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\nAnyone who saw the original 1970 movie knows how an excellent cast, script, and director can put together a comedy masterpiece. By the same token, it's easy to see how the opposite of that can create another insipid Hollywood bore-a-thon! This movie was pathetic! Had it not been for John Cleese (a comic genius), I would have walked out about 15 minutes into this dreadful waste of celluloid.
Neil Simon wouldn't write another screenplay for this version (he said that he couldn't improve on the first), and I'm surprised that after this cinematic fiasco he wouldn't sue for defamation of humor!
Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis did such a wonderful job in the original, what were the producers thinking about when they cast this one? How could the director and editor look at these scenes and think any of them were funny? I don't know, but one thing I do know---it's no surprise why foreign and independent movies are becoming more and more popular.......
\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\nUnfortunately, this movie is so bad. The original Out of Towners was manic and very funny, of course they used the script written by Neil Simon. For some reason Neil Simons script is not used in this film so it falls flat time and time again. Even the audience I was with never laughed. The direction is very slow and tedious and when there is a joke it is given away so the joke dies i.e. The couple having sex in the park. They announce it is a lighting ceremony for New York, well we all know the lights are going to come on and we will be able to see cute and mugging Goldie & Steve do a bit of slap stick. The whole movie winds up being like this...a joke is set up and given away. Why isn't Goldies hair ever even messed up in the movie. You will also notice every close up of Goldie (they use a very intense soft lens). I suggest you rent the original with Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis, that's if you want to laugh.
\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 an apparent attempt to avoid remaking the original movie an excellent cast that should have made this inherently funny, classic Neil Simon material better than the original failed on every level.
The chemistry between Goldie Hawn and Steve Martin that was magic in `Housesitter' was nonexistent in this effort.
\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\nGranted, this seems like a good idea. Steve Martin, Goldie Hawn, and John Cleese in a Neil Simon comedy. Where can you go wrong? Watch the movie, and you'll find out.
In truth, Martin, the lead, is mis-cast. He's not doing the great slapstick he's known for, from movies like \"The Jerk\", but instead plays a sort of in-between character that doesn't work. Hawn, with no one to play off of, is terrible. Cleese is the only even partially funny member.
To top it off, the plot is pretty stupid. I can't say how much of it may have been changed, but the characters seem to lack the slightest bit of common sense. They blunder through New York, not doing anything right, and unfortuneatly, nothing funny. Not only is the whole premise completely unbelievable, it seems to give the message that people who don't live in New York aren't very bright, a theme repeated throughout the movie.
In summation, instead of seeing this, go rent the original \"Odd Couple\" again.
\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\nWithin 15 minutes, my whole family was rooting for Goldie Hawn's character to die, or at least for Steve Martin's character to leave her. At 40 minutes, we turned it off. There are only a couple of movies a year we try that turn out so annoying that we can't even stomach it long enough for the story to get established.
Normally I like both Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn, and I remember enjoying the Neil Simon original. So I blame Marc Lawrence and Sam Weisman. Combine the director of \"Whats The Worst That Can Happen\" and the writer of \"Miss Congeniality 2\", and I guess this is what we end up with.
\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\nOne would think (as I did), that with Steve Martin, Goldie Hawn, and John Cleese, a movie should be, at the very least, decent. These stars (especially Martin and Cleese) have produced some of the funniest works of comedy of all time.
Well, apparently I was grossly mistaken--this is single-handedly one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It boggles my mind how one joke after the other can be so profoundly unfunny. It pained me to watch these talented actors execute one of the most positively lame scripts I have had the misfortune to come across. Based solely on the big names, I remained hopeful for a long time through the duration of the film, but it consistently failed to provide any entertainment whatsoever.
Normally, both with movies and in life, I try to stay away from biased comments and broad generalizations. But with this film, it's hard not to let loose. I can count on one hand, perhaps even two or three fingers, major Hollywood productions that left me more bitter than this. This is easily one of the worst comedies ever made.
I tried to enjoy this---I really did. But The Out-of-Towners ultimately fails miserably. If you really want time-efficient entertainment, just take your money and watch it swirl as you flush it down the toilet. Just please don't watch 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 film so NOT funny - such a waste of great stars, who seem to be caught up so in their own stardom that they forget. Only shining moments belong to John Cleese as the hotel manager who likes to dress up - you almost fall out of your chair with helpless laughter when he dances to Donna Summer's \"Bad Girls\" while wearing high heels, a mink coat and a dainty hat. The rest: FORGET 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\nSomeone should tell Goldie Hawn that her career as a teen-age gamin ended thirty years ago.
