gadget, but he is now more competent and is expected to solve the crime himself while Penny and Brain just watch.
Penny has little to do; while she played a major role in the cartoon, discovering the crime and halting it, and occasionally getting captured by the MAD agents, now she is simply introduced and then forgotten, although she does at least sneak into Claw's base.
Claw is the movie's version of Dr. Claw, who was a rather sinister, raspy-voiced man who wore metallic gloves and sat in his chair, his face hidden from view, as he stroked his cat and oversaw various crimes. Now he is simply a man with a claw for a hand, with no mystery behind the character.
Brain and Mad Cat exist in the movie, but are rather insignificant to it.
Even small parts of the cartoon aren't spared in this butchering. The famous expression \"Wowsers!\" was mysteriously changed to \"Wowser\", and Gadget's Gadgetmobile now looks different and talks.
There is even product endorsements everywhere. Why is \"Yahoo!\" advertised on a sign? Why does the Gadgetmobile have buttons for M&M's or Skittles?
Fans of the cartoon will hate it, others might will likely find the movie below par, and when all is said and done, this movie is another attempt to make some quick bucks off another old show.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn keeping with Disney's well-known practice of stealing.. I mean.. buying out known properties and bastardizing them, this live-action version of the venerable cartoon classic has got to be one of the worst re-makes in a year of bad re-makes. I grew up on the original cartoon TV series. Any episode of the original cartoon series will give you more laughs than this entire movie. Not present is Penny's cool computer book. Also not present is the gag with the self-destructing orders that always ends up detonating on the Chief. New are a smooth talking Gadget convertible (the original cartoon had a cooler vehicle that could turn into a van or a car) and an element of a typical, unrealistic Hollywood romance. Don't fill the coffers to pay for Disney executives and even their _ex_executives - don't see this movie.

\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI had absolutely nothing to do the past weekend, and tagged along with my friends to check out a movie...any movie. And since the only movie we'd not seen was Inspector Gadget, we decided to go in for that.
BIG MISTAKE. This is a movie that might appeal only to kids. Oh, and it's not like I don't enjoy movies targeted at the younger audience. But this movie had absolutely nothing to hold my attention. If you have nothing to do at home, go to sleep. Better than wasting hard-earned cash on this. Go check out the film if you're a kid or if you're a parent with a kid :)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n5 minutes into this movie I was hyperventilating, shaking, and writhing in pain. And not in the good way. The story is about a troupe of idiotic children making prank phone calls to a psycho which is always a good idea. Turns out psychos don't like prank phone calls because in 2 minutes time he's at their door killing poor Williams mom and dad. Well skip ahead 15 years and guess what? Still prank phone calling people. Yep you would of thought that a horrible murder would of deterred them from doing that ever again but no. So after about two hours later and way too many scream ripoffs I realized that this movie gave me nothing but a terrible taste in my mouth and a severe urge to take my own life. This piece of crap isn't even worth laughing at the shoddy production, the \"acting\", or Rutger haurs dwindling career. I love crappy horror movies but this is the most unsatisfying piece I've ever seen. Just 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\nSaw it yesterday night at the Midnight Slam of the Festival des films du Monde in Montreal. What a disappointment. This movie is clearly over rated by IMDb fans. The acting was only but regular. The directing didn't bring anything new or interesting. The plot lacks considerably : the movie is all about those college grads and the game they play making prank calls(7eventy 5ive). And on top of that, you can predict the movie's end in the first five minutes. If you like prank calls and a slasher with an axe that makes you jump only once or twice during the whole movie, you might like it. If you don't, this movie is not worth 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\nThe plot of 7EVENTY 5IVE involves college kids who play a cruel phone game that unexpectedly (to them, if not to fans of horror) gets them in over their heads. The STORY of 7EVENTY 5IVE, on the other hand, is that of a horror film that had a wee little bit of promise, sadly outweighed by really bad writing.
What could have been a fun, if somewhat silly, old-fashioned slasher tale is derailed early on by its filmmakers' misguided belief that the audience would enjoy watching a bunch of loud, whiny rich kids bitching at each other for most of the film's running time. With the exception of a police detective played by Rutger Hauer, (in a minor role that is designed mainly to add the movie's only star power) every character on screen is a different breed of young A-hole.
