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\nSo, I know that I voted 1 out of 10 but really this deserves no more than half of a star. I hated it. It was so stupid and unrealistic, I can't believe any of the stars signed on to make this ridiculously absurd project.
James G. and Cathrine O'Hara were excellent in their characters and Ben Affleck and Christina Applegate were just as good too, but the story sucked and I encourage anyone who sees this in the video store to not even bother picking it up and reading the back cover, but to just walk away...I don't even want to get into what the movie is about, because it is too stupid to pontificate about.
Don't rent this! It's horrible! Horrible!
\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\nMay contain spoilers.
I say that, but anyone savvy enough to be reading this can probably figure out every plot turn right from the start.
This is not a movie that I liked. I didn't hate it in the way of some movies that insult your intelligence, but it all felt too predictable on its trudge to the requisite happy ending. There were funny bits along the way to be sure, but few were original. At least it didn't go for the gutter.
Christina Applegate looks fresh, and Ben Affleck works hard. Their scenes together are actually the only redeeming feature. Everyone else is a cardboard cutout, including, surprisingly, James Gandolfini, who must have made this as a favor to someone.
All in all, it's a harmless, but not inspiring, 90 minutes.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is terrible. TERRIBLE. One of the worst movies ever. I cannot even imagine Gigli being worse that this. Previews made us say \"NO\", but then looking for something amid the dreck out there right now, we decided to go ahead and give it a shot.
STUPID US.
Affleck is NOT an actor. He's an image and can look good with explosions, but not even the kind Bruce Willis got in \"Die Hard\". If he stripped his shirt and ran around fighting bad guys, it would be a comedy.
The best part was Catherine O'Hara -- she's always good. Gandolfini flops again (if it weren't for The Sopranos, he'd be washed up) like he did in \"The Mexican\".
Affleck hogs every scene and as others have said -- no character has any motivation whatsoever for their actions.
AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI went to see this film at the cinemas and i was shocked when I got in the room. There was only me and my girlfriend! This shouted to me that this film is not very good.
Not to my surprise, the film was dire. Ben Affleck plays a guy who buys a family for Christmas. It is a very predictable narrative with him falling in love with the girl that hates him. His acting is OKish but for the comedy aspect of the film he is not very good. The plot line is poor and the comedy almost non-existent.
However, there are some good points. For example, the family is falling apart and the mother is very funny.
I hope this review stops other people wasting their money. I was very embarrassed when I came out of the room!!!
\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\nDrew Latham(Ben Affleck)is determined not to be lonely this Christmas. Not only is Drew a millionaire; but also obnoxious and guilty of being very grandiose. Drew goes back to the home he grew up in and offers the family living there, the Valco's, $250,000 to be his \"family\" through the Christmas season. Tom Valco(James Gandolfini)is reluctant, but is greedy enough to take Drew's offer. Christine Valco(Catherine O'Hara)has little to say in the matter, but learns to like having Drew around...not exactly the same sentiment with daughter Alicia(Christina Applegate), but that too has room for change. Drew's girlfriend Missy(Jennifer Morrison)tracks down Drew and wants her folks to meet his family. Genuine fun is in store as a happy Noel becomes a hilarious dysfunctional nightmare. Other members of the cast: Josh Zuckerman, Bill Macy, David Selby and Stephanie Faracy. Affleck is comedic, albeit strange.
\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\nNot as bad as you've heard. There are actually some funny parts and Affleck and Applegate have fairly good chemistry. Applegate, in particular, is appealing and likable as Affleck's love interest. James Gandolfini and Catherine O'Hara are consummate professionals. They're pretty good in just about everything. In the end, \"Surviving\" is not the worst holiday movie you'll ever see.
Unfortunately, it is unfocused and much of the comedy is forced. The attempts at dark humor come off as dour. Affleck tries hard to be endearingly spastic and overenthusiastic but comes across as disturbed. His character's cartoonish nature is brought into high relief when viewed next to Gandolfini and O'Hara's more muted, believable performances. Even by the relaxed standards of holiday movies, you never fully buy into the set-up of Affleck \"renting\" this family for X-mas.
There are also scenes that border on the surreal in their strangeness. The X-mas eve scene replete with incestuous humor (a son being discovered looking at naked, provocative pictures of his mother) that not only isn't funny or believable but disturbing.
To make matters worse, the colors in this film are muddy, almost noirish. The house set on which most of the movie takes place looks stagey and cheap.
