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\nRevolt of the Zombies starts with Armand Louque (Dean Jagger) trying to convince General Duval (George Cleveland) that his mate Tsiang (William Crowell) is a priest who has the power to hypnotise people & render them under his control turning them into mindless zombies (a bit like the people I work with really). Anyway, Tsiang is murdered by Colonel Mazovia (Roy D'Arcy) but fails to gain the knowledge of turning people into zombies. An expedition has been set up by General Duval to hunt for the secret since Tsiang ain't going to tell them much anymore. General Duval heads the expedition along with his daughter Claire (Dorothy Stone) who is engaged to Louque who also comes along. During the expedition Claire dumps Louque for his mate Clifford Grayson (Robert Noland) at which Louque isn't too pleased about. In a way that could only happen in a film Louque finds the secret to turning people into zombies by himself & starts to use his new found power to gain revenge on Claire & Clifford... Co-written & directed by Victor Halperin Revolt of the Zombies has a bad reputation & after watching it I can see why. The script by Halperin, Howard Higgin & Rollo Lloyd all uncredited, has a good central idea but is killed stone cold dead by being dull & as exciting as watching paint dry. Nothing much happens for ages & then nothing much happens afterwards either. How Halperin depicts his zombies is different to that which most modern audiences would consider to be a zombie, these zombies are just brainwashed people & filmgoing audiences would have to wait over thirty years before George A.Romero would define what a zombie is now thought as in Night of the Living Dead (1968). At only about an hour in length Revolt of the Zombies still feels too long. Technically the film is OK considering it was made 70 years ago, the black & white cinematography is adequate although some of the scenes look like they were shot against a photo of the background location. The acting is wooden & largely unimpressive. Revolt of the Zombies might have been hot stuff in 1936 but it hasn't dated well & in 2005 it's an absolute chore to sit through. I believe the film is now public domain as it turns up on lots of ultra cheap DVD compilations & budget labels, but it's still not worth watching no matter how cheap you can get it for.
\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\nWith this movie only running 61 minutes and nothing all that good on television, I decided to pop Revolt of the Zombies into the DVD to pass the time. Even while realizing the era from which it was coming, I was sorely disappointed. It started with the oddly upbeat quality of the opening score (what - no brooding music?) and then the rather slow moving opening sequences. Gosh, I figured a movie about zombies - even from the 1930s - would have SOME chills to it (White Zombie, with Bela Lugosi, certainly did) but this had none. Zero. It was scarcely even dramatic (except for the few moments with the burning eyes superimposed on the film to indicate the mesmerization of someone). Like the equally dull King of the Zombies, this movie may be an interesting curiosity to own, but nothing more.
\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\nRevolt of the Zombies is BAD. There is nothing remotely entertaining about the movie. It is dull, lifeless, poorly acted, and poorly scripted. I've often complained that the original Dracula is a little slow for my taste, well this movie makes Dracula look like a roller coaster ride. The 65 minute running time seemed like 165 minutes.
The story: An expedition is sent to Cambodia to find the secrets of mind control through \"zombification\". One man finds the secret and uses it to make the woman he loves marry him. Once this happens, he releases the zombies under his control to horrific consequences. That's it. That's the whole story.
For most of the movie, I was trying to figure out where I had seen the male lead. He looked so familiar. I had plenty of time to think this over. Nothing was happening in the movie. Just before the \"zombies revolted\", it hit me. It was Dean Jagger. I had seen him recently as the General in White Christmas. This is how I \"entertained\" myself throughout most of the movie.
I'm just glad I didn't buy the DVD for this movie. King of the Zombies is on the other side and it's a masterpiece of film making compared with this movie. For what it's worth, I'll give it a 2/10. (I won't go to 1/10 because, believe it or not, I've seen worse.)
\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\nKnowing how old a film is, ought to prepare the viewer for a few things, and, with those things in mind, perhaps the movie'll be more tolerable. So it was when I watched Revolt of the Zombies. The heavy reliance on tedious dialogue and corny movements should be expected, as should the primitiveness (or absence) of special effects in those days. A great deal is asked from the imagination of the onlooker - maybe too much, in this case. And the plot isn't easy to follow: Some zombiefied southeast Asian soldiers in WWI performed very admirably. Although skeptical as to why, if true, the explanation should stay out of the wrong hands, so, off goes a group to archaeologically investigate. The key to long-distance hypnosis is learned by a member of the expedition, who uses it to, among other purposes, temporarily dispense with the beau of the gal for whom he has the hots. To prove his love for her, he gives up his hold on everybody, which he shouldn't have done 'cause, once they're all unzombiefied, many want to kill him so that he'll never control them again. Below average, even with precautionary forethought. Recommended for only the extremely patient.