Male and female, black and white, straight and gay, an entire ensemble of shallow and shrill college kids carries the bulk of the film's narrative. Worse, since the tale deals with a PARTY game gone awry, most of the time the scenes are completely filled with these little b*****ds. Because of this, there are few breaks for the viewer, who must put up with the angry sniping of the thinly-drawn protagonists. Even though at least some of these people are supposedly friends, invariably all characters interact in a very hostile manner, long before any genuine conflict has actually arisen. This leads to the worst possible result in a slasher film: The audience, intended to care about the leads, instead not only cheers on the anonymous killer, but wishes that he had arrived to start picking off the vacuous brats far earlier.
The real shame of this poor characterization is that otherwise 7EVENTY 5IVE actually DID have some potential. Visually it's fine. First-time directors Brian Hooks and Deon Taylor know how to build a suspenseful mood. They also manage to deliver on some competent, if sparse, moments of classic 80s-style gore. Surprisingly, the production's cast is also fairly able. It isn't that the actors aren't capable of expressing realistic human emotion; it is simply that the screenplay (co-written by newcomer Vashon Nutt and director Hooks, who fared much better behind the camera than with a keyboard) is short of such moments.
7EVENTY 5IVE can hardly be recommended, as its familiar premise and few thrills can't outweigh the bad taste left behind by a story driven by a gaggle of unpleasant characters. In this tepid whodunnit, the real mystery is why anyone should care about a group of young folk who can't even manage to like each other.
\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 an utter disappointment! The score of 6,1 here on IMDb built up some mild expectations but, oh my, was I disappointed. The first thing that bugs me are those braindead, stereotyped university kids. Yes, I know teens can be childish and so on, but why are they in movies always portrayed as complete braindead morons? There was one character that I thought was alright, but he/she (not revealing it here) was killed off way before the end. The other characters was poorly executed and even the supposed hero/heroine just didn't do it for me. On the plus side: The plot is pretty good and the productions values a cut above for these kind of flicks. The acting was generally not very good, Rutger Hauer stands out in a small role. But it all fails with bland and braindead characters. You just stop caring about them after 10 minutes. 4/10 (and thats being generous).
\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 I caught a glimpse of the title I thought are we going to get another try-hard hip slasher, but actually I found \"7eventy 5ive\" to be a mildly passable, and almost 80s throwback after a tediously slow mid-section it picks up momentum for the final half-hour leading to it's outrageously tacky climax and downright cop out ending. It won't win awards for originality, because it's as systematic as you can get and steals its thunder in the way of thrills (usual cheap jump scares), location (secluded mansion) and motivation from other films. The gleaming direction is by-the-book and the material is quite hackneyed with poorly realised red herrings within its elaborate plotting and flimsy script. Sometimes laughable, but nonetheless I was entertained mainly due to its brutal and grisly acts of pulpy violence towards some rather obnoxiously annoying college students by a psychotic killer with a battle axe. The performances weren't bad in the shape of a spunky young cast, however the characters they were portraying weren't particularly enticing. An always presentable Rutger Hauer shows up in a short supportive role as a grizzled detective. A slickly made, but a shallow and forgettable addition to the fold.
\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\nHere we go with other slasher movie, Good looking people and Acting from everyone was really good!
Few kids playing pranks phones calls and there parents are killed by the killer in front of the kids! 20 Years after they are still friends, They go to huge house, have fun, Drugs and Sex (no nudity) for least half a hour of the movie! Again they start making pranks phone call all over again! and then killer comes back kills them off one by one and killer is in BIG BLACK COAT with axe just like Urban Legend movie,
Deaths scene really weird, really odd times too.
Nice slasher movie at this part would gave 7/10 but the twist at the end of the movie made the whole movie kinda of pointless
The twist killed the movie for me so I going to give it 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\nI'm sorry to all the fans, but this is a useless movie. The acting is bad, even wooden, it over-hypes the fright-factor early on, and doesn't exactly work. I think there was supposed to be a twist at the end, but it just ended up being maddeningly confusing. What the hell? The dude who was killing everyone was one of the hunted? Try again.
Its hardly original, and it isn't even particularly good as a straight slasher. And that's saying something.
I think whoever did the castings, whoever wrote the script, and whoever thought of the concept should be mercilessly fired and deported.
Don't watch this movie. If someone puts this on at a party, throw the disc out the window and put on a good horror movie, like Silence of the Lambs or The Shining.
\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 attracted to seeing this movie because of this plot and my desire to watch a horror.
To my disappointment, this turned into more of a comedy than a horror. The acting, dialog, and flow of the movie was all very poorly done. Much of it didn't make sense. For example, there's a party of about 30 people and they're all terrified of one person despite them being at a secret location and are all healthy looking young adults and the guy threatening them sounds haggard. I kept thinking, maybe this was a parody of another movie like Scary Movie, but they were trying too hard to make it look gruesome - emphasis on try.
