empathielabs/imbd_dataset_v0 huggingface dataset:
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I don't know why IMDb lists all the Ghoulies films as theatrical releases.. They were all straight to video films. Same with the Puppet Master series. Why hasn't anyone noticed this yet? Right, somehow you've stumbled across Ghoulies IV, probably raiding through an old abandoned video rental store from 1993. You looked in the discount section and found this...Look at the back and front covers. What do you expect, The Shawshank Redemption? There is no need to review this film so critically. It is the fourth GHOULIES film! I bought it on DVD for 6.50 because... it was 6.50.. I knew it wasn't Kubrick material. And I was right. An unremastered DVD with no extras, not even a trailer, boasts an uncared-for film.
It actually contains the star of the first Ghoulies film, Peter Liapis... who really didn't get many 'big' roles apart from those two films. And I don't see why... He's not too bad an actor and is pretty fun. But I guess if you're gonna take a lead role in the Ghoulies films, Scorsese and Tarantino will lose interest. Also present is his idiot sidekick Bobby Di Cocco, who despite having a very small resemblance to Al Pacino (very small), retains none of his acting ability... A complete idiot who's just awkward to watch. Then there's Stacie Randall - obviously a porn star, I don't need to look that up. She does look quite sexy, though her costume, her character and everything she does drags down the films credibility, which is no easy task for such a film.
Then there is the Ghoulies themselves! Who also manage to let us down. Ghoulies III made them start talking, mistake no. 1, but Ghoulies IV takes it a step further. Instead of being puppets, this time the Ghoulies are in fact KIDS in COSTUMES!!!! The filmmakers decided to run that extra mile to insult the films viewers. Also, there's only TWO of them, and they're not the main highlight of the film, as they don't appear in a lot of it. However, at times they are MILDLY amusing... And they're not evil this time either.
This really is hilariously bad stuff, it's amazing that I was actually able to enjoy it. I dunno why... Some of the black humour is actually funny, though the script is mostly effortless. Imagine Satan's only threat to you being that he will "kill you, slowly...painfully...".
But at least Full Moon had no involvement this time. Did they? Yeah, a very bad and cheaply made film with 0 production value, but not so bad as to be in the ranks of Puppet Master 1/2, Lawnmower Man 2, Surviving Christmas or even Ghoulies III.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Busty beauty Stacie Randall plays PVC clad, bad-ass bitch Alexandra, the faithful acolyte of Faust, an evil entity trapped in hell. Determined to free her master, the malevolent minx breaks into a warehouse to steal a magical gem vital to her success; but whilst conducting a satanic ritual to summon Faust, the silly mare accidentally enters the pentagram she has drawn on the floor, which results in the loss of the gem and the release of two diminutive, troll-like creatures called Lite and Dark.
Now Alexandra must find a replacement gem, which isn't going to be easy: the only other stone that will do the trick is worn around the neck of her ex-lover, police detective Jonathan Graves (Peter Liapis), who is investigating the warehouse robbery and who knows only too well what evil Alexandra is capable of. Meanwhile, wise-cracking inter-dimensional half-pints Lite and Dark get into all sorts of zany trouble as they try to find a way back home.
In the warped movie world of Jim Wynorski, all females are big-breasted babes with the fashion sense of a cheap hooker. Ghoulies IV is no exception: every woman in this filmwhether she be a police captain, a curator of antiquities, or a mental patient in an asylumis hot, hot, hot and wears not a lot, and it's this fact that makes this otherwise totally unwatchable piece of STV crap just about bearable.
But be warned, even though the presence of semi-naked, quality crumpet makes the going slightly easier, there is still plenty about this film to warrant it being labelled as an ordeal: the acting is wooden and the dialogue is painful; the black humour (as the DVD blurb describes it) is about as funny as a knee to the knackers, with the comedic banter of Lite and Dark being particularly cringe-worthy; and the special effects are bargain basement, consisting of rubbery creatures and visual effects that would have looked dated ten years earlier.
3/10 solely for the high bimbo quotient.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Some things just won't stay dead. They just have to keep coming back for more whether we like it or not. I guess some people like to beat a dead horse. The first 'Ghoulies' was a surprise hit and it's first sequel was an even better film. The third film took a more comical approach and by this point the little buggers were starting to overstay their welcome. I guess someone out there in Hollywood thought it was a bright idea to resurrect the franchise, but the outcome will likely disappoint fans of the previous entries.