This is one of the worst films released in years, an unequivocal disaster in which the two leads give themselves over to a frenetic exposition of their trademark tics in an effort to make up for a bad script and bad directing. This thing should have been smothered at birth.
I hope John Cleese got paid a lot for having his name attached to this disaster. He is the only performer who came through this stinking mess more or less unscathed, his only fault being a failure to realize that the rest of the cast would sink the picture.
\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 terrific when a funny movie doesn't make smile you. What a pity!! This film is very boring and so long. It's simply painfull. The story is staggering without goal and no fun.
You feel better when it's finished.
\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 saw previews of this movie I thought that it may be dumb, but it will at least be funny. Well I was wrong. Even though somewhere deep down the producers had an interesting message to convey about parents being left alone and re-evaluating their life, the way they tried to deliver that message was horrible. The first fifty times something silly happened to the couple was relatively funny. But by the end, I could almost predict what stupid mishap is going to happen next.
Throughout the movie I like a total of maybe five lines of dialogue and everything else was at best mediocre, which is still more than I can say for the movie itself.
\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\nLargely dense road movie with some comic relief provided by the excellent John Cleese (although he is really sending up his performance in Fawlty Towers). Seems to flip from over the top slapstick to slushy sentimentality at the drop of a hat, and the worst part of the film is that Martin and Hawn have to \"find themselves\", who they are, etc. See it at your peril.
\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\nEvil Aliens owes a huge debt to Peter Jacksons early films Bad Taste and Braindead.I must confess to never enjoying those films particularly and i say the same about this.Jake West is a director who clearly lacks inspiration of his own and chooses to steal from those whom he looks up to.I lost count of the amount of times a major Hollywood film was quoted most notably James Camerons Aliens.The amount of blood and gore on show here isn't funny either,the latter end of the film becomes tired and dragged out.Maybe it would have worked better as a short film.The actors a poor,the direction is weak and the plot is non existent.I can see what the director was trying to do,the homage he was trying to pay,but others have done the same thing a lot better than presented here. 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\nTo be honest I knew what to expect before I watched this film, and I've got to say it has the worst acting I've ever seen. It does have its moments, and on a comedy level its very entertaining, but i'm afraid its not scary, and stupidity is taken to a new level. There's a lot of unnecessary gore, and the plot is all over the place. I have no idea why the aliens were evil, and why they even came to this remote part of wales, (i mean who'd go there anyway?) but I didn't care at that point, because I was amused by the costumes, and the bad CGI. As far as B-movies go, this deserves the title of 'being so bad, its good', and kudos to the film-makers, because they probably knew what they were doing. Long may these films continue.....
\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 program didn't do it for me, although I'm a fan of the genre. The major factor that disappointed me was that there was not a single scene which was not dominated by the main character. This made it a bit two-dimensional and I gave up before the program was over.
I was hoping to leave my critique there as I'm no movie critic, however, the guidelines on IMDb state that you must put in 10 lines of commentary. It did remind me of Hudson Hawk in the way the main character is in every single scene, and I would hope that the writers of this program could employ some more diversity to engage with the viewers. I don't doubt the talent of any of the cast and crew, it's just that after watching things like \"the wire\", I've come to expect great things from cop drama.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMy husband and I were intrigued by the spectacle - a strong willed Southern lady with a messy personal life solves crimes for the LAPD. The first season was must-see TV for us. Unfortunately, the stories of her personal life in the second season became so tedious and unworthy of the strong character that we stopped watching.
My husband and I were troubled by the episode where she tries to hide from her mother the fact that she is shacked up. But the deal breaker was the episode where she hides her possible pregnancy from her boyfriend but tells her boss. Why would a strong, middle aged woman do those things? The answer is she wouldn't. Additionally, my husband and I pick out the bad guy with almost perfect accuracy. It is almost always a white male or female introduced in cameo at the murder scene or in an idealized family. Can't the script writers do something original from time to time? As I mentioned, we are no longer viewers. We prefer shows that don't betray the characters and insult our intelligence.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis show seemed to be kinda good. Kyra Sedgwick is an OK actress and I like police series, but somewhere in the production this program went awfully wrong.