\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 problem with family dramas is that, outside of TV movies on channels like Lifetime, most people don't want to watch them. And the ones that do get watched tend to be sensationalized and about current or topical problems or issues in the news (or recent news). Movies that explain or explore the human condition aren't popular. Particularly with the young crowd that would be Miss Lohan's fan base or the younger crowd that tends to make movies not simply popular but financially successful for studios.
The specific problems I had with this movie is the cartoonishness of some of the characterizations. It was a bit much to blame all of the Lohan's character's acting-out (wrecking the car, drug use, etc.) on what her step-father did to her. While not improbable,it's just a bit much to expect the audience to swallow. Additionally, other aspects, such as her giving the young Morman boy, oral sex, or that she would actually make a good assistant to the vet, who coincidentally happens to have a thing for her mother, etc., all these elements just did not really help this movie along. It placed it more in the element of a situation comedy trying one of their \"special dramatic episodes\" then it did for a fully realized, well-written feature film.
When you watch the DVD and listen to the commentary, particularly for the various alternate endings, you can really see all of this is sharp focus.
\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 disliked this movie for numerous reasons. Within the first ten minutes of the film, I grew extremely disappointed and came to the conclusion that if this movie was going to salvage itself, for me at least, that it was going to have to pull itself out of the enormous hole it had dug. Unfortunately, that did not occur. The two draws of the movie for me were to see Jane Fonda and Felicity Huffman. I don't know enough about Lindsey Lohan's work to have been interested in what she would bring to the film. Afterward, I just felt disappointed in and for all three of them even though there were \"moments\" in each of their performances. I imagine that for each of them to find their \"moments\" was a very difficult task given the fact that there was an amazing lack of character development and uninspired dialog. Although the plot is an interesting one, the movie on the whole is so poorly written, directed and edited that anybody's performance as an actor would suffer and be tainted by it. The disrespectful way in which it dealt with sexual abuse and the trite and insulting viewpoint of small-town America, I think, were the two main reasons why this film failed in hitting it's mark. As one reviewer has noted and I would agree, the movie is almost impossible to market given it's finished form. I suspect that, or at least hope that (for the actor's sakes anyway) there are some real gems on the cutting room floor. Sad for us but if that's true then the actors can take solace in that and feel somewhat good about lending their talents and time to such a flop. Oh yeah and another thing...I wished for just once I could go see an American movie which included the sadly disappearing but wonderfully bucolic settings such as the one in this film where the main characters weren't absentmindedly and/or disrespectfully littering the country side with pop cans, smashed CDs and, other such trash!
\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\nGeorgia Rule has got to be one of - if not the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. The whole movie has a very surreal feel that made me gasp, \"what?\" out loud at least 7-10 times throughout its grueling two hour course.
Advertised in its trailer as a movie about three generations of women - Jane Fonda as the matriarch, Felicity Huffman as her daughter, and Lindsay Lohan as the rebellious, over- sexed, scantily clad grand-daughter, the viewer thinks this will be a cliché, light, chick-flick about growing up and coming together as a family.
Talk about false advertisement at it worst.
After many shots of animals doing \"funny\" things in the background of \"pivotal\" scenes and not to mention a whole five minutes focusing on an old woman who comes into a doctor's office weekly to have her diaper changed, or the fact that this movie is actually about Lindsay Lohan's character being sexually abused by her step-father, Georgia Rule creates its own genre of cinema : The ungrounded, horribly acted, inappropriate comedy dealing with extremely serious issues in the most awkward, surreal, strange way. If Garry Marshall wanted this movie to be a drama/comedy, then he should have watched The Royal Tenenbaums. Sideways. Junebug. And so on. And so on.
The only way I feel I can get a reader to understand the horrific genre that Georgia Rule falls under is to create a hypothetical situation. Say that the movie, The 40 Year Old Virgin, was about the main character being celibate because he was sexually molested as a child. But instead of having the movie take a more dramatic turn, belly laughs and comedy would ensue, with all of the characters' reactions being that of fake, lifeless, human beings pretending to care.