Pros: The acting is actually pretty good for a movie like this. A silly, but fun score. Moves at an alright pace. Some cheese for those who love it. Some pretty good action-packed sequences. Has a bit more plot than the others and unlike II & III at least attempts to link itself with the original.
Cons: Not nearly as much fun as it's predecessors. Though it has more plot than before, it's a pretty ridiculous one. Poor effects. The original Ghoulies only appear in flashbacks and here they're replaced with two trolls who serve no purpose other than to be comic reliefs. Speaking of comedy, all attempts at humor are lame. Is a direct sequel to the first film, but there are so many loose ends. For example, I thought Jonathan was done with black magic after what happened in the original? Not that it was spectacular in the others, but this film's direction is especially bland.
Final thoughts: The first three 'Ghoulies' movies are a bad movie lovers' dream. This fourth, and so far final sequel (Let's hope), is a bit of a letdown. Sure there's some fun to be had, but it just isn't the same. The others are low budget too, but the people involved put a lot more into them. See if you're a completeist or you wanna see beautiful women in skimpy outfits. Otherwise just stick with the other three.
My rating: 2/5


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
All movies that contain "goofy sound effects" should be shot. If there is one thing I HATE, it's gotta be the use of a "whoop whoop whoo" when somebody gets hit one the head. The only movies I have seen to do this is Ghoulies IV and Hobgoblins when they are in the bar, and Pixie is hitting the guy in the red suit with a beer bottle... or rather, fanning him with a beer bottle, because she never really hits him with it. Yes Ghoulies IV does suck. But I have to wonder, did they MEAN to not make the so called "Ghoulies" mouths move when they supposedly talked? Their faces are almost as static as the masks used in Trolls 2. Hell, I can make a better mask out of construction paper, some rubber cement and a handful of glitter. This sucked.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
The only good thing about this film is they managed to tie it with Part one! But other than that it was one of the worst films ever! The only time you see the Ghoulies is in a flashback (and the flashback is just clips from Part one)! A must NOT see! On a One to Ten, "Ghoulies 4" gets a One!


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This is quite a bad movie but oh well, this movie is at least not as lame as the third Ghoulies movie.
Yes, this is a bad movie in terms of its writing, directing, acting and basically everything in between. It has such a weak, simple and ridicules story, that besides has little to do with the previous Ghoulies movie entries. It tries to connect the movie with the first movie "Ghoulies", from 1985 but then on the other hand, if they really wanted to connect this movie with its predecessors, then were are the Ghoulies in this movie? Instead now we are having some small people, played by Tony Cox and Arturo Gil, dressed up as demons. Not that the Ghoulies from the previous movies were any classic characters but they were nevertheless the heart and soul of the movie and also provided the movies with a certain amount of fun. It's like having a Gremlins movie without the Gremlins.
The movie is not really interesting to watch because it lacks any tension, good humor, intriguing characters and basically everything else you can think off because it got put together by persons who obviously aren't the most talented ones within their business. Just like at director's Jim Wynorski resume, with movies such as "The Witches of Breastwick" and its sequel, "Alabama Jones and the Busty Crusade", "House on Hooter Hill", "Scream Queen Hot Tub Party", "The Bare Wench Project" and the sequels "The Bare Wench Project 2: Scared Topless" and "The Bare Wench Project 3: Nymphs of Mystery Mountain" and "The Da Vinci Coed" on it.
Yeah the movie is quite silly and campy but this is not really enough to boost this movie and gives it some more entertainment value. You know, it's the kind of cheap looking movie with some lame special effects, costumes, make-up and actors nobody has heard of ever since.
Still it isn't the worst movie out of the series because of the reason that "Ghoulies III: Ghoulies Go to College" is by far a more worse movie, since that one had some horrible lame attempts at humor. This movie at least still does some attempts to be serious and professional one, even though the end result is far from perfect.
Bad movie making and perhaps only watchable for those who have seen the previous Ghoulies entries.
3/10


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This is one of the worst movies EVER made. I can't believe how bad it was. I was shocked at the awfulness of the "ghoulies" masks. They are OBVIOUSLY Halloween masks! The mouths don't even move when they talk!!!!! Why did they feel the need to make the ghoulies comical and goofy? Whenever they do anything there seems to be this circus-like music and overused BONK and BOING noises when they hit people. The bondage dominatrix lady is one of the worst actresses I have ever seen. This movie is just bad. The plot is nonexistent. The mom from ONE TREE HILL is in this though and she has obviously had a nose job since this was made. Why did the main character from the first movie return to make this garbage? BAD BAD BAD movie.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This movie was so horrible...I want to beat the hell out of who ever made this movie...I was a original fan of all the ghoulies movies...but when i seen this i just began to cry I could not handle it..There are not even ne ghoulies in it...like the original creative monsters...this is so friggen cheap...I meen come on a witch...thats bull crap no one wants to see the witch...they wanted to see what the movie is about..."GHOULIES" i meen jeesh am i right or what? Thats y we watched the other ones..now we have to actually put up with this horrible storyline...This makes me want to eat my own poop after Spaghetti Monday!!!