First of all, the writers should have more suspects than one, you know who did it EVERY TIME!!!!! That makes it boring. The main character is unbelievably annoying and its not believable in any way. I know they wanted her to be tough, but shes mean, stupid and a bad chief. The crimes are uninteresting and bland, and its just lame all the way. As stated above, I hate it....
All in all, this was a big disappointment and very bad indeed...
\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 São Paulo, the upper middle class teenagers Cristiano, Chico and Gabriel have just joined the university and on the eve of the opening class, they go to a party with drugs and booze. On the next day, after their classes, the date of Cristiano in the previous night comes to his house and the three friends rape the girl. The girl dies, they panic and decide to get rid off the body, but Cristiano's mother arrives, startles with Gabriel and rolls the staircase, breaking her neck. The trio decides to dump and burn the corpses in a garbage landfill, but along the night other tragedies happen.
The polemic and shameful \"Cama de Gato\" is an overrated pretentious crap about alienation of the youth, and is certainly the worst Brazilian movie that I have seen along many years. The shallow, tragic and dark story is actually a black humor comedy of bad taste. The screenplay is not funny, with stupid lines and dialogs, and boring, manipulative and silly footages with interviews with morons teenagers in the beginning and in the end. The acting is terrible, apparently with many improvisations, but no talent, and I was disappointed with presence of the promising Caio Blat in this trash. The camera, framing, cinematography and edition are amateurish and of very low quality. The sound is awful and in many parts it is impossible to understand what the actors and actresses are speaking (probably it is a plus, since this flick sucks). The gang bang is very realistic and used to promote this mediocre movie in a very poor marketing of sex-exploitation. My vote is one (awful).
Title (Brazil): \"Cama de Gato\" (\"Bed of the Cat\")
\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 script for this TV soap opera is so bad that even A. Hopkins at some point had to play like an undergrad drama-student so as to bring some life in his script-dead character. I do not know whether this was the purpose of the director, but Hopkins' Ciano reeked nothing but vanity, fear and lack of self-esteem. The real Ciano possibly was all that but then, why make a movie about him? Mussolini was a bit more convincing, and his long way down was as if closer to the truth. Edda Mussolini was plain ridiculous (not because of Sarandon, but because of the impotent script), while she had to be the central character of this alleged familial drama. Watch it only if you enjoy Venezuelan soap opera.
\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\nProbably the only thing that got the movie up to a four for me is the fact that I love Peter Falk. One of the world's great portrayers of bumbling incompetence . . . and yet he is one of the only anchors that prevents this from being a chaotic disaster. As Pops Romano, he provides a respectable mix of gangster charm and straight man to Chris Kattan's manic foolishness. Respectable performances are also offered by Richard Roundtree as the harried boss, Vinessa Shaw as a talented female FBI agent bouncing her head off a glass ceiling and Fred Ward as Falk's advisor and Benedict Arnold.
The plot concept actually has some wonderful possibilities and, in the hands of a young Steve Martin or Chevy Chase, could have proved a great comedic vehicle. Kattan, who seems to idolize Ernest or Pee Wee Herman, just provides a muddled mess. Sadly, Peter Berg and Chris Penn, who portray his misfit brothers, both fall far short of their proven capability.
There are some very funny scenes, but they are far too few and separated by way too many boring ones. What I truly miss here is what always attracted me to the Leslie Neilsen movies. There is no 'second level' of wit riding over the slapstick. No cultural references that only the adults get. . no double entendre. . it is just silly.
And, by the way, this doesn't all mean that I am recommending it for your 9-year-old, because hopefully they have better taste and less fascination with some of their body parts and their functions.
\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 is this film so bad? Well, if being so stupidly annoying and unfunny is a reason, then this film is it. The character of Corky Romano is unlikable at best and downright infuriating at worst. The gags are predictable but that isn't what makes it bad. They are the lame sort of predictable jokes that your unfunny friend would say.
Corky Romano is about a mild mannered vet that tries to do right but is so clumsy. His quiet life is thrown for a loop when the family that once spurned him now needs him to infiltrate the FBI to destroy any trace of the family's crime history. However, it isn't that easy for Corky because the FBI believes him to be a super agent and pegs him with the duty of spying on his very own family. Mishaps and mayhem ensue but it really doesn't feel like any comic hijixn are there. Corky ends up in love with his beautiful FBI partner and has to set the record straight with both the FBI and his family if he is to settle down to the quiet life again.