\"Surviving\" is mostly of interest as the fourth in a string of box office duds (Paycheck, Gigli, Jersey Girl, and this) for Affleck. It remains to be seen how lasting the damage will be.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI liked it, i really did. Please don't think that i'm an idiot but i have to admit that i enjoyed this film. I expected it to be crap, it was crap, but sometimes its OK to relax and watch a crappy film that you don't have to concentrate too much on isn't it? I didn't expect any hidden meanings or morales, and there wasn't any, but that doesn't matter because i only watched it for entertainment, and it did entertain me throughout. Films like this are why the Ben Stillers (excusing 'there's something about Mary') and the Vince Vaughns (however you spell his last name, i couldn't be bothered checking)have jobs. It's OK to watch a crap film as long as you don't expect too much from it, and i for one shall take a stand, jog, perhaps run, but not drive because i don't have a car, to Blockbuster Video, or even Choices, and rent a bunch of these toilet humoured films and stay in one night watching them. Good day to you reader. P.s if you do not say that this comment helped you then i don't like you, if you do say it helped then god bless you, you will go to heaven.
\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 admit I laughed a few times during this trivial 2004 holiday movie, but it's already moving out of my short-term memory. In a career that is sliding rather swiftly toward tabloid obscurity, Ben Affleck, once a promising comic character actor who became enmeshed in the Hollywood publicity machine to recreate himself into a romantic leading man. Judging from this film, the transformation doesn't seem to be taking, as he continues to lack the gravitas that would make him credible in such parts. While his buddy Matt Damon takes on smart roles in films like \"Syriana\", Affleck appears in this type of commercial pap. At least the superficial character of successful but lonely advertising executive Drew Latham suits Affleck better than most of the other roles he has tried.
Directed by Mike Mitchell (whose most famous film is 1999's \"Deuce Bigelow: Male Gigolo\") and scripted by no less than four screenwriters (always a bad sign), the flimsy plot revolves around his character's need to \"rent\" a family living in his childhood home in order to live out his fantasy of having the old-fashioned Christmas he never had. The concept is actually intriguing because there is something to be said about the cathartic release of sentimentality we are all directed to feel amid the frenzied commercialism around the holidays. The real problem, however, is that the movie feels like an extended sketch lacking any logic or authentic emotional resonance. Affleck seems to be on overdrive attempting desperately to be lovable, but the net result is an exhausting turn by an actor who has an increasingly annoying habit of playing stupid people in ill-conceived films. Fortunately, he has the likes of James Gandofini and Catherine O'Hara playing the Valcos, the couple who decide to accept Drew's monetary offer to pretend to be his parents.
Gandolfini plays Tom like a gruff, non-violent relative of Tony Soprano, but he does what he can in the role. From her classic SCTV Days to Christopher Guest's mockumentaries, O'Hara is always a comic gem no matter the vehicle, and unsurprisingly she earns the best laughs as Tom's wife Christine, whether dryly delivering a one-liner or posing in an inch of make-up for a dominatrix photo shoot. In what is becoming her standard screen role, Christina Applegate plays their mistrusting daughter Alicia, who of course becomes Drew's love interest. Despite some good moments where she is enjoying the deceit of playing Drew's sister in front of his girlfriend's family, her character seems to change in lightning-flash strokes making it hard to see what Drew would see in her. The story spins completely out of control by the last third with one contrived situation piled on top of another until plot strands are tied together in short order. It's rumored that much of the movie was improvised since there was no finished shooting script. It shows, but I also have to admit I stuck with it to the bitter end.
\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 thing is horrible. The Ben Affleck character is self-centered and gleefully sadistic--punch-you-in-the-nose fratboy sadistic. And he's the romantic HERO! His cartoonish character does not change from beginning to end, but his money ultimately allows him to buy happiness.
If I were a Socialist, I would screed beyond belief, but I'm not a Socialist.
We capitalists like a little Christmas magic from time to time. This ain't magic. I don't know what it is. It's just awful. And it's a horrible waste of talent. O'Hara has been making me laugh hysterically since the late '70s. Gandolfini. Applegate. These people were all underused. If Ben was out of the equation, these folks might have dreamed up something excellent.
\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 quite possibly the worst Christmas film ever. The plot is virtually non-existent, the acting (Affleck in particular) is poor at best. Ben Affleck fans will probably defend this film but deep down they must agree. As far as I could gather the plot consisted of Ben Affleck, a millionaire salesman, is told by a shrink to go to a place that reminds him of his childhood and burn a list of things he wanted to forget from his childhood. On doing this he ends up paying the family currently living in the house to be his family for Christmas... and that is it. The film goes on and eventually he gets together with the daughter of the family.... blah blah blah.