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
They do... Each sequel is worst. You, who think that Ghoulies 2 or 3 need a 1, please, watch this sequel... You'll be wondering with the first three parts. Then you'll give a 10 to the first, 8 to the second and 5 or 6 to the other. That's because Ghoulies 4 really gets the big 1 (from me it does).


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Wow! This movie is almost too bad for words. Obviously the writers wanted to somehow link this to the Ghoulies franchise, so they got Pete Liapis from the first one to reprise his role as Jonathan...only now, he's a cop and has no similar character traits as he did in the first one. The ghoulies in this one aren't the ghoulies from the last ones. The cheap looking puppets have been replaced with even cheaper looking costumed little people. Instead of being any main antagonist or being evil, they are more like the comic relief characters that appeared out of nowhere for no reason.
When watching this film for the first time, it felt like I'd seen it before. Why was this? Because everything in this was stolen from another movie. All the cheesy cop lines and action scenes were from Lethal Weapon. The ghoulies were pretty much like Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck, except they weren't amusing at all. Even scenes from the original Ghoulies film were sprinkled throughout this flick.
I think the target audience was supposed to be adults, but the mixture of black magic, cartoon slapstick, cop drama and bad acting doesn't work at all. I hope they don't make a Ghoulies V, because I don't want a movie studio to lose their money.
My rating: BOMB/****. 78 mins. R for violence.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
A group of teens have their car break down in the middle of nowhere. They seek shelter in a farmhouse. But three murderous convicts are there killing the owner of said farmhouse and his family. One of them accidentally brings zombies around by knocking over a scarecrow. Cue blood, gore, carnage, bad acting. Better than the first but only by default. I still wouldn't wish it on my arch-enemy, bob. In the end the filmmaker wants it to be a parable about how we us Americans are killing ourself and our forests (huh? OK, whatever buddy) Dude I'd rather chop down forests then have my braincells diminish and my Grey matter leak out of my ears. In other words become a simple-minded idiot Liberal.
My Grade: D-


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Jerry Angell, owner of zombie-horror's finest mullet, returns for more undead action in the sequel to director Todd Sheets' atrocious home-made gore-fest Zombie Bloodbath. This time around, Jerry plays a sleazy low-life thug who, along with his equally despicable partner-in-crime, some escaped convicts, several teenagers, and a bunch of screaming girls, comes face-to-face with a horde of shambling, flesh-eating corpses.
Obviously having learnt zilch about improving his craft in the two years since Zombie Bloodbath, Sheets delivers another shoddy mess of a film that somehow manages to be even worse than the originala feat that I thought was almost impossible to achieve. The acting is uniformly lousy, the effects amateurish and cheap (most of the gore appears to be nothing more than a selection of offcuts, offal and blood from the local butcher's shop), the story incomprehensible (as far as I could fathom, the zombies rise from the dead because a scarecrow commands them to!!!), and the direction frustratingly laden with cheap looking video effects and completely meaningless cuts to black-and-white.
And as if that wasn't enough to convince you of this film's complete lack of redeeming features, the simply mind-bogglingly moronic ending should do the trick: the few remaining survivors stumble upon an abandoned truck that conveniently happens to have a stash of flesh-eating bacteria laying on its passenger seatjust the thing for dissolving the undead (but, strangely enough, not at all detrimental to the living).


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
When I say worse, I mean less entertaining. Todd Sheets seems to have learned some stupid camera tricks since the last Zombie Bloodbath, which makes the movie even less tolerable. In the last movie there were no special camera effects, where in this one, we are treated to shaky cam, and constant switching to black and white. Also, this is called Zombie Bloodbath, despite the fact that the zombies are barely in this one. The movie starts in 1945, where some satanists kill a violent burglar and put him up as a scarecrow. Back in modern time, some kids have a car problem and go to a house, the same house in which the satanist murder happened. Some mean people try to rape the kids (or something), and they bring the scarecrow burglar back to life, who comes back with some zombies and now talks like Darth Vader. Mr. Sheets amped up the language and lessened the violence. If you want to see what a bad movie is, check this out!