The blood and gore are also poorly done. I've seen Halloween costumes look more believable than this. A guy with his head cut clean off... looked clean - missing signs bone, flesh, blood, and even the head. A strong downward strike with an ax on a corpse should lodge itself into something... seemed like the guy was swinging a bat instead of an ax.
Revealing who the main villain was supposed to be a twist, but contradicted other parts in the story. What was going in the guy's mind to turn out like that? If there was going to be a twist, you should at least build up to it adding mystery and suspense.
\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 wasn't really a very good movie. There were lots of implausible and predictable things that happened during the course of the film...but I think that most of the reviewers are missing the point of why this movie should be enjoyed by a wide audience. THIS MOVIE WAS PRODUCED BY MAGIC JOHNSON! Isn't that enough to inspire us all to check out this film? A film produced by a former NBA star doesn't come along every day, you know. Beautifully stupid kids in a big house getting slashed by an axe wielding psycho. Every cliché trotted out for us to groan over. Teen sex. And it was all produced by MAGIC JOHNSON! I can't say enough about this movie! Teen drug use! College hijinx! And it was all produced by MAGIC JOHNSON! Yippeeee!
\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 adaption of a classic story I have ever seen. They needlessly modernize it and some points are actually just sick.
The songs rarely move along the story. They seem to be thrown in at random. The flying scene with Marley is pointless and ludicrous.
It's not only one of the worst movies I've seen, but it is definitely the worst musical I've ever seen.
It's probably only considered a classic because \"A Christmas Carol\" is such a classic story. Just because the original story was a classic doesn't mean that some cheap adaption is.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI couldn't not recommend a Christmas movie more than this worthless piece of drivel (trust me, double negatives are required here -- it's that bad). This film was in trouble from the opening credits when it was revealed that the screenwriter was the same person as the songwriter. The musical numbers are all far too long and none of them any good (\"Thank You Very Much\" has a decent melody, but the lyrics are stupid beyond words). I would gladly bear the chains worn by Scrooge in the film's bizarre hell sequence than sit through this insult to movie musicals again.
The only entertaining part of this movie (completely unintentional by the way) involves Alec Guinness as Jacob Marley. Dressed in a silly powder white costume, Guinness foppishly prances through his scenes in what was either an attempt to make it appear as though he was floating like a ghost, or to show his utter disdain with having to be in this dreadful movie. Albert Finney, meanwhile, blends the best of Alistar Sim and Charles Laughton to create his hopelessly loathsome character of Quasimodo/Scrooge. Finney's Scrooge is so hideous a person, it's impossible to believe his transformation.
Steer clear of this abomination of filmmaking at all costs.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nnow don't get me wrong, i do enjoy christmas movies. i love its a wonderful life and i really enjoy the versions of a christmas carol with george c. scott and alistair sim. but this particular movie is awful. i think the i love life song the ghost of christmas present sings is especially painful. albert finney sings fairly well in annie. i don't know whats wrong with him in this movie but it sounds as though someone is trying to sing through a mouthful of dead gerbils. the only thing that saved this movie for us was shutting the sound off and watching the dance numbers accompanied by the south park christmas cd.
\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 a bigger budgeted film than usual for genre director Honda (with more evidently elaborate sets)  though the special effects still have that distinctive cheesiness to them (witness the giant bats and rodents on display). It also utilizes a surprising number of American actors: Joseph Cotten playing the visionary scientist looks ill-at-ease and frail (but, then, his character is supposed to be 204 years old!), an innocuous Richard Jaeckel is the photographer hero while, as chief villains, we get Cesar Romero and Patricia Medina (both essentially campy). As I've often said, I grew up watching English-language films dubbed in Italianbut hearing Hollywood actors in Japanese is another thing entirely!