\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\nJames Gandolfini is a good actor so what ever did he take a role in this piece of unfunny rubbish. Affleck is just a lightweight who just can't cut it, the rest of the cast are truly unforgettable. I saw this in the USA in an empty theatre, I soon knew why the place was empty after about 10 minutes. I walked out before the end it was so bad, so imagine my surprise when back in England I saw the movie had a glowing report from that yoyo \"Paul Ross\" in one of the down market Sundays. I always rely on Ross to save me money on cinema tickets, if he says the movie is good, I get straight on this very website to check it out. This movie should have gone straight to £1.99 DVD in a supermarket near 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\nthis movie had more holes than a piece of swiss cheese. Ben Affleck was seriously NOT trying to act in any way, shape, or form. He outright sucked. Nothing about the movie was believable. The first problems were in the intro- where the man gives everything of value to the Salvation Army Santa Claus but it doesn't show why. And then the granny sticks her head in the oven- really beautiful, and has absolutely nothing to do with the movie- it's not even in the same tone as the movie. There was no explanation of the motivation for Ben Affleck to choose the house he chose; there was not any believable reactions by the family he chose; and people are swayed here and there without any cause to be swayed (Example: Christina Applegate and Ben Affleck's characters go tobogganing down a steep slope- this is the incident that makes her suddenly fall in love with him. Riiiight...) Anyway, there was a funny moment or two- but they were a rarity in the movie. It seriously needed another rewrite (or 4). Hope you enjoy!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAs with most of Ben Affleck's movies, the comedy is dry and story is predictable. That is if you want to call this a story. Many points were left connected with no thought at all. I want to thank the director for not explaining the points better. I say that because, that would mean the torture would have lasted longer. As for any of Ben Affleck's failures, this one is no exception and is survivable only by the other actors. Even then, the acting for the most part was contrived and was not believable. The trip down memory lane with actors I have not seen in years was not worth the price of admission. All thought it should be told, they too are quickly joining the ranks of the \"has-been\". My choice was to wait for my car to be fixed or watch this movie. I made the wrong decision. All in all I would give it a one laugh ... mainly because that is all I got out of 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\nA student filmmaker enlists a B-grade actress (a delectably diva-ish MOLLY RINGWALD!) to complete the horror film that her mother (a dreadfully dull Kylie Minogue!) tried to make 12 years ago. It's a curious plot choice to say the least, as any Aussie horror fan knows that the genre is sadly lacking in women directors. The film has a curse on it, because Molly had to kill some psycho murderer on the original set. But she's back, because she needs the exposure. Unfortunately, the curse is still there and people start dying on the \"set.\" Cut is an Aussie attempt at the modern \"slasher,\" but unfortunately it doesn't bring anything new or exciting to the table. In fact, it rips half of Wes Craven's 90s filmography. Lots of film-world name-dropping a la \"Scream\" (except it's Aussie name-dropping--Jane Campion...see how this isn't as funny) and lots of \"is this real or is this a movie\" a la \"New Nightmare.\" The editing is bad, the music is annoying, the effects are laughable, almost everything is bad about this. Fortunately, the film can have a sense of humor: at one point, a well-dressed girl in the movie crew says to the owner of the house they are filming at: \"Don't worry, we'll treat your house as if it were our own,\" to which he responds, \"that doesn't mean anything to me, you look like you live in a dump!\" Ha! And Molly's ridiculous one-liners were enough to not regret renting this one. \"You got any diet coke in here?\" (as she rides in the film professor's car) and \"Does anyone know where I can buy any tofu?\" (the first thing she mutters on the set) and \"Where the hell is my agent?\" (oh wait, that's what I was thinking for her.)
\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 cover of box of this movie has Kyle Minogue's name on it, but she has the same destiny as Drew Barrymore did in \"Scream.\" That's the first thing that makes this movie lame; they are trying to market a movie with someone that's in it for 5 minutes.
Of course, we have to have this movie feature young hip college kids that are oblivious that there's a killer going around. To top it all off, Molly Ringwald of 80's teen movie fame is the star of this beautifully written film. It's a good career move for Molly to get some money doing a crappy movie in Australia so she won't get ridiculed in the states.
Either way, this dumb movie is about some dumb horror movie that was never finished because this dumb creature kills everyone that's in it. Throughout the movie, we're supposed to guess who's the killer. Long story short, remember our little friend Molly, she saves the day...or does she?