My rating: BOMB/****. 96 mins. Not rated, contains violence and language.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
In following Dylan Moran's star from the charming misanthrope bookstore owner in the surrealist sitcom Black Books, I could see his comic potential begging to be utilised in theater or larger cinematic avenues. This first big screen outing in a starring role (he had a cameo as Rufus the thief in Notting Hill) had oodles of promise, but like the strained Steve Coogan vehicle, The Parole Officer, has too many creases which should have been ironed out in preproduction.
The plot is so convoluted that I shan't bother repeating the finer details (the script has every character do that for us), and the laughs are sourced from show business in-jokes. Michael Caine is a pompous has-been running a production of Richard III - updated to Nazi occupation (one of the few genuine laughs, a satirical jab at Ian McKellen), in which everyone is forever doing the Hitler salute every time they take the stage. Convincing Dylan that acting should be a conceptual act unto itself, the two plot to steal money from some fairly harmless gangsters by way of their acting prowess. Confusion ensues (both on screen and in the audience), there's a romantic sub-plot between Dylan and the daughter of one of the gangsters blah blah blah and Dylan gets to dress in odd clothes and do funny accents. Michael Caine delivers some choice lines, and Dylan's comic timing is on the money, so why isn't it any good? It does have a certain charm that you would expect from Film 4, but it also has a precocious little girl acting as compass in a muddled and irrelevant plot - a no-no in screen writing 101. Exposition overshadows everything else. You just want to see Moran and Caine acting as comic foil to each other the way the were at the beginning, but when they're together toward the end, the the pairing has lost its charisma.
The Actors is an amusing, albeit underwhelming effort. Should it come on telly during a rainy Tuesday afternoon, then have at you. Otherwise you would be better off watching your old Black Books videos, or renting Withnail & I.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
The real surprise of this effortlessly lightweight movie is how such a top notch cast got assembled for what is nothing more than a hammy uninspiring affair. Presumably it was a proverbial snowball rolling down a hill gathering pace and size and shape. One can imagine that by the time Miranda Richardson got contacted by her agent, the conversation went along the lines of: 'Do you want to shoot a movie in Dublin scripted by Neil Jordan? Michael Caine and Michael Gambon are already in!' This is a dull 'comedy' that sees Michael Caine and Dylan Moran try and pull off a well-planned hustle where Moran must imitate a London gangland boss (whose arrival is imminent) to collect a sizeable sum of cash from local kingpin Michael Gambon. The rest is simply a forgettable romp that is thankfully over quite quickly. Moran is mildly amusing in places but on this evidence is better suited to life on the small screen in hit comedies such as Black Books. Caine is unchallenged in his role and gives a steady performance without being overstretched. One can only imagine what made him sign up for this movie - it can't even have been a summer in Dublin given that many of the scenes look positively autumnal in the background. Gambon actually steals the show, and anyone who has caught some of his performances in the likes of Have I Got News For You will know that he is a wonderfully funny man. But overall the result is disappointing, and it seems a lifetime ago that Neil Jordan was making quality movies of the likes of Mona Lisa.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
It is hard to imagine two actors of such class and experience as Michael Caine and Michael Gambon getting involved in such an embarrassingly inept film. The responsibility for this ill-judged production has to be down to the writer, Neil Jordan and director, Conor McPherson. I doubt I've seen such a bad film with such good credits in a long time. The comedian, Dylan Moran, who made his mark as the irritable and incompetent bookshop owner in the TV sitcom, Blackbooks, turns in much the same routine here, except with such excess and lack of comedic control as to leave one squirming. It is easy to see how the story could have been made to work, for the situation is an interesting one and loaded with comic potential. A classical actor (Caine) tries to rip off the mob (Gambon and co) with the aide of a bumbling wannabe colleague (Moran), with predictable results. It could have and should have been good. Sadly, it was not to be.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
We saw this in a bargain basket at the local Asda: £1.50 for the DVD. reading all the hype plastered all over the cover saying how "hillarious" it is, and it also had a really good, established cast, we thought this must a great film.
So we bought, took it home, shoved it in the DVD player, sat back and waited for the funnies to begin.......and waited.......and waited.....and waited a bit more.
Some 90 minutes later, although it felt more like 3 hours, the credits rolled, and that was the end of that.