I think what makes this film irritating is both the lead actor and the supposed jokes. Chris Kattan reveals his alarming limitations as and actor here as his one note slapstick routine falls flat about 10 minutes into the film. It is okay to have a full movie based solely off of dumb, slap stick humor. Will Ferrel, Kattan's SNL partner, seems to have made a full career out of it. The only difference between Kattan and Ferrel is that Ferrel knows when to tone it down and rely on other ways of telling a joke. There is absolutely no diversity in Kattan's routine. It's hard to hear the same joke twice, but for a whole movie that is just pure torture.
The other problem with the movie was the lack of truly original and FUNNY jokes. The gay mafia brother, the awkward guy sch-tick, and plenty of other forgettable jokes appear none as funny as the first time you barely laughed at it. It seems as if the screenwriters had more of a fun time writing this than any one had watching it. Even with a cast that has some comedic talent (Chris Penn, Peter Falk) the jokes that commence are tired. There is no chemistry too. This film was obviously one for the pocketbooks for the actors. No body seemed to care about it, or even try. Sad thing is, no body told Chris Kattan that.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWow. Some movies just leave me speechless. This was undeniably one of those movies. When I left the theatre, not a single word came to my mouth. All I had was an incredible urge to slam my head against the theatre wall to help me forget about the last hour and a half. Unfortunately, it didn't work. Honestly, this movie has nothing to recommend. The humor was at the first grade level, at best, the acting was overly silly, and the plot was astronomically far-fetched. I hearby pledge never to see an other movie starring Chris Kattan or any other cast-member of SNL.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI could only get through about 25 mins of it. Not one laugh in the 25 minutes I gave it, one of the most painful films I've ever had to endure. Chris Kattan is so nervous on screen that it made me nervous to watch him. Just a horrible 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 did not watch the entire movie. I could not watch the entire movie. I stopped the DVD after watching for half an hour and I suggest anyone thinking of watching themselves it stop themselves before taking the disc out of the case.
I like Mafia movies both tragic and comic but Corky Romano can only be described as a tragic attempt at a mafia comedy.
The problem is Corky Romano simply tries too hard to get the audience to laugh, the plot seems to be an excuse for moving Chris Kattan (Corky) from one scene to another. Corky himself is completely overplayed and lacks subtlety or credulity - all his strange mannerisms come across as contrived - Chris Kattan is clearly 'acting' rather than taking a role - it bounces you right out of the story. Each scene is utterly predictable, the 'comedic event' that will occur on the set is obvious as soon as each scene is introduced. In comedies such as Mr. Bean the disasters caused by the title character are funny because you can empathise with the characters motivations and initial event and the situation the character ends up in is not telegraphed. Corky however gives the feeling that he is deliberately screwing up in a desperate attempt to draw a laugh from the audience.
If Chris had not played such an alien character (who never really connects with the other characters in the movie) and whose behaviour is entirely inexplicable (except for trying to draw laughs) and the comedy scenes weren't so predictable and stereotyped - all the jokes seemed far too familiar) this movie could have been watchable. But it isn't. Don't watch 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 vowed a long time ago to NEVER, EVER watch a movie that has ANYONE who EVER was a regular cast member of \"Saturday Night Live\". I didn't rent \"Corky Romano\" but I was forced by my unfailing good manners to watch it for half an hour. Then my good manners failed. Stupid, not funny. Tedious, not hilarious. Bad, not good. That in a nutshell is all I can say for this video.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDirection must be the problem here. I recently heard John Cleese speaking of working a skit for Fawlty Towers. He was supposed to attack his car with a branch. The first branch was too flimsy and not funny. The second branch was too stiff to be funny. The third was just flimsy enough to be funny. This sort of attention to detail is missing from \"Corky Romano\". No matter how embarrassingly unfunny a comic bit was, it wasn't fixed, and wasn't left on the cutting room floor. The one value I can find in this movie is as a study of a very flawed movie which somehow escaped into distribution without being repaired.
I've scanned dozens of other reviews here. The number of reviews praising this absolute waste of time bolsters my suspicion that some people are getting paid to promote titles. I can't fathom how anyone over the age of 9 could rate this title more than a 4, MAX. I mean, come on, 5 is average. I can't imagine anyone, even those making money off of this, rating it even as much as average.