This move is just plain bad, rent it if you feel like torturing yourself or just break it on the floor of your local video store if you see it on the shelf. Don't spread the horror.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA slasher flick, made in the early 80's, has a curse on it which has anyone who tries to finish it turning up dead. Years later, a group of film students attempted to complete the movie - also resurrecting the films deadly curse. Great idea for a film, but sadly 'Cut' is just another wasted opportunity.
Unfortunately Australia hasn't had the world's best track record when it comes to horror. 'Razorback' (1984) was an out and out dud as was 'Holwing III' (1987), which was half an American film anyway. As for our foray into comedy-horror, 'Body Melt' (1993) is best left forgotten. The problem with 'Cut' is that the makers trying to create a clever horror satire a la 'Scream' (1996) but have no insight into the genre or what makes it work. And although this sounds weird me saying this about a slasher film but what 'Cut' really lacks is any \"heart\". Sure it follows the basic \"rules\" established by 'Scream', but it doesn't want to play with the formula, instead it goes for a cardboard copy of the earlier.
The killer, Scarman, is probably one of the most boring and uncharismatic villains in horror movie history. His endless barrage awkwardly, lame one-liners would make the dialogue of a porno seem like Shakespeare. The cast never seem like their fully involved and look like their just waiting for a shoot to be over so they can collect their pay checks. And the feel of the film is like it's deliberately trying not to be creepy; looking more like an episode of 'Neighbors' or 'Heartbreak High'. By the way, those attempts at MTV style, hyper-cinema during the \"research\" sequence just look lame, dated and out of place.
If Australia ever gets a chance to do horror again (Which I hope we still do) maybe we should take a leaf from the 'Mad Max' (1979) book. Instead of trying to copy the U.S. we should be trying our own take on the genre.
\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\nRip off of \"Scream\" or especially \"I know what you did last summer\", there's some entertainment here, and a little scary, but they needed some originality.
An entertainment score? 6.5/10 Overall? 5.5/10
\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\nIt seems that several of the people who have reviewed this movie only watched it in the first place because it was filmed near where they live. How's that for a ringing endorsement? If this movie was filmed near where I lived I wouldn't be mentioning it in my review. It is horrid! Several reviews state that this film is a spoof or tongue-in-cheek horror movie, it is neither. It is sad to see this film reviewed as a comedy as that makes it not only a bad attempt at a horror film but as a comedy as well. I did laugh though, at how unbelievably bad the film was.
This movie has 2 good things going for it, the mask and the weapon of choice, unfortunately it would have been more interesting watching an hour and a half of the mask and weapon laying on a table then watching this garbage. The social commentary behind the film is also laughable, juvenile and stupid. Don't bother with this movie, you've already wasted time reading this review don't waste anymore on this movie. Arrggghhh! It's infuriating that movies like this even get made. I was expecting the entire cast a crew to be credited to Alan Smithee, a name used when a person, usually a director, doesn't want to be credited with a movie because it's so bad.
There is nothing redeeming in this movie, I spent $1.19 on the rental and feel I was ripped off. Avoid. 1 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\nI saw this movie the other night and I have to honestly say it's one of the worst films I've ever seen. The acting is fair, but the plot is totally ridiculous. A killer is born because of all the \"energy used to make the movie\" and if the film is burned the killer will die? How unbelievable is that? The characters were underdeveloped to say the least...for example, all of a sudden the man mentions \"Aren't you trying to complete the film because your mother couldn't?\" So we're supposed to go along with this? We had no idea it was her daughter until half way through the film. The movie really didn't spotlight on anyone, we didn't know anything about the main people who survived except Ringwald's character was a whiney actress, the guy was on the set when the people died and Raffy wanted to be a director like her mother. Not truly diving in to know who they are. Seemed things were rushed to just get to the killings. The whole plot is entirely too weak for my taste and I was extremely disappointed. Anyone who enjoyed this piece of crap, obviously needs to learn a thing or two about film making. I can't believe anyone would agree to star or even work on this picture. It's not funny, it was not scary and was cliche through the entire film. I found myself predicting what would happen before each scene, which believe you me wasn't hard at all to do. It's a disgrace and I'm deeply sorry I wasted an hour and a half watching the mess. 1/10.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSlash flicks come few and far between now a days, so when I heard about Cut I had high hopes and heard good things about it. Those good things I heard were all wrong..very wrong! This flick is bad and I mean BAD. It's just plain stupid. Everything about it. Especially the killer's origin and how he stays alive and how he is taken care of in the end. There is nothing original or outstanding about this flick. Just another slasher wannabe with those \"Hip,\" \"Self aware.\" \"Movie savvy\" characters. I'm so sick of that crap. Someone do something different cause the slash genre needs new blood, literally.