Throw in a yellow parakeet, Dermot Mulroney as the flattest, most non-dimensional character that could have been cut completely out of this poorly written script, along with a male character who throws away all of his religious beliefs and morals to be with a trashy, too-tanned girl who shares none of the same interests as he, as well as an an unnecessary car chase scene, unreal moments of characters trying to relate to each other, and you've got Georgia Rule.
I found this movie to be an insult to any of those people out there who are struggling filmmakers, screenwriters, actors, editors, etc..who have a lot more talent and aren't getting noticed.
Don't see this movie : my rule.
And if you must, get sufficiently drunk before hand.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI have been searching for the right words to describe this film. At first I was inclined to simply skip to more significant matters, as the film does not rise to a level deserving comment.
Yet, I stopped, puzzled as to how to describe such stuff and somewhat intrigued by the challenge presented by the question: \"What can one say about such a film?\" Rubbish? No, its not rubbish, rubbish can be recycled into something useful. Greenhouse gas? No, its not greenhouse gas, greenhouse gases help plants grow large and healthy.
Finally, I struck on \"Not even bad,\" a rework of the phrase \"Not even wrong\" used sometimes in theoretical physics to describe a theory that is hopelessly flawed and not even worthy of correction. That's it then, Georgia Rule: Not even bad.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI just came from seeing this movie and decided to see what others thought of it. I'm left wondering if these people who give glowing reviews saw the same film! This is potentially a very good story, but it fails to hit the mark. The script is very weak - the plot has so many holes that it would make a great dip net for the fishing scenes. The characters were not well developed and the storyline jumps around so much that I found myself asking the question \"How did we get here?\" at least a half dozen times during the movie.
There was a lack of any chemistry between the cast members. This is probably related to Lindsay Lohan's antics during the filming. It was pretty clear that everyone showed up and did their job, but didn't commit to their roles.
This is not a movie worth seeing...go for a walk, play a board game, take a nice warm bath and save your money for something that's 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\nThis movie was portrayed in the trailer as a comedy. It is an extreme tragedy. It left me sick to my stomach. I hated it. I think if they want to make a movie like this than they should be man enough to reflect the true intentions of the movie in the trailer. I would not have seen this movie if I would have known. I think the trailer should reflect the theme and intentions of a movie. I am tired of it. I really wanted to have a fun comedy and I am extremely disappointed. It has been several days now and I still have a bad taste in my mouth from this movie. I have never been more disappointed in a movie, nor have I ever written a comment on a bad movie. I really think that true deception was involved in this trailer because if they showed the true intention of the movie, no one would have seen 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\nOkay, so the previews to this film only tells you that a rebellious young girl goes to live with her grandmother for the summer in order to straighten out. That is actually not the case! It's about a young rebellious 17 year old girl who reveals a secret and it's up to her mother to believe if she's telling the truth or not.
To be honest, I really enjoyed the concept of this movie. They had a really good plot and a really good theme of a love/hate relationship between mother and daughter. I did not however, enjoyed watching Lindsay Lohan's acting. In reality, this movie would have been GREAT if they had someone else, perhaps a better actress. The character of Rachel (Lohan) is a very sexually aggressive person and it sort of reminds us of the real Lindsay so it takes away a lot from the film.
I do however, think that if you put Lindsay aside, you will enjoy this film. The ending is pretty great (and sad).
\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 haven't seen this, & don't plan to see this movie or any other that includes Lindsay......unless & until \"poor little rich girl\" straightens out her life for a 2 year period beginning with her most recent arrest in July 2007.
In fact, I don't know anyone that has gone to see ANY of Lindsay's recent movies. I rather imagine 2007 will be the high water mark in her movie making career, until she cleans up her act. All of the recent publicity has only hindered her movie making career, if she has any further aspirations to make any more movies
Up to this time, movie producers have actively sought Lindsay for roles in their upcoming production. Now, Lindsay will probably have to go to auditions & actually compete for ANY role. Her reputation is currently \"poison\" & quite possible could have a negative effect on box office ticket sales on any movie she is in.
Sooooo....now Lindsay is going to have to deal with \"not being wanted\".....is she going to be able to handle this?
I wonder if even Jay Leno will want to have Lindsay back on his TV Show?
All of the foregoing is merely my OPINION. I have no inside information.
\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 only rating this film as a 3 out of pity because it attempts to be worthwhile. I love to praise a great movie and I'm not biased toward \"male\" movies. Legally blonde was an excellent film. Georgia Rule on the other hand, was a disorganized, weak, poorly written, unrealistic example of movie making at its worst. by the end of the film I didn't care who was lying or if anything was resolved.