This makes my list of the 10 worst movies of all time. And, hey, I actually LIKE the Three Stooges and can even tolerate Ed Wood!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** From its very opening credits this fantastic movie sets the record straight: it's an instant classic. It doesn't take long to realize that this movie is big, bigger than `Kindergarten Cop' or `Police Academy 7.' The sheer greatness of it left me speechless as I walked out of the movie theater and proceeded right back to the ticket counter to purchase myself another dozen of tickets.
This is a movie that simply requires multiple viewings. The first watching will surely leave you with that strange `Huh?' feeling, but don't feel embarrassed - it happens to the best of us. The story is so diabolically clever that one has to wonder about the mortality of its authors. What seems to be a simple story of an idiot infiltrating the FBI, turns out to be an allegorical story that works on several levels and teaches us all about the really important things in life. The complexity of the plot structure will baffle you on your first viewing, but don't give up! Not until my sixth or seventh viewing did I only begin to unravel some of the hidden mysteries of `Corky Romano.' And watch out for the unexpected twist at the end, otherwise you might be caught completely off guard when it is revealed that FBI agent Brick Davis is FBI's most-wanted criminal, Corky is not a real FBI agent, Pops Romano is innocent, Peter Romano admits he's illiterate and Paulie Romano comes out of the closet as a homosexual. Surprised the hell out of me, I can tell you that much.
Chris Kattan's comedic talents are unmatched as he leads his character Corky Romano through a maze of totally unpredictable situations. Reminiscent of John Reynolds' performance in `Manos, the Hands of Fate,' Kattan takes on innumerable multiple personalities and tackles all scenes with perfect comedic timing. However, Kattan is not just about comedy. He is a master of drama as well, as he controls the audience's feelings with the slightest moves of his face. His facial expressions reflect life itself, in a way. For example, in the scene in which he farts into his brothers' faces, you can see the expression of social injustice and alienation clearly reflected on his anguished face. At a moment like that, it's hard to find a dry eye in the house.
Screenwriters David Garret and Jason Ward are the real heroes of `Corky Romano.' With a story of such proportions, it's easy to understand why two experienced writers had to be employed to complete this ambitious project. Their skillful storytelling and unorthodox structuring makes `Pulp Fiction' look like a mediocre Saturday Night Live skit. Garret and Ward's story is so compelling and alluring that it grips you by your hair, swallows you entirely, shakes you around and spits you right out. At the end of the out-of-this-world experience known as `Corky Romano' you find yourself a different person with different worldviews and different ideas, and with only one question on your mind:
Why, God? Why?!?
\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\nCorky Romano has to be one of the most jaw dropping and horrific \"comedy's\" ever made.
While the sometimes amusing Chris Kattan who pulled off a very funny performance in the hilarious 'Undercover Brother' his character in Corky is so stupid and so unfunny-which is a shame since the premise is a wonderful idea. To bad they ran out of them when they got to page 3 on the script.
\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\nplease save your money and go see something else. this movie was such piece of crap. i didnt want to go, but i had to so i thought i'd laugh at least once, NOPE. not a single laugh, it was that horrible! chris kattan will never get a good comedy role after this and \"a night at the roxbury.\" this movie is completely obvious, has no smart humor at all, and just repeats itself over and over again. listen to me, and stray as far away from this movie as you possibly can!
\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\nAdmittedly, I didn't have high expectations of \"Corky Romano.\" But then again, who did? However, I felt it deserved the benefit of the doubt. I had no high hopes of \"Joe Dirt\" either--another recent comedy starring an SNL cast member--and I ended up being pleasantly surprised. But this film is just as bad as it looks in the previews. Chris Kattan is actually a talented comic actor--contrary to what you might think after watching this movie--with great energy. He's been in many hilarious SNL skits, and I think he's one of the most talented cast members on SNL as of now. In this case, he's given a lame, pointless script and he tries to remedy each scene with his incessant mugging. Throughout each scene, he attempts a lame Jerry Lewis act and fails miserably. Jerry Lewis knew how to pull off this type of physical comedy, not to mention he worked with much better writing. Kattan simply looks like some ignorant fool with ADHD who had one too many Cafe Lattes. He doesn't even wait for the punchline; he assumes we'll all laugh once he starts jumping around like an ape on crack. In one scene, he ends up in a tugging match with a dog who has a package of cocaine in his mouth. The package explodes and the cocaine splashes all over him. He comes back to the job, strung out on coke. Now, how are we supposed to laugh at the fact that he's acting hyper and on-edge, when he's doing the same thing throughout the whole film?