\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\nSlasher films are often seen as the derivative, repetitive and frankly unoriginal. I happen to to be a horror movie fan, but this film was just so poor, words fail me. The script is severely lacking, the plot is ridiculous, the acting astoundingly bad. Just an all round stinker, that I wasted time of my life on. This had all the entertainment value of a 15th sequel to a film that was dire in the first place.
Who greenlit this mess?
I only liked two things in this movie. The first was the killer's mask - which was nice. The second was the Austrailian affinity with humourous profanity.
Save yourself, and avoid this hideous mess.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOh man, does this movie ever bite! If you were ever afraid of seeing a rehash of the slasher genre, done as cheap as possible and as cautious at the same time (pc-friendly, means no nudity, a classic element of slasher films) Cut is it. Every cliche is retread without a hint of self-awareness and the acting. Oh, the acting redefines the word horror. I should have known better as the direct Dutch translation of the title would have tipped me off.
\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\"Cut\" is a film about some film students making a film. It's very much in the \"Scream\" mold, an ironic, self-referential horror flick which, for me at least, falls down because for all its irony, it's still just a bad horror film, same as the films its referring to.
But it was not without its charms. Well, one charm anyway. Molly Ringwald was fantastic as the spoilt, bitchy American actress hating every minute of working with the amateur Australian film crew. She was so convincing that its tempting to believe it wasn't an act, although everyone involved with \"Cut\" says she was lovely to work with. :-)
Seriously, every scene of her pouting, sulking or snapping was great. Everyone else, however, wavered between being OK and being terribly wooden.
Anyway, \"Cut\" has some laughs, a few buckets of gore (some of it surprisingly gruesome), and ultimately is.. just another bad horror film.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNormally I'm not motivated to write reviews. But this movie was so excruciatingly painful I feel I must. I cringed at the appallingly predictable plot, the lame acting and laughed at moments which were supposed to be tense. Indeed most of the audience seemed pretty bored and chatty even at the \"most tense\" moment of the movie. Molly Ringwald stood out as the only performance of any merit in a tortured production. Even the \"twist\" at the end wasn't. I've heard it said that the movie didn't take itself seriously; but I could find little evidence of that in the movie.
Cut should have been left on the cutting room floor. Do yourself a favour and spend your time and money on something else!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film was made and cast from my home town. I remember the fuss about it and the whole hullabaloo about the fact Molly Ringwald was in town...
Storyline...
Essentially 20 years after a film was \"laid to rest\" without being finished, a group of film students set out to complete it - with dire consequences. It would seem someone does not want the film completed.
The storyline is flimsy. One has to remember that this is a comedy and therefore has to be taken a little tounge in cheek, but it had no real oomph. The characters are mostly transperant and the little info that you recieve about them you just don't care about, it seems irrelevant. It is weird hearing Kylie's accent as Australian again and nice to see a kid I went to school with in a starring role. But that doesn't redeem the film at all. Goodness knows why the makers thought they would get in Molly Ringwald. Perhaps due to the nature of the film (it sort of pays homage to 80s films / bad horror films)but really an Aussie actor would have done just fine.
As far as casting is concerned a lot of the acting seemed constipated. Some of these kids (especially the two main chics - they played \"director\" and \"producer\") looked like they were trying to act. That is never a good look. Also, the shots had a rough feel about them. Over lit perhaps? Just not as smooth as one is used to.
The killer. Lord. Could it be less frightening? There are some shock factors though, and a couple of gross scenes. I did like the film, but it was not great. It went for 90 minutes but could have gone for less. Perhaps if they had tightened the script it would have been better. They had a lot of characters get killed - but no real build up to them getting slayed. Maybe if they had killed less people and actually concentrated on a scary atmosphere it would have been better.
Now I know it is a comedy and elements were funny. Or so unbelieveable they were funny. But I am not convinced.
LM.
\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\nEveryone in this movie tells Raffy Carruthers how talented she is, what a great director she'll one day turn out to be, etc. I think they're just being nice. Even Kimble Rendall, who directed this film, shows more talent than she does. \"The next Jane Campion\", they call her; and, even apart from the fact that they're both over-rated, the two have SO much in common. They both direct movies. They're both women. They're both Australian. (Well, give or take.)