The most important thing in a film is a good STORY. This story is weak and never develops (just because the subject matter is deep, doesn't mean the story is good). A good story has dynamic characters. A dynamic character is one that experiences a major character change, and is primed for that change over the course of the movie. In Georgia Rule, the character changes were abrupt and undeveloped. Secondly, there were too many ATTEMPTED dynamic characters. Pulling off a really good dynamic character is a tough job and takes time (you've only got a couple hours in a movie). That means that too many attempted dynamic characters will get too little attention to their personal change. Even if I ignore the poorly written story, and the litter of weak dynamic characters, I can't even say I liked anyone. Every character was a mess. That's fine if your're writing American Beauty but not when you're attempting a dramatic comedy. Georgia was a horrible mother, her daughter was a horrible mother and daughter, and Lohan was a horrible excuse for a human being (no I'm not cutting her any slack because she was molested, crap happens to everyone and we're all responsible for our own actions). The \"Dudley Do Right\" Mormon kid should have had the guts not to compromise his religion and commitments...and Simon, I mean seriously, what kind of guy lets a 17 year old girl who's been molested just stay over occasionally (unless he's an actor or a politician). This movie is worth watching if you want to remind yourself what good movie making is NOT!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere's a lot of good that can be said for this cartoon; the backgrounds are rich, lushly colored and full of nicely done art deco details. The animation is up to the usual studio standards of the time, which are unquestionably higher than those of the present day. However, I find it tedious for a number of reasons.
The Music: It's definitely not up to Scott Bradley's usual standards. Although it's probably supposed to be evocative of a \"Great Gatsby\" setting, it ends up being dreary, sleepy, repetitious AND monotonous (repetitious and monotonous are not the same, as Beethoven's 5th Symphony attests). Since most people (including me) tend to close their eyes when they yawn, there's a lot of the visual part of the cartoon that will be missed by the average viewer.
The Storyline: I'm not giving away any secrets that aren't already in the plot summary - country good, city bad. This is a common theme in films, both animated and live, from this era. It's a misplaced nostalgia for a nonexistent rural idyll, which, in the present day, is reflected in a similar nostalgia for \"values\" that never were.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI don't know about you, but what I love about Tom and Jerry cartoons is the (often violent) interaction between the two characters. Mouse In Manhattan sees Jerry leaving Tom behind to have an adventure in New York, and as far as I am concerned, this one definitely suffers from a lack of cat!
As magical as Jerry's exploration of the 'Big Apple' might be for the other T&J fans who have commented here on IMDb, I couldn't wait for this self-indulgent rubbish to end, so I could watch the next cartoon on my DVD.
In fact, the only part of the whole episode that I genuinely enjoyed was when Jerry almost 'buys the farm', hanging precariously off the end of a broken candle, hundreds of feet above a busy road.
\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\nPut a DVD of this flick in a time capsule, and it will definitely illustrate for future generations a perfect example of one which warrants the minimal rating on a 1-to-10-star scale.
Bill Cosby and Ray Romano have been at the top - in ratings and with tens of millions in earnings annually - with their television series'. Yet each has had no success in big-screen offerings. This has also been true for other TV personalities - perhaps because many of the stories which are presented for two hours or so seem more suited to either a 10-minute skit, or at most, the 22 or 23 minutes of drama during a half-hour program.
This film, however, doesn't have one single element which would warrant two or three minutes of time on MAD TV, SNL, or anywhere else on a screen or stage.
Its origination date is listed as 2002, but release date - to DVD only - is shown as 2004. It also was filmed not long before Rodney Dangerfield's death, so its one redeeming value is that it probably provided at lease a few hundred thousand more dollars for his heirs.
I'd never heard of it, but found it when turning-on my set, and frankly became fascinated by it. Some movies are so truly awful that they rate a sort of top rating in reverse - so bad that you can move the dial backwards to a 9 or 10. \"Plan 9 from Outer Space\" is the best example - and the Bruce Jenner/Village People opus, \"Can't Stop the Music,\" is another.
Unfortunately this flick falls short even there. Even if Rodney's earlier work (as well as some of his fellow cast-members') fell short of \"Citizen Kane\" or \"Casablanca,\" there were many moments of humor and a story providing at least a modicum of interest.
Unfortunately, this presentation doesn't seem to possess even a minute or two's worth of such material.