What a letdown - even paying £1.50 seemed a con. God knows what Caine, Richardson and Gambon were thinking when they said 'yes' to this tosh. And as for Moran: well much as I enjoyed Black Books, Shaun of the dead, and his comedy tours, I felt he was out of his depth in this film. He tried too hard playing for laughs, probably thinking that if retaining the characteristics from his Black Books character, would work here.
Sadly it back-fired. The gags fell flat after awhile, and then he became just an irritation. Which is a shame because I believe given the right part he could be a very good film/character actor.
Anyway, to sum up: the actors in The Actors, failed to Act!!!
**/*****


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Michael Caine usually appears in either very good ("Blame It On Rio", "Sleuth", "Without A Clue", "Gambit", "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels") or truly bad comedies ("Noises Off", "Death Becomes Her", "Harry & Walter Go To NY"). This falls into the latter category.
TA is a comedy that succeeds in only two things: managing to waste a cast that includes Caine, Gambon and Richardson, all of which have comedic abilities, and succeeding in its mission not to make the viewer laugh. There isn't a single truly funny moment here. The main reason is the lousy script; there was so much futile effort put into writing a pointlessly convoluted story which is simply too bothersome to follow (considering it's only a comedy) that the writer(s) forgot to make the damn thing funny, which, as far as I can recall, is what the whole point of a comedy is supposed to be.
I've never seen this Moron before. Some people even say "if you're a Moron fan you'll love this" bla bla bla. A Moron fan? Does this non-descript person really have fans? A comedy as badly written as this requires a mega-talent to eke out a laugh or two out of it, someone like Steve Coogan and not your average Moron.
If you're going to make a comedy about actors then at least make them out to be the utter morons that they usually are. The characters of Caine and Moron are insufficiently dumb.
The single most annoying thing about this unfunny collection of scenes is the little girl. Only a truly horrible writer would think that to spice up a lousy script it's wise to include a super-intelligent wise-ass kid. Smart-a** kids aren't even funny to Bill Cosby fans any more. In "Little Miss Sunshine" we had a totally normal kid and she was very funny. This stupid ol' the-kid-is-smarter-than-the-adults shtick belongs to a century-old Marx brothers film.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
If you are thinking of going to see this film then my advice is - dont.
For me the film failed to make the grade at every level and was a reminder of how dire most British (& Irish)films are. Forgettable tripe is the best i can say. If it had been on telly l would have wandered off to do something more interesting five minutes after the start. I saw this film with a group of friends and having read the press previews went along prepared to not be critical and hopefully pass an amusing 90 minutes. But, oh dear.....
As a comedy it wasn't funny, as a thriller the stupid story was sloppy and lazy. As a love story totally unbelievable. Most of all as a piece of 'gloriously over the top whimsy' it lacked both style and charm. Gambon and Caine did what they needed to do to earn their money playing er..... Gambon and Caine. Is it just me, but other than playing east end gangsters and jack the lads, does Michael Caine leave you cold?
In fairness, some of my friends thought it was 'ok' but if you do go, my advice is have a few drinks (or puffs) beforehand and leave your critical faculties safely locked up at home.



assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Mario Racocevic from Europe is the only user who has posted a comment so far and covers the major points to the film.Yet again another difficult film to purchase in the UK.I had to go through "Midnight Video" who have a Swedish branch.I went to the post office and bought by mail order this and a similar title at only SKR30 a title.
This film goes under many "a.k.a's" depending on when and where it is marketed.I had previously purchased "The Bloodsucker leads the Dance" (which you will find if you search on Imdb under "people" and input "Krista Nell").The actor who plays the Count on his private island in the latter film had his words dubbed from Italian into English by an actor with an unmistakably mournful and rather tired sounding voice.I smiled when I heard this same voice dubbing on the English soundtrack as the police inspector who is investigating the murder of the prostitute killed in the copse in the subject film.My choice of course was to see another outing by the delicious Krista Nell.
There are quite a few rather inconsequential sub plots in the movie involving blackmail/extortion, sleazy affairs with girlfriends' mothers, a motor cycle chase resulting in a gangland hit, a gangrape by a "client's" motorcycle friends, sleazy photography, cross dressing by transvestites etc. which give a flavour to this film summarised in a word - SLEAZE, (but artistic sleaze).The aforementioned contributor liked this film but the lowly rating suggests other Imdb fans did not albeit without explaining their "wheres and whyfores".Personally I thought there were too many subplots and not enough put into the main story and the relationship of these subordinate characters to the central plot and the development of their screen characters.Also a professional film editor was sorely needed as some of the scenes appeared to last far too long, having made their point, so that the film appeared to drag in places; e.g. the scene of the dancing transvestite.Krista Nell appears in one fruity scene with a client but this too is but a vignette and I was left wanting more from her, the director and the screenplay.