Yep: it's one of those films in which a character is deemed to be brilliant, and we just have to swallow hard and accept it. But I'll say this for Carruthers: she's cute. -And fascinating. No, really. Here are some thoughts on her lack of talent:
(1) Part of a director's talent lies in dealing with people. Why is Carruthers so phenomenally bad at getting her crew to even take notice of her? So as to make it easier for everyone to wander off the set and get killed, I expect.
(2) Why is this one of the most unconvincing depictions of a movie set I have ever seen? After all, it must have been filmed on a REAL movie set. How could they get it wrong? If Rendall's set was half as much of an under-staffed shambles it's a wonder he completed his film at all.
(3) Carruthers - the fictional director - has set herself the task of creating a brand new 1980s horror flick. Fat chance. I doubt it can be done these days. I suspect that Rendall - the actual, and more talented, director - set himself the same task, realised it couldn't be done, and settled for (sigh) knowing parody instead. Of course, it's not ENOUGH of a parody to work as a parody. As soon as the cast and crew set foot in the isolated mansion the film just spends most of its time doing badly what 1980s horror films did ... well, less badly.
(4) And yet, and yet ... the film opens with not a parody but an honest-to-goodness pastiche of 80s horror, starring (this is too good to be true) Molly Ringwald. This pastiche is much better than anything that follows. (It's a bad sign when you find yourself wishing you were watching the movie-within-the-movie, rather than the movie.) Yet it, too, was filmed in the late 1990s. Perhaps it IS still possible to make 1980s horror. You just have to drop the knowing parody stuff and MEAN it.
(5) I'd never once wondered what 1980s teen horror would be like if all the characters had Australian accents, but now I know. And strangely, I'm glad I know. A need I never knew I had has been fulfilled.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI had not seen the movie trailer when I went to see the movie, instead I based my judgments on a friend's opinions. Now I like Chris Rock and his comedy, but this movie just falls flat on its face.
During the movie Rock delivers a couple of funny jokes, but unfortunately the movie is sorely lacking in comedy. The movie seems want to integrate both laughter and love into one, and it that endeavor it fails. The love story in the movie is straight forward (luckily), but it detracts too much from the movie by making Rock serious and bland. After all, the movie is first and foremost destined to be a comedy, where laughter should be the primary concern. Not much of that in the movie.
The plot is also pretty uninteresting as a whole. Some parts were discontinuous altogether. If the supporting cast were meant to be funny, they certainly didn't do a good job. The couple of angels from heaven tried to make a couple of jokes, which were dry and dull. Rock's first incarnation's couple of underlings were also bland. If there's one thing they did do right, though, they made Rock seem funnier by comparison.
\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 king is dead long live the King! The triad of Caddie Shack Two, The Family underneath the Stairs, and Troop Beverly Hills had been tied for worst movie ever for so long that they seemed icons in their own right. But there is a new king.....yep.....all hail the new king....\"Down to Earth\". But some things, like Tiny Tim for example, are so bad they are good. Some day this could take out the inimitable \"Rocky Horror Picture Show\" as a cult film. So go see this ....this....well just take my word for it. Go see it. All hail the new king!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFirst off, I would like to say that I am a fan of Chris Rock. I like his other movies, but this movie is just like my summary. The Biggest Sack of Crap ever. In the beginning, Chris Rock plays an aspiring comedian who get stage fright at a Comedy Building called the Apollo. On his way home from a gig, while riding his BIKE he sees this woman he likes and is hit by a Truck. A little while later, he chooses the body of an old, white, and selfish millionaire. Then, he dresses up like the music group Outkast while trying to replay the scene from the original where he comes out as a Jockey. Second, he goes back to the Apollo, and tries to be the comedian he tried to be in his previous body and starts dissing the white population and tries to be black. Do you get my drift? This movie is awful it tries too hard to be like the original and in the process comes out looking like a sack of crap. Just take my advice, don't even 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\nDown to Earth is about Lance Barton, a black comedian who gets hit by a truck. He goes to Heaven and he gets to get another body. Lance gets the body of Charles Wellington, a white guy. So Lance does a few things in the body of Charles. The movie has a few laughs, but it's nothing special. It's a good movie if you're a fan of Chris Rock. Madagascar, the 2005 animated comedy, is better. This is a good movie, but Chris Rock has done way better things than this. It will only make you laugh about 4 times the whole movie. And it's not really laugh-out-loud funny. You'll laugh to yourself and you might giggle, but you definitely won't be rolling on the floor laughing.