\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 must agree with the very first comment: this movie sucks very, very hard. Despite having a very big B-list cast, the cover of this film (for those who aren't watching it on Comedy Central during a weekday which is probably the only exposure this film will ever get) tries to put the blame on Dangerfield but in reality is just a paycheck for every has-been comedian from the '80s. Randy Quaid? Check. Ed Begley, Jr? Check. The voice of Lisa Simpson? She can now say that Maximum Overdrive wasn't her only horrible flick: double check. And so many, many others.
The saddest thing about this flick is that it was so lazily written with already-told jokes. Nothing about this movie outside of its existence is funny. You're better off watching paint dry. This is definitely direct-to-video scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel stuff that still believes in the old video adage: throw an old-time star on the cover and you'll get some money back off of the rental. Considering the days of video rental are changing, consider this one of the last examples of putting out garbage.
The only use this movie has if you're having trouble falling asleep. It'll get you there.
\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\nRodney Dangerfield isn't the main character of this movie. He's barely in it. Most of the screen time is dominated by unfunny jokes. One running gag is that a character is named Jerk Off. There are also lots of erection jokes, where the punch line is someone has an erection. This movie is as funny as Kirstie Ally's British accent is convincing.
This movie started off like a weak action movie: five minutes of back story and then bam! Unfunny jokes. But, aside from the terrible writing, the movie is also poorly directed and the acting is terrible. Also, this movie does the old bad comedy cliché of having lots of well-known B-movie actors. Harland Williams, Gilbert Godfried, Randy Quaid, and Phil La Mar. These are just some of the people that spend more time on the screen than Rodney, even though he's billed as the main character. Don't be surprised to find this movie at a drug store selling for five bucks. Even that is too much.
\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 was a kid in the 50's and 60's anything connected with Disney was by definition great. What happened? They are able to get any actors and actresses they want, the best of their time. But somehow Disney manages to screw things up in spite of their abundant resources.
Disney can afford the best writers, the best producers and directors, but still...they screw things up! This movie is crap. The sad thing is that I suspect Disney in their arrogance does not even know when a movie is good or bad.
It is only due to the talent of the actors that I can even give it a 3 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\nTim (Gary Daniels) wants desperately to break into serious television reporting. When a job he begged for goes awry, he is fired. His beautiful but empty girlfriend (Elizabeth Hurley) says sayonara, too. Coming home, Tim is startled to discover his house has an uninvited visitor (Christopher Lloyd) from the planet Mars! Calling him Uncle Martin, Tim soon tries to help his new friend navigate life on earth. But, Martin gets in trouble wherever he goes, from the bathroom to the laundry room and more. Lovely Lizzie (Daryl Hannah) finally sees an opportunity to make time with Tim but the course of true love does not run smooth in this case, either. Soon everyone in television is stalking Tim, hoping for a story about a true alien. What's a man to do? For those who loved the old television show of the same name, with Bill Bixby and Ray Walston, this film is not worthy to tie the proverbial boots. Its truly, undeniably awful, with no plot and a reliance on supposed special effects which fall flat, too. Daniels is okay as the earthling but Lloyd is simply terrible as the alien, overacting up a storm. The rest of the cast is adequate, as are the costumes, set, and production details. Even if your children see the cover and beg for this film, convince them to pick out another flick at the video store. Be assured, kids and adults will find this movie a colossal bore, so opt for A Night at the Museum or Around the World in 80 Days instead.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis was yet another big screen outing for a US TV show from the sixties It is amusing enough but was very much to formula. Intelligent Martian lands on Earth and meets the not too bright humans, in his view.
The usual wackiness ensues with the human, Bridges, eventually bonds with him and helps him to get home. Along the way he also gets the girl, Hannah.
This is a nice outing for some pleasant Hollywood stars who I had not seen for a while.
Pleasant enough to pass some spare time if you have not got anything better to view.
\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\nWe went into this movie because my husband had enjoyed the original version of `My favourite Martian'. We had our 6 year old daughter with us. She wanted to leave halfway through the movie which was fine with both her parents! The parts we did see were only occasionally humorous, mostly either too silly or gross. I would expect that this movie might appeal to kids between 9-12, if that. It's definitely not suited for younger children. From what I've heard the original series was by far superior and if you are going to \"relive the past\" you'll probably be disappointed.