LATITUDE ZERO feels like a juvenile version of a typical Jules Verne adventure, and is fairly entertaining on that level; indeed, it's preferable to Honda's low-brow variations on the monsters-on-the-rampage formula because of the inherent quaint charm of the set-up in this case. The plot involves the kidnapping of a famous scientist by Romero  he was intended to establish himself in the underwater, technologically advanced city devised by Cotten (to which the world's foremost minds are being recruited). We're treated to plenty of silly battles between the rival subs, but the most amusing scenes are certainly the raid on Romero's cave  in fact, Cotten doing somersaults and fending off men in rubber suits (via flames and laser emitted from his glove!) must surely count as the nadir of his acting career; the other elder in the cast, Romero, is more in his element  after all, he had been The Joker in the BATMAN TV series and movie of the 1960s! Cotten has a scantily-clad blonde physician on his team, and is assisted by a hulking Asian; Romero, on the other hand, is flanked by an Oriental femme fatale  who, however, ends up getting a raw deal for her efforts (the girl's brain is eventually transplanted into a hybrid of lion and condorwhich is among the phoniest-looking creatures you ever saw!). Apparently, a 2-disc set of this one from Media Blasters streets on this very day!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNo matter how well meaning his \"message\" is - this film is a terribly made trainwreck - awful acting, lame camera work - I do not know why Carr agreed to try and pull off a stutter - he is lousy at it. You watch the extras on the DVD and the way he has a camera follow him around - he just soaks it up - he loves being the center of attention. He is a bad actor - he reminds me of another arrogant filmmaker - Eric Schaffer. Some how Carr has had this film shown at city Youth Centers and New Age churches - where damaged people looking for reinforcement and attention themselves babble on about how the film touched them and maybe it did - but as a film itself it is choppy, predictable and sappy.
\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\nOverrated and only for those people in their 20's whom wear particularly thick rose tinted glasses, who never actually saw it in the first place because they were to young. Awful animation, dialogue and a tired narrative. A real product of the 80's, the novel gimmick of a puzzle TOY (thats right, TOY not the absurd, pretentious and child alienating \"collectors action figurine\"), sold on the back of a poor cartoon and other paraphernalia, only matters to those who bought the TOY when they were \"actual\" children in the period of '84' to '87'. It Has become cult because of those same adults are to immature to let go of their memories. Avoid.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBeing that I loved the original \"Caligula\" even with all its flaws, I have to say this remake trailer was abysmal.
Listening to Jovovich say in that lazy American accent \"Mmm cuhligyooluh...\" makes me feel sick. The set doesn't look Roman at all... it looks like some rich actor's Hollywood mansion backyard, and the Roman costumes look like cheap crap you buy at a suburban costume shop.
That \"charming\" Adriana Asti looks like a fifty year old Hispanic woman totally terrified out of her mind, as if not knowing it's a movie trailer.
The acting has got to be some of the worst I've ever seen, with most of the lines I hear being random actors screaming \"CALIGULAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!\" as loudly and obnoxiously annoyingly as they can.
The random sex scenes also filled a good 40 or 50% of the trailer, and the scenes with notable actors/actresses like Gerard Butler (who graces the screen in shadows for all of three and a half seconds) not doing anything but looking uncomfortable or going all-out over the top with their minimal lines, just dragging it down with the ridiculousness of their delivery.
Courtney Love's part consists of her looking like her usual dumpy crack-whore self leaning against a door mumbling about the moon or something. You can't tell because she's either drunk or high or just mumbling idiotically.
Karen Black is just annoying... randomly laughing, and screaming in such a way that irritates you.
Helen Mirren... she was in the original, and her return to \"Caligula\" consists of... \"CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALIGULAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!\" I particularly \"love\" (and by love, I mean hate) Ennia's line, \"Caligola... j00 no maki me *something incoherent*.... *something that sounds like j00nalo*\" It's also insanely arrogant to say Caligula's four year reign was greater than Jesus's birth and death.
Honestly, this has got to be the worst, most exploitative, self-indulgently arrogant piece of crap labeled as \"art\" I've ever seen. Even if Gore Vidal hated the original Caligula, he shouldn't have shown up or given his name over for this crap-pile, no matter how much they paid him (unless it was a billion trillion yen). Worst trailer 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\nI have nothing more to say but it was awful. I cannot imagine why Helen Mirren and others were part of this degrading mess. And if certain actors don't want people to question their sexuality then perhaps they should refrain from making more of these films. There was at least one seen that left me curious. Just my opinion. SHUDDER to think what was going on that was cut from the film. SHUDDER to wonder what went through the minds of the actors who made this film. Shudder to think about the thought process and voyeurism that went on in the directors mind. Like I stated before its a degrading mess. Its not even funny. As Ebert said of the film Caligula with Malcolm McDowell, Its not a good film, not a good story and its not even good porn. YEESHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH............