As for the rest of the cast members...Vanessa Shaw is really hot, Peter Berg is wasted in a thankless role and so is Chris Penn. Peter Falk is also wasted, though he has a few funny lines that I'm pretty sure he improvised. I hope Falk gets a decent movie someday soon. That's too much talent too waste on a clunker like \"Corky Romano.\" I didn't like Falk's last movie \"Made\" all that much either, but at least he had a decent role.
I chuckled a few times, but I could not get a single laugh. Each gag is performed with no sense of timing or delivery. And it's made worse by Kattan's hammy acting. And there are certain gags that are streneously dragged out. For example, when Kattan is about to fart in his two brothers' faces. He stands there for 2 or 3 minutes, trying to get out a fart and when he finally he does it's a little tiny one. It's bad enough when you have a gag that's funny and drag it out, but when you have a lame gag and you drag it out it's a hell of a lot worse. And another example of this is when he tries to translate what those two Asian men are saying during a drug bust. I can go on and on about what's wrong with this so-called comedy, but I'm not gonna waste my time. Like I said earlier, if you predicted bad things from the trailers--you predicted right.
My score: 3 (out of 10)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nChris Kattan is a great sketch actor on Saturday Night Live...but he should probably leave the movie industry alone unless he gets some sort of creative control. He plays an annoyingly peppy character who basically comes off as mildly retarded and on speed. Wanna know the only funny parts? The stuff they showed in the previews. Yes, his rendition of take on me is funny. Nothing else is. ESPECIALLY when you can tell he's trying very hard to be a physical comedian, which he shouldn't have to try at because he is one. And yet, his 'demolishing the vet's office' bit comes off as cringingly bad. This movie made me develop an eye twitch. Avoid it at all costs, and keep watching SNL.
\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 not be the worst comedy of all time, but it's close. The producers of this movie stole an hour and a half of my life, and I want it back!
Chris Kattan is funny for about 10 minutes. His high pitched voice and mad flailing start to get old, and then you realize that the rest of the movie is much worse. He falls into a long line of former SNL-ers that have attempted movies. Some have been brilliant, some have failed miserably. There's not much middle ground in this category. Although Chris Farley was brilliant, and then okay, and then not so funny, and then dead...so I suppose he hits the entire spectrum in one career.
Avoid this movie like the plague.
c
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI didn't mind the film that much, but it was incredibly dull and boring. A few laughs here and there but nothing to go crazy for.
You should give it a go if you like silly, stupid humour because this is the film for you.
\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 like the cast pretty much however the story sort of unfolds rather slowly. Danny Glover does a good job making you wonder if he's the bad guy. Meanwhile, the other characters are just part of the story. Dennis Quaid didn't have as much room in the story as he could have had. I thought the first scene was a bit over the top grim compared to how the story unfolded. I'd watch it again though. I rated it a 5 (wish I could rate it a 5.5)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWonderful actors.
Lousy script and not too great direction either. My main problem was I simply didn't CARE about any of these people. Not the killer not the victims. The settings were pretty drab. Dennis Quaid's character was so poorly written in, I didn't even care when the end came. He got his kid back. Big deal! I wanted my money 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\nFor me, this movie just seemed to fall on its face. The main problem for me was the casting of Glover as a serial killer. I don't know whether this grows out of type-casting or simply his demeanor, but I doubt Glover could ever portray a convincing villain. He's a good guy, and that's always obvious in his performances. Other than that the film is your run of the mill serial killer story. Nothing very innovative .
\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\nSorry, not good.
It starts out interesting, but looses its way a few minutes into the movie.
It does not help a lot that none of the normally great actors (Quaid, Glover, Ermey, Leto etc.) delivers a really good performance.
It might be owed to the fact that I saw a dubbed version (german), but Dennis Quaid's character was especially wooden and annoying, and Danny Glover does not really make for a believable villain. Moreover, Jared Leto's character does not really contribute to the story whatsoever (except saving one main character's life at one point, but that scene is as necessary as a windshield wiper on a submarine in the first place ;-)
Speaking of unnecessary scenes - the main complaint is really the tangled and cliché-ridden storyline: The detective (of course!) has to settle a personal matter with the villain and is (of course!) suspended from his official duties courtesy of his personal entanglement. The killer (of course!) *wants* to be tracked down and plays a cat-and-mouse game with his opponent for years ... I don't know how many movies build on a similar plot - most of them better, however.