I love the political incorrectness shown in older films (this is 30 years from its making) e.g. smoking in offices and the way some characters react to each other in the office!I would suggest 4/10 as a more realistic rating and I have awarded it as such.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
INFERNO starts off with a fairly impressive for a TVM starscape effect . We`re also introduced to a scientist who`s called Heller . Don`t you get it ? Heller , Hell-er , Inferno . So I guess someone on the production had some intelligence . However it does become more and more obvious as the TVM progresses that intelligence has been discarded throughout the storyline in order to appeal to an American TVM audience
The story itself is overwhelmed by subplots featuring umpteen stock TVM characters like the tough liberal schoolteacher who`s trying to save a home boy from a life of crime , the doctor who`s lost his medical licence etc . In fact the story concentrates far more on these characters than the approaching disaster that all the potential tension and drama the scenario might have had soon goes up in a puff of smoke , and being a TVM we just know that there won`t be a downbeat ending
There is an onscreen problem I noticed and that is everytime there`s an explosion there`s a massive fireball which looks ridiculous not to mention physically impossible . Look at the scene where the national guard are in a fight with a gang . A soldier fires a grenade into a tower block and the whole building explodes in a fire ball . What a small greanade containing no more than a few ounces of high explosive can do that ! No it can`t . There`s also another scene of army engineers blowing up a dam with plastic explosive and the same fireball effect is seen . Can directors please note that high explosive is not the same as napalm
Having said that I did find INFERNO highly watchable for a TVM and at no time did I find myself wanting to turn it off . It did have some potential and let me repeat the special effects are fairly good considering the budget and it`s not as bad a TVM as some people are making out


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Absolutely horrible movie. Not a bad plot concept, but executed horribly. Cliché storyline; bad script. So schlocky it doesn't even qualify for campy. This is the kind of movie that gives sci-fi a bad name.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This has to be one of the worst films I have ever had the misfortune to see. The general idea of a coronal mass ejection hitting the planet earth with EM disruption is fair enough, but where did they get the idea that humans could survive a sustained 155ºF? The acting was so terrible I got the feeling that the casting agents simply grabbed a handful of people off of Santa Monica Boulevard and threw them in front of the camera. In all honesty I have seen less wooden acting from my ironing board. Sorry, but this film was poor, poor, poor.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Whoever wrote the screenplay for this movie obviously never consulted any books about Lucille Ball, especially her autobiography. I've never seen so many mistakes in a biopic, ranging from her early years in Celoron and Jamestown to her later years with Desi. I could write a whole list of factual errors, but it would go on for pages. In all, I believe that Lucille Ball is one of those inimitable people who simply cannot be portrayed by anyone other than themselves. If I were Lucie Arnaz and Desi, Jr., I would be irate at how many mistakes were made in this film. The filmmakers tried hard, but the movie seems awfully sloppy to me.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
When I first saw a glimpse of this movie, I quickly noticed the actress who was playing the role of Lucille Ball. Rachel York's portrayal of Lucy is absolutely awful. Lucille Ball was an astounding comedian with incredible talent. To think about a legend like Lucille Ball being portrayed the way she was in the movie is horrendous. I cannot believe out of all the actresses in the world who could play a much better Lucy, the producers decided to get Rachel York. She might be a good actress in other roles but to play the role of Lucille Ball is tough. It is pretty hard to find someone who could resemble Lucille Ball, but they could at least find someone a bit similar in looks and talent. If you noticed York's portrayal of Lucy in episodes of I Love Lucy like the chocolate factory or vitavetavegamin, nothing is similar in any way-her expression, voice, or movement.
To top it all off, Danny Pino playing Desi Arnaz is horrible. Pino does not qualify to play as Ricky. He's small and skinny, his accent is unreal, and once again, his acting is unbelievable. Although Fred and Ethel were not similar either, they were not as bad as the characters of Lucy and Ricky.
Overall, extremely horrible casting and the story is badly told. If people want to understand the real life situation of Lucille Ball, I suggest watching A&E Biography of Lucy and Desi, read the book from Lucille Ball herself, or PBS' American Masters: Finding Lucy. If you want to see a docudrama, "Before the Laughter" would be a better choice. The casting of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz in "Before the Laughter" is much better compared to this. At least, a similar aspect is shown rather than nothing.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I am a usually a very generous voter on IMDb and don't bother commenting on movies I did not like, but this was just lame. I actually turned it off 15 minutes before finishing it, to watch "This Is It" (because my gf wanted to... I just chose the lesser of two evils).