\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\nShazbot, is this embarrassing. In fact, here's a list of 100 that makes up the embarrassment: 1.) a failed comeback for Christopher Lloyd. 2.) Jeff Daniels basically playing the same role he played in the live 101 Dalmatians remake which wasn't too juicy to begin with. He sure has a funny way of promoting his Purple Rose Theatre... 3.) Disnefluff. 4.) another disappointing reminder that Wallace Shawn is to Disney what Jet Li was to Bob Hoskins in Unleashed. 5.) Ray Walston, the original martian from the TV series, played a bit part (read \"cameo\") in this flick and died two years later of lupus. Coincidence? 6.) awful special effects. Seriously - awful. 7.-100.) that damn talking, farting suit voiced to an annoying degree by Wayne Knight (\"Newman!\"). My favorite scene? HA! HA ha, ha! Ha ha ha ha ha... Whew!... Good one. You - You're a joker. Okay, let's wrap up this review with a moment of silence for this franchise's agonizing death, and if you would like, you can say a quick prayer that Disney doesn't forget this travesty and do something silly like a movie adaptation of \"Mork and Mindy\" starring Tim Allen.........................................................
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere is no possible reason I can fathom why this movie was ever made.
Why must Hollywood continue to crank out one horrible update of a classic after another? ( Cases in point: Mister Magoo, The Avengers - awful! )
Christopher Lloyd, whom I normally enjoy, was so miserably miscast in this role. His manic portrayal of our beloved \"Uncle Martin\" is so unspeakably unenjoyable to be almost criminal. His ranting, groaning, grimacing and histrionics provide us with no reason to care for his character except as some 1 dimensional cartoon character.
The director must have thought that fast movements, screaming dialogue and \"one-take\" slapstick had some similarity to comedy. Apparently he told EVERY ACTOR to act as if they had red ants in their pants.
Fault must lie with the irresponsibly wrought script. I think the writer used \"It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World\" as an example of a fine comedy script. As manic as that 1963 classic is, it is far superior to this claptrap - in fact - suddenly it looks pretty good in comparison.
What is most sad about this movie is that it must have apparently been written to appeal to young children. I just am not sure whose children it was made for. Certainly no self-respecting, card-carrying child I know!
If they HAD to remake \"My Favorite Martian\", why didn't they add some of the timeless charm of the original classic?
Unfortunately, IMDB.com cannot factor in \"zero\" as a rating for its readers, that is the only rating that comes to mind in describing this travesty.
One good thing did come from this movie, the actors and crew were paid - I think.
\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 third parody of the scary movies and hopefully the last. This time the spoof is mainly on The Ring, Signs and 8 Mile for some weird reason. In my opinion this movie was very pointless and unnecessary and not even funny. I laughed maybe three times and that is not enough for a comedy. I really enjoyed the first two but this one was just plain dumb. If your jokes consist of corpses getting beat up and people constantly throwing stuff at each other then this movie is for you. In my opinion, if your smart enough stay at home and save your money and please stop making these kind of movies, they just keep getting worse 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\nYou could say that the actors will make a movie, but this clearly proves that statement wrong. Most of the characters in this film lack anything to hold on to. They play the part of cardboard cut outs being moved about in predictable and uninteresting ways. The story is very simple. It could be summed up in a few words, but I'll hold back in case anyone reading does want to see this film.
I had to fast forward the parts where Jack showed us how to be an obnoxious eater. I'd have to say that 70% of this film revolved around cooking, eating, or getting ready to eat. Quite frankly, I'd rather not spend my time watching Jack chew noisily with an open mouth. Personally, I could have done without the footwear references and jokes that pepper the first half of the film too.
Outside of my own personal dementia, the film really lacked anything worth it's time. There were countless scenes and camera shots that felt like it was dragging. When something happens, the reactions of the characters are vague and dry.
Best not to look this one up.
\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 movie was watchable while Nicolson was on the screen. However, I had to fight against passing out from boredom when the film depended on Meryl Streep to carry scenes without Jack; she was as bland as could be. The relationship between the characters was nothing special; these characters have been portrayed before -- and much better. It felt like a based-on-real-life scenario in the absolute worst sense: 90% of daily life is boring, and not worth writing about or watching. Why Ephron felt her life and relationship with Carl Bernstein was interesting enough to write about escapes me. Perhaps she wrote it as therapy -- for many writers, putting an episode from their life on paper is cathartic. Fine: but then why anyone in Hollywood felt this story was worth filming remains a mystery to me.
\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 should be a great film... Meryl Streep and Jack Nicholson co-starring as two newspaper writers. Mike Nichols directing. Uh uh. It's dull dull dull! Pointless and predictable! Slow and unfocused!