The plot has got holes galore and many completely unbelievable and unnecessary scenes that do not contribute to or work well with the storyline at all (e.g. the truck stop scene or the car at the cliff's edge etc.)
To top it off, the ending tries to be original and exciting, but fails completely in these regards. We've seen *much* better finales with a similar kind of ultimate-battle-on-a-train-in-a-forlorn-winter-landscape setup ... In the end there is the supposedly moving reunion of parent and child ... hokey, at the least.
\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 seen this movie at the cinema many years ago, and one thing surprised me so negatively that I could not see any redeeming virtues in the movies: Dennis Quaid was cast as a policeman that never smiles or grin, while his smile and grin are two of his trademarks. Danny Glover was cast as the bad guy, but - again - most viewers' imagination could not go far enough as to believe him in that role. Also, Jared Leto was not believable as the former medicine student. The tension was just not there, since the killer was known very early. The finale was, again, neither dramatic nor tense: nobody around me cared about what was going to happen next. All we could wait for was the end of the movie. All in all, a disappointing evening spent at the cinema.
\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\nVery disappointing version of Lorna Doone. Too many missing characters, no romantic scenes, changes in story line, too short, appeared low budget. Hardly enough dialogue to understand the story if you're not familiar with the novel. In some scenes it looks like Lorna has a cold sore on her upper lip. I'm sure make-up did it's best to hide it. I guess they didn't want to halt filming until it healed up, pity. Most likely why this movie lacked kissing scenes. Only one disappointing kissing scene at the very end. Lorna Doone is a great epic tale and should be told true. The 2000 version of Lorna Doone is twice as long, more romantic, much more enjoyable and more true to the book.
\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 version of R.D. Blackmore's classic novel as a substitute until the 2001 A&E version was released on video. And what a poor substitution it proved to be!!!!
This version does not have the authentic, I-feel-like-I'm-there aspect of the A&E movie. The actors are, for the most part, wooden (with Sean Bean the exception) and the \"romance\" seems forced and contrived. In fact, there is no kissing until the end of the movie!!!! The triangle between John Ridd, Lorna Doone (or Lady Lorna Dugal, whichever you prefer)and the evil Carver Doone isn't mentioned or expanded upon. We don't get much insight into Carver here, or as to why he has some (if any) romantic feelings for Lorna. This movie cuts out many of the key and interesting characters of the novel, such as Counsellor Doone, and John's sharp-tongued youngest sister Lizzie which were crucial to the plot. The screenplay itself is lacking in conviction. The political intrigue also doesn't figure in the script. The way Lorna came into being with the Doones isn't true to the original story. Now, don't get me wrong, Clive Owen is a handsome and talented actor (watch Gosford Park and King Arthur for confirmation) but he comes across as bland and stoic throughout, and long hair (it may have been a bad wig) just doesn't suit him!!!! Polly Walker is a lovely and accomplished actress (see Enchanted April and Patriot Games, in which she also costarred with Sean Bean), but she appears colorless and lackluster. She has a cold sore on her lip that make-up can't hide, and the costumes don't seem authentic. The late Robert Stephens does a respectable turn as Sir Ensor Doone, although he only refers to Lorna as his favorite rather than his granddaughter, which she was reputed to be in the book. Also, it seems to me that Owen and Walker are too old for their roles (maybe it's the make-up) and the scenery is brown, cold, gray and barren, without so much of a hint of a sunny sky. I understand that it is set in Southwest England, but it is green there and they do get their sunshine!!! The portrayal of Tom Faggus' character and his \"death\", which doesn't happen in the novel, depresses the film even more. The one positive note is Sean Bean's performance as Carver. Although it doesn't even come close to matching Aidan Gillen's portrayal in the A&E movie, Bean does make one mean villain. In short, watch this only if you've got a few hours to kill, but don't expect anything exciting or for it to be true to the novel. See any other version ( but I highly recommend A&E's film) over this tired adaptation.
\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 first read \"Lorna Doone\" about 20 years ago and absolutely loved it! It is a classic historical romance set in the 1600s when the west country was several days' journey from London and law and order was much harder to enforce. Sadly, this version of the book takes several liberties with the story and was incredibly disappointing in my opinion. The acting and production values are OK but the way the story was messed about with was dreadful. Why do television adaptations do this? Why would they think that the thousands of fans of a book would want them to change the story??? One of life's great mysteries!!! The BBC made an excellent version which was televised at Christmas in the early 1990s which I am still trying to track down a copy of! Take my advice, read the book and don't bother with this paltry version!