If you want to watch this movie: picture this film as a collection of worse-than-average "horror"-stories, like "scary short-stories" that you find in an issue of "Reader's Digest" in the waiting room of your dentist's.
I did not expect anything particular terrifying or funny, I am not the "I want to see blood!"-type of person, but this "movie" is neither "horror" nor "comedy" nor entertaining in any other way.
It's probably more scary/funny and entertaining to look at the movie-poster of "You've Got Mail" for 90 minutes while drinking chamomile tea.
Conclusion: a "horror-comedy" for people between 4 and 7.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
The concept for this movie was quite good. But somehow the execution failed on many parts. There aren't many horror movies that I can think of that used dolls that looked so realistic. Especially when these dolls start blinking their eyes or moving hands. So much could have been done with this premise. There were a lot of scenes where there was room for tension and suspense. And I really was expecting creepy things to happen. But never did the movie managed to be scary. One of the main reasons is that the story is too minimal and predictable. I actually thought that they did this on purpose in order to surprise us with some wonderful twist. Sadly this doesn't happen. Well at least not in the way that I hoped for. The cast also failed to make it all believable. It would have been nice if more background was given on the characters. In the beginning when we get introduced to the main character. It seems that she and other characters are invited by some sort of artist. But it also is apparent that they don't have an idea themselves what they are invited for. Of course this is part of the mystery. But it does seem unlikely. If I got an invitation without having a clue what the deal is I simply would not go. Furthermore most characters aren't real likable with the end result that you never actually care for them. Another flaw is that the director deviates from the basic premise which is scary enough and brings up new elements that never get explained and aren't even relevant to the "Doll Master mystery". Overall this movie has been a big disappointment to me. If you want to see a good horror movie involving dolls go see "Dead Silence"!


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
The worst ever Korean movie! The plot is ridiculously complex, unbelievable, and the film creates not a single shock. It builds up suspense well enough then leaves you agitated providing no shock or jumpy moment. Whenever there is a chilling moment you are not bothered by it as you're still trying to work out who is who and what is going on! It goes something like this: a modeling company recruit 4 people for a modeling career. but the owners are not what they seem, they have model dolls of everyone and a strange girl is seen walking about the place and the owners have no recognition of a girl. It turns out that everyone is there for a reason and thats as much as i could grasp. The ending is a muddle of killings and you don't know who's a doll who's real and who's dead! i don't recommend it to fans of Korean/Asian horror films.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Have to disagree with people saying that this is a lousy horror film with good acting and camera-work - I'd say it's an okay horror flick RUINED by shockingly abysmal acting and poor camera-work - watch 'Ju-on : The Grudge instead of wasting your time with this garbage. The principal idea behind the film is rather an original one, considering the abundance of killer-doll-based scare-fests which have been foist upon us over the years; unfortunately, the story is handled with all the subtlety of the latest Michael Bay actioner, with a cast of characters which are uniformly unlikable and played with precision-perfect dreadfulness by actors presumably sifted from daytime Korean soap operas. It isn't scary and only succeeds in dampening your expectations of the next Korean horror movie to come-a-calling. Oh well.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Doll Master is an example of a lousy horror film, fallen somewhere in the space with it's two not so well established genres, a horror film and an emotional drama film. Seems like The Doll Master tries very hard to be a very scary horror film, but it fails. The noise of the dolls while moving is like taken from the croak of Kayako in Ju-On, and the crawls are like sadako esquire. The killing dolls will remember you a cute version of "Chucky". But compared to Child's Play, this film is more superb. But the story seems a nothing, the brilliant camera shots and the brilliance of acting was taken away cause of the plot.
Don' watch this if you are expecting great shocks.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This relatively obscure Hong Kong "minorpiece" is the perfect desert island movie for video age peeping toms (at least its first half is). Every set-up, every scene, every sequence is an excuse to look up a girl's skirt, stare down at her breasts, gaze at her bottom and leer at her tight crotch. What it's establishing is the lead character's perverted proclivities, of course(!)
Genre stalwart Anthony Wong is a marginally perverted married man who is plagued by erotic daydreams and outrageous fantasies. All involve scantily clad, sexy Chinese ladies with nothing but sexual servitude on their minds.
The plot is thickened by a homicidal subplot, voodoo doll skewering and a little rape and pillage.