\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 probably the worst movie I have ever seen, (yes it's even worse than Dungeons and Dragons and any film starring Kevin Costner.)
Chris Rock looked very uncomfortable throughout this whole film, and his supporting actors didn't even look like they were trying to act. Chris Rock is a wonderful stand-up comedian, but he just can't transfer his talent to this film, which probably only has two strained laughs in the whole picture.
If you haven't watched this film yet, avoid it like the plague. Go do something constructive and more interesting like watching the weather channel or watching paint dry on a brick wall.
For Chris' efforts I give it a 2/10!

\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI figured the whole joke of the movie would be to see some rich white guy acting like Chris Rock, and then see Chris Rock react to people's reactions. Instead you just see Chris Rock being himself and people not understanding him. There are maybe 2 scenes in the entire movie where they use their gimmick. This should have been a lot better.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI like Chris Rock, but I feel he is wasted in this film. The idea of remaking Heaven Can Wait is fine, but the filmmakers followed the plot of that turkey too closely. When Eddie Murphy remade Dr. Doolittle and The Nutty Professor, he re-did them totally -- so they became Murphy films/vehicles, not just tepid remakes. That's why they were successful. If Chris had done the same, this could have been a much better film. The few laughs that come are when he is doing his standup routine -- so he might as well have done a concert film. It also would have been much funnier if the white man whose body he inhabits was a truck driver or hillbilly. So why does Hollywood keep making junk like this? Because people go to see it -- because they like Chris Rock. So give Chris a decent script and give us better movies! Don't remake films that weren't that good in the first place!
\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 expect much from this film, but boy-o-boy, I did not expect the movie to be this bad. Chris Rock is not showing a good act here, you can't get the feeling that his caracter is real, I think the movie would have been a bit better if it's drama or romantic scenes would have been a less part of the movie and more/better humor was involved. The movie is like the film makers were having a bad hangover making it. In the \"making of\" they don't show a single smile. This is a very bad film! I gave it three out of ten because of few smiles it gave me, but I did never 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\nirritating, illogical flow of events. pretty much every joke is so simple that it can hardly be regarded as one. no wonder the cinema was empty and people actually walked away, yes away. I stayed, since I was enjoying a wonderful ice-cream with nuts during the whole 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 was in physical pain watching the eyes of the cast as they participated in this sham. Bad dialogue, worse (worst) acting, lifeless all the way, and the cast knew it. The two preceding movies which this attempted to copy had life, sparkle, and were captivating.
\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\nbecause that is the only way you won't think this film is a TOTAL waste of time and money. A remake of \"Heaven Can Wait\", (which was at least worth watching) is a poor excuse for a romantic comedy. It is more a vehicle to give Rock some time on film for weak stand up comedy which doesn't play well on the big screen. Especially because his jokes generally are supposed to be from the body of an old, fat, rich, dead man but are shown coming from Rock himself. As he insults Blacks and Whites the chemistry is all wrong. The movie is not funny, poorly shot the acting is weak at best. Go rent \"Heaven Can Wait\" and a live Rock video and you'll be way ahead of the game.
\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
One would expect a movie with a famous comedian in the lead role, to be a funny movie. This is not the case here. I laughed out loud once throughout the whole movie, and that wasn't even during the final comedy-scene (which one would also expect to be the funniest). This is one you can watch when it comes to TV, don't spend any other money renting 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\nNo need to detail what others have written in other reviews - here goes the summary:
* Much of the nested animation work is downright gorgeous - the colors are superb - would love to have it done in silk as a necktie
* The story and execution is a total snooze - it was quite difficult to stay awake at times
If you are a student of the fine arts, medieval calligraphy, early religion and so forth - have at it. This is a FILM for you.
If you want an engaging, entertaining MOVIE - look elsewhere - this is a failure as anything other than an artistic statement.
Vikings didn't have horns by the way...