\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 2 words for you. Sean Bean. He is the only worthwhile presence in this film. But even so, don't see this movie. Even though he is good as the main villain, you don't want to waste your time.
I didn't care about the characters (except the little boy) and in fact, I didn't really care if the star crossed lovers ended up together or died. The movie did not make me care or BELIEVE that these people cared about each other at all. I have read a lot of \"classic\" novels after seeing the movies and this movie made me not even want to read the book. The story seems so boring. But I may go ahead and read it to try to redeem the story in my head.
Stay away from Lorna Doone. The actress who played Lorna was also in Sense and Sensibility and she was much better in that. Watch Sharpe, Horatio Hornblower, A & E has great movies of novels like Pride and Prejudice. Or miniseries like the Forsyte Saga. Check them out, don't bother with Lorna Doone.
\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\nExtremely dull drama starring a very young Roddy McDowall, who trains a wild horse, the Flicka of the title, and is the only reason for watching the movie in the first place. Coated in blaring, overbearing music and weighed down by schmaltzy dialogue, this is one of those interminable films that bores you to the point of a gnawing headache. The naffly-titled sequel, 'Thunderhead, Son of Flicka', in which McDowall trains the next generation of nag, is marginally better than the original but the pace remains slow and the score continues to pummel you into submission, although there are at least one or two scenes that don't induce a coma.
\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\nUnless you are petrified of Russian people or boars, this movie is a snorefest. Actually, I fell asleep about 40 minutes in & had to fight the urge to just leave the theater. I wish I had. A waste of a perfectly lovely Saturday evening.
Even \"Silent Hill\" was scarier. Heck, even \"Pan's Labyrinth\" was scarier. I'm still unclear on what was supposed to be scary in this flick.
To begin with, I'm very leery of movies that use \"pidgin Russian\" like this one did in the opening credits. It's embarrassing to me since I brought a group of my Russian friends & we all cringed. Oh my god.
Hmm. Well, luckily for me (& probably you, too) this movie has already escaped my brain & I just stepped out of it an hour ago. So I have no specifics, just murky visuals that go nowhere & some languishing-now-dead hope that anything would happen.
Perhaps I saw a completely mutilated version of this film because I can't believe it got such great reviews here (which is why I saw it) & ended up being so completely devoid of not only Horror or Suspense but Overall Entertainment Value as well.
I give it a 2 because, yes, I fell asleep & wanted to leave after 40 minutes but I woke up & didn't leave.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere were some scary scenes, which I've always liked more than straight out gore, but otherwise this movie was rather weak. THere were too many questions left unanswered, and when they tried to explain anything in the movie, it was still rather unclear. After watching this movie I still seemed lost in a lot of ways. It sort of reminded me of Silent Hill a few years back. That movie was also unsatisfying, but still better than this because it did try to work and the story did actually make sense. This one, not so much.
The acting for the most part in the Abandoned was decent, but the movie dragged on an on, and never really gave any type of satisfying conclusion. Like I said above, there were some creepy scenes, but otherwise, this movie was a mess. Sorry, I can't recommend 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\nSorry this movie did not scare me it just annoyed me. It was just so frustrating when I saw the potential and that, all that, fell by the wayside. The children! The father! The premonition! Had so much potential and ziltch! zero, nada! I have heard it all before. Scary! No! I can scare myself alone, here where I sit, than they could in the movie. Are there men writing that figure that women should be so annoying? Huh? This movie was quite atmospheric. Or at least it could have been, had the director/writer bothered to work it. We could have had some good music that would have added to the tension too, if someone had made the effort. What I really want to know is why do they get the money? Just give it to me and save all that hassle. Abandoned?... No we where betrayed
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nTo quote the film, \"It's better not to know. Better still to forget. Best of all to be abandoned.\" Oh, the irony.
A ghost story with all the technical refinements of a Hollywood horror film, but horrifyingly bad dialogue after the first quarter of the film, and you feel like you're being preached to from the start.
It's as if the writers' cumulative character dialogue can be summed up by bad cop TV and a Jerry Springer show. Fitting, maybe, for a film like The Hitcher, not a Russia-set horror film. The result is that a potentially great setting and some potentially great gore scenes go to waste and become just silly, not scary or meaningful.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"