Some of the sex scenes are fairly hot and the gore is liberal, but the supernatural elements introduced into the second half feel half-baked and the plot developments are ludicrous.
Clearly, producer of garish garbage Wong Jing was in a terrible hurry to get this into and out of theaters.
The arty title sequence did not fool this jaded punter.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I was looking forward to this movie as everyone was talking about it as being a good horror movie, and finally an European one. So, maybe my expectations were to high.
It begins with a good quiet horror/shock sequence but it lets you down right away in the following scenes, where the plot begin being introduced, as the acting and the motivation/life of the characters reveals itself no better than any 'made for TV' drama. It keeps that way right into the end.
About the horror part of the movie, it is certainly a good idea and a different one, but ALL the scenes are of the 'seen it before' kind.
Overall, my idea of this movie was that it had a good concept, which was inserted into a mediocre story, bad acting and less than tolerable plot holes.



assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Firstly, this movie works in the fact that it is disturbing. I really did not like seeing all these scenes where people get cut up alive, etc. The weirdly erotic introduction gives one a sense of necrophiliactic wonder. It is somewhat... distastefull to me personally. But the movie really works in that respect, and it is suppposed to be scary, so I give it credit for that. Yup, a few points there for those scalpels and....well, damned disturbing idea of getting disected alive.
But what this movie lacks is an interesting plot, characterization, or real surprises. The whole teen-flick horror genre usually goes in a very simple, predictable way. Lots of 'tense' moments, creepy guys who are insane, and the big question of all: is the boyfriend the murderer? This movie fits into the category of "Scream" and countless others which have spawned over the 90s. Well, I won't spoil it for you, but it's not exactly interesting who is the killer. We find out who it is half way through... and from there on, the movie drudges on, trying to fill in some time... rather boringly to say the least. I was looking at the clock a bit on this movie.
The lead actress is great, as usual, but the carboard acting box she is placed into makes one groan in pain... the college girl who is a detective who everyone thinks is insane, but she is the one who really knows whats going on. And the cops? Ahhh, they just laugh and eat donuts. Very predictable, flat, disturbing at times, and most of all, boring and dull... It's like an American film company took a flight to Germany to shoot a movie to make it foreign..... hmmm..... or did they?



assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Medical student Paula Henning wins a place at an exclusive Heidelberg medical school. When the body of a young man she met on the train turns up on her dissection table, she begins to investigate the mysterious circumstances surrounding his death, and uncovers a gruesome conspiracy perpetrated by an Antihippocratic secret society operating within the school. Disturbing and gross, lots of scary parts. It even has a good script and ending. But it has a one poor part. What else could you see from this movie? It's a good mystery and horror movie. But, of course, if you like it, Go buy it. If you don't, there still is not reason to waste your money on this.
Rated R for Extreme Graphic Violence, Sexual Situations and Profanity.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This movie had such a good premise to start with. Suspense, slashers, a secret society, and you really couldn't figure out who the bad guys were until the last quarter of the movie.
But it contained so many dumb clichés from the worst of the old American slasher/horror movies. Now, I love slasher/horror movies, but there are all the old clichés that have long disappeared from American cinema. For example, the old "I hear noises in the basement and I'm home all alone and the basement light doesn't work, so I'll go down to investigate" cliché.
Three examples of these clichés just really irked me to no end:
1) When Potente finds out that there may be a secret society at work at the medical school carving up live bodies, she proceeds to ask questions and tell EVERYONE -- very publicly. In essence, she is saying, "I found you out. Come kill me because I am telling everyone your secret." And then she wonders why she finds blood smeared all over her bed and is brought her roommate's severed finger in a towel.
2) Even after one guy she met two weeks ago ends up on the dissection table and she finds out about this secret society disemboweling live people, she goes to the lab where all the dead bodies are stored 2-3 more times BY HERSELF AT NIGHT to investigate.
3) Her roommate gets killed. She gets chased by the killer, whom she knows, doesn't report him to the university or the police, then leaves the school to go home to visit her parents. Then she returns to school, apparently thinking that this guy who tried to kill her will let bygones be bygones and not try to kill her, even though she knows his secret. She was, of course, wrong.
For someone who was supposed to be so smart (she was studying to be a doctor in the best school in Germany), she acted like the cliché bimbo in a horror movie.
These things just made a potentially good movie very frustrating, and made me wish the ending would come even sooner. Halfway through the movie, I stopped routing for her and wished that she would end up on the dissection table, too.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