It's a cookie cutter 'boy meets girl, boy marries girl, boy has affair, girl leaves boy' story. Now theres an original concept! After squirming through two hours (was it only two? It felt like six.)I wasn't sure whether it was a comedy, a romance, a tragedy or a soap opera. It was done in 1986. I'm sure all of us did things sixteen years ago that we rather would forget. I hope the damage to the reputations of Streep et al is beginning to heal and that the emulsion on the master is beginning to fade. It's not that it's such a bad picture. It's just that it's such an un-good one.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw this film at its New York's High Falls Film Festival screening as well and I must say that I found it a complete and awful bore. Although it was funny in some places, the only real laughs was that there appeared to be o real plot to talk about and the acting in some places was dreadful and wooden, especially the \"Lovely Lady\" and the voice of the narrator (whom I have never heard of) had a lot to be desired. J.C.Mac was, I felt, the redeeming feature of this film, true action and grit and (out of the cast) the only real acting. I am sure with another cast and a tighter reign on the directing, this could have been a half decent film. Let us just hope that it is not sent out on general release, or if you really want a copy, look in the bargain bin in Lidl.
\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 mask in the 80's and it's currently showing on Fox Kids in the UK (very late at night). I remember thinking that it was kinda cool back in the day and had a couple of the toys too but watching it now bores me to tears. I never realised before of how tedious and bland this cartoon show really was. It's just plain awful! It is no where near in the same league as The Transformers, He-man or Thundercats and was very quickly forgot by nearly everyone once it stopped being made. I only watch it on Fox Kids because Ulysses 31 comes on straight after it (that's if mask doesn't put me to sleep first). One of the lesser 80's cartoons that i hope to completely forget about again once it finishes airing on Fox Kids!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI don't usually comment, but there are things that need to be said. Where to start...
The acting, on Jeremy London's part was horrible! I didn't think he could be so bad. The plot could have been good, had it been well directed, along with a good solid performance from the lead actor. Unfortunately, this is one of those movies you read about and think it has great potential to be entertaining, but get disappointed from the start.
Well, at least I got good laughs. I wouldn't waste my time if I were 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\nThe Film must have been shot in a day,there are scenes where you can see the camera reflections and its red pointer,even the scenery's green light that blends with the actors!!!The plot and the lines are really awful without even the slightest inspiration(At least as a thriller genre movie).Everything that got to do with Poe in the movie,has a shallow and childish approach.The film is full of clise and no thrilling.If you want to watch a funny b-movie for a relaxing evening with friends then go for it you will enjoy it (As I Did) but there's no way to take this film seriously!
\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\nactually, it was pretty funny... in a \"god, how the hell did this movie get made\" kind of way. if you life making fun of movies... which i kinda do... go ahead and watch it... but if you're actually thinking \"is this a good movie?\" eff off.
this movie sucked from the very beginning scene with the worst acting i've ever seen in any movie.... usually they get five minutes into it before you realize \"this movie might suck\".. but no, you know right off the bat. this movie talks about edgar allen poe... never tried to explain it though, to people who haven't memorized poe's life story... so i don't know if any of what was said is fact.
this movie is about a writer \"ethan poe\" hookin up with his cousin \"ann\".... they're both descendants of edgar allan poe... or are they?!? apparently, people give a what their ancestors did. this guy ethan poe is actually ethan \"usher\", who is supposed to be descendants from the story \"the house of usher\" that was written by edgar allen poe. ann's brother shows up sometimes to try to rape her... ann's also being stalked, at one point in the movie, by three different people on the same street (seriously, three... they're like right behind her glaring at her and she doesn't even realize). the characters that are being murdered throughout, show up at the end to try to save the day.... but they can't. at the end, ann shoots ethan while he's trying to kill her best friend. of course, before she shoots him she has to scream out \"nevermore!\" this movie should be seen nevermore!
\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 surely one of the worst films ever made. Each scene is painful. You will groan at the flimsy attempts at humor, the awkward camera work, the sexism and racism, the ridiculous story line, the wooden acting. Poor Joan Bennett; she is the only one in the movie who is not an embarrassment. In all, dreadful.