\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 may have been based on historical events, and we know that the makers of this TV docu-drama took liberties to make it more dramatic - I can live with that - but it was just so badly done! I was amazed in the event of an unfolding mid-air crisis how calm everyone seemed, surely someone would have panicked, and what a smooth flight, no passenger discomfort apparent - come on! Not sure about the regulations, nowadays some of the airline security stuff seems OTT nonsense, but why take your shoes off before the emergency landing, common sense tells me this is not a good idea! The shots of this massive airliner coming down on this remote airstrip were unconvincing and fake. In reality it would have been an awesome sight viewed from the ground nearby, in this movie it was out of proportion and looked like the model it probably was. Escape slides appeared at the front and mid emergency doors, yet nobody appeared to exit from the front, even though the drop was much less. The Captain went back into the plane after the landing - why? this was never explained. We know the emergency landing was due to being out of fuel, but even so there must have been some fuel sloshing around at the bottom of the tanks, and the risk of explosion must have been a very real danger, yet the evacuation seemed almost leisurely, and everyone stands around at the foot of the escape slides instead of getting as far away as possible, as I am sure I would have done. There were just too many inconsistencies, errors and faked action in this. I would have preferred to have seen a representation of the drama in real time, and with realistic motion of the plane portrayed. It had the potential to be quite thrilling, but doubtless due to the budget restrictions failed, and made one feel that a plane losing all engines was no big deal really, and you would safely glide down to a bit of a bumpy landing, but no real danger! - the reality of course being somewhat different!
\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 wanted to read the other comments before leaving my review and the majority definately rules: This movie is aweful! From the acting to the non-realistic animation to the countless errors. I was actually hoping that the flaps would have been extended by a stretch of the imagination (can't extend flaps without engines). The landing gear cannot be lowered unless you have electricity. That tiny little fan that was going was not sufficient by any stretch to lower the landing gear. The one thing I thought was quite peculiar is when they landed, the back wheels touched down and then the nose one broke off, thus suspending the plane with both back tires in the air. How did the captain apply left and right brakes to tires that weren't touching the ground? Did they forget the spoilers? Word to the director: Find out *all* you can about planes before attempting a \"plane\" movie. Sorry for the technical rant, but I give this movie 1/10.
\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\nA good cast and they do their best with what they're given, but the story makes no sense, the characters' actions are inexplicable, and there are too many moments of unintentional humor, as when a man is killed by being pierced with pieces of a phonograph record or when they get the witch drunk to a hip hop beat and then hit her over the head with a bottle and she grabs her hostage and pouts off. The scene when the two witch and her victim (played by the same actress) are in the house together sets up like a 3 Stooges routine, and the plot begs the question: if the witch wants to possess this other woman's soul, why doesn't she just do it instead of leading these people on this elaborate chase? Not to be missed is Christopher Walkin's eyeglasses and his automotive explanation of the afterlife (paraphrased): \"The ancient Egyptianas - they wee materialists. They expected the body to last through eternity, like a used car that you souped up. But the Druids, they knew you couldn't drive in the afterlife. You had to get out and walk.\" Huh? The ending is absolutely indecipherable. Seems like they just ran out of film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film seems to be completely pointless. There is no reason why anything that happens in it happens, as if it was written by a small child who got bored halfway through and thought \"how can I wrap this up?\". And what were Jared Harris and Christopher Walken thinking? Did they do it for a bet? I couldn't tell you the plot, I'm not entirely sure there is one to be quite frank, but if there is it didn't register. Jared and his bird go to Ireland after she falls down the stairs while lashed up, as you do. They go to a house with a very annoying small girl in it, meet Christopher Walken who has dug up some ancient woman preserved in peat. He brings her back to life for no other reason than it continues the story and she shows her gratitude by immediately icing him. From then on it all gets a bit silly. A couple of hours of my life that I'd like back!
\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\nYikes did this movie blow. The characters were weak, the plot weaker. I figured this couldn't be too bad because it has Christoper Walken, oops. He must have done this because he was bored and needed the money. The characters were supposed to be Irish but noone had an Irish accent. I am desperately trying to find something nice about this, I can't except Walken did a fine job with a wooden character. Find something to read, or watch discovery, don't ever see this movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. However, the little slave girl, Alice and Jared Harris imitating Christopher Walken is what makes this movie entertaining. Alice's smoking, drinking and uncanny way of showing up when her name is called is strange and interesting. I have to applaud Jared for his Christopher Walken imitation, and Christopher Walken for allowing this to be in the movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe writer came up with a pretty decent idea for a story, but many flaws in the execution of the plot took so much away from the film as to nearly render it unwatchable. Basic elements such as character development were glossed over, at best. Inconsistencies also reared their ugly heads. A massive mansion in the middle of the rural Irish countryside? Characters just \"showing up\" in the gardens during a stormy night (at very convenient times, I might add)? All in all it wasn't \"bad\". I rated it a 4, based mostly on the story and talent of Alison Elliott.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"