\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 are moments in this unique cartoon of pure beauty but overall it's not very good. Limited animation as well as sub standard character and background design will limit its mass market appeal. The character design looks like a cross between the original Star Wars Clone Wars and Disney's Kim Possible, (Brendan, the main character in this also bares an uncanny similarity to Ron Stoppable in Kim Possible) Background design ranges as far and wide as going from being bland and depressing to stylish and stark, yet by today's standards, overall it is still poor and cheap looking. Many of the backgrounds bare resemblances to eastern European or Nordic animation from the mid 80's, nice in its own way but for modern child audiences, used to CG slug fests and talking dogs with every piece of fur on their body swaying in the wind, is sure to disappoint. The story is also not overly engaging and many of the voice actors aren't overly impressive, noticeably the usually brilliant Brendan Gleeson who appears to be phoning in his part. There are also a few secondary characters who come across as slightly cliché and stereotypically racist. However, some of the characters are good, the Viking villains, although underused are well done and are specifically foreboding in both look and sound. There is one moment involving the main character and his mentor being saved by Wolves from a Viking attack that is very nicely put together. The look and feel also seemed to be very inspired by the film Watership Down including a blatant rip off/homage to the Ghost Rabbit of Inlay. The look is also clearly and obviously inspired by Gaelic/Celtic/Anglo Saxon art so if you are into these subjects you may be drawn towards its look. The film also does have moments of very nicely structured shots leading the eye in a very artistic manner, including a pretty match cut and a large scale Viking attack that is very moody and impressive. Best of all though is the music, much of the background music is melodic and moving, specifically the song by the spirit girl which is truly beautiful and haunting and works very well with the images it covers. If the whole film was as poetic as this moment, (and it tries,) then this would be a very beautiful and poetic film that would sadly still not reach a wide audience, but instead it isn't a shame it wont reach a wider audience because most of it is average and cheap looking and doesn't stand up to modern animation standards. Overall a film that clearly split my opinion in many ways, but all together not great but worth watching for the music and song and the occasional pretty or scary moment. Oh yeah and the cat seemed to live for a long time, not sure how that was possible.
\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\nNormally I would have given this movie a 6. It tackles a very important topic and it does it relatively well - despite Katie Wright which is an accomplishment in and of itself.
I have no idea if she was actually instructed to play the character like this or is naturally irritating, but she did an awesome job at making it impossible for me to care for Lexi. There's no dimension to her other than how confused, helpless and clueless she is, and how good she is at whimpering. I can understand how a young girl who blames herself for the loss of her friend and whose eating disorder has spiraled out of control would be distraught, scared and in pain. However, Wright's entire performance is based on incessant wailing and sniveling, the rest being whining. I couldn't help but feel this particular girl's problem was caused not by the demon that is Bulimia, but by her not having a backbone. I very much doubt that's the point the movie meant to make.
\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\nNot the best of actors' movies.The director has concentrated on projected actor's stardom rather than giving a good entertainer. May be hero himself, his family and his sincere fans can enjoy it.But definitely it's not worth for neutral audience.The fight sequences are a total comedy.The dance moves in the song sequences are pathetic. The music is average.This film was the biggest flop for the actor. Inspite of the hype created over the movie, the movie failed miserably. Don't even think of watching this move even if you want to kill time. You can watch some cartoon instead.A good movie buff cannot digest this crap for 2 1/2 hours.
\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 without doubt Rajnikanth's worst movies ever. The first part is held in place with solid comedy from Goundamani but it progressively gets worse and worse and completely illogical. Our hero also takes a dig at Saints with the same name (Baba) through a corny and utterly lame one-liner. The first half has Rajni uttering his usual array of oneliners and style and in the second half, becomes a quasi saint after a beggar takes him through a interdimensional portal to the Himalayas where Babaji (not the famous Saints he took a dig at earlier) gives him special powers for no apparent reason (other than karma). This is really starting to get interesting now isn't it?
The rest of the movie is about him wasting his magic boons and powers and fighting off politicians and related black magic. The usual predictable crap with hilarious implementation. Oh and the black magic never worked on our hero because he just happened to have a Param Vir...er....Shakti Chakra with him. The bad guys and the usual politician villains are clichéd, overworked and in the end, completely insignificant to the plot which itself doesn't go anywhere.
But despite all the flaws, it was fun to kill time with and yell Baba related one-liners during public events. Its also fun to watch others curse about this movie. AR Rehman is said to have composed the tracks for his movie through the cell phone. Thats how important he considered it.
Rajni is very popular in Japan and he has included two characters (one of them is called Keiko...why not Samsung?) of Japanese origin in this movie just for the sake of it. But the way they are portrayed, dressed and treated is absolutely pathetic. The Japanese may stop watching Rajni movies after seeing that. This movie was probably promotional material for Rajni entering politics but the results of the movie itself would have killed off any of his political dreams.
Fun if you turn your brain off though.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"