\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 to say I hated this movie. I don't like to say that because Gerard Butler is in it. About a half an hour of boring conversation, sorry to all who actually care about the plot, I started fast-forwarding to Gerry's scenes. I really don't know the ending, I was that bored with it. If Gerry wasn't in it, I probably either done one of two things: fell asleep or turned it off, but Gerry is the bright light of this movie, as he is with most of his earlier movies. If you're a fan of Gerry's don't worry, he's as adorable and precious as he always is, but if you actually want to watch the movie for the plot, good luck because you'll need it, either that or lots of coffee or soda to keep you awake!
4/10...and that's just because the casting director had the sense to put Gerry in this movie, even though they had no idea of how to spell his name!
\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 love Zombie-Movies and I love amateur-productions. And Meat Market 2 starts really promising with a nice homage to Fulci´s Classic \"Zombi\".
So I leaned back and waited to be impressed. Okay, some of the makeups are great for such a no budget movie and some actors (the vampirelady and the cook) really stand out, but else there´s nothing.
I didn´t expect a new Romero here but there is not one sequence in the whole movie which has even a little bit of suspense or shock value. The director sure knows how to stage body rippings and interesting eating habits, but now (after two parts) it´s time to learn something more.
In MeatMarket2 Gore rhymes with bore - for me that´s not enough - sorry.
** out of *****
\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\nAbout the worst movie in distribution right now! I love zombie movies and saw this in the used rack so I thought why not? Oh my god a shame to zombie movies and fans to the genre! Whoever made this movie needs to put away your camcorder and go to film school! There are so many gore hounds out there who have put time and effort into their films and they have something that this film doesn't dignity. I know it what it takes to make films and I'm sure there was a lot of money and time spent in making Meat Market but none of that money and time went in to making it good. You need actors, a script, a real camera, invest in some books on how to make independent films. I don't know how you got a DVD release but whoever did that is either a really good friend or banging their head on the wall. In gore films it is quality not quantity, the effects are weak! I was so angry that this is actually in stores and that I couldn't get my money back. Please if you have seen this film write here and put an end to shlock. I know I'm being very harsh, I only had 10 lines so I'm trying to get to the point.
\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 was the recipient of the 1990 Academy award for Best Animated Short Film. Over the last few weeks, I have seen dozens of the nominees and recipients of this award from the last 30 years and I really think that this film might just be the worst of them all--yet it wasn't just a nominee but it won!! I assume that 1989 must have just been a horrible year for the genre.
The film shows a group of characters that look a bit like super-skinny Uncle Festers. The appear to be simple articulated figures who are moved using stop motion animation. All are identical--with the same faces, bodies and clothes. The only difference is that each has a different number drawn on their backs. They are all standing on a large platform that is suspended, as if by magic, in space. Each has a pole and their is also a box on the platform. The platform begins tilting slightly and in response the men move about in an effort to balance the platform. This goes on and on and on and on for the longest time. The only relief from this tedium is when one of them acts rather nasty towards the end, but it just isn't enough to make this fun to watch in the least. Aside from passable stop motion animation, this short offers nothing of interest to me....NOTHING.
By the way, the great short KNICK KNACK also came out in 1989 and I have no idea why it was not among the nominees. It was a GREAT short and was far better than any of the nominees that year or the year before. Perhaps Pixar's success in previous years resulted in a bias against them, but KNICK KNACK is so clever and so funny it seems almost criminal to have ignored it. Could Pixar have not entered it? This seems unlikely.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was horrible, simply put. It was so bad I registered with IMDb to warn you of its dangers.
I am a campy horror film expert, per se. I have watched \"Redneck Zombies\", \"House of the Psychotic Women\", \"Slumber Party Massacre II\" and many others. I know my schlock. And I know this movie sucks.
Three fourths of the film is comprised of scared individuals running from one side of the screen to the other. When they are not running, they are spouting non-sequitur lines, devoid of emotion or motivation. When the actors begin to be acceptable, the direction falls to pieces. There were so many jarring low-angle shots; I figured Leif Jonker had a 3 foot tall tripod. He used what I call the \"Leif Maneuver\" several millions times: that is, zooming out from an object of interest like an amateur. Apparently the film crew couldn't get up early enough to film a sunrise, so they filmed a sunset... and played it in reverse. With direction this lazy, you are actually impressed with the final gory scene. The only thing you can figure is that the last five minutes was filmed before the first eighty-five minutes.
If you want a good (bad) gory movie, rent \"Riki-Oh\" or the foundational \"Dead Alive.\" If you are a schlock buff, and are looking for a challenge, give \"Darkness\" a go.
Quote o' the movie-
Vampire: It's die time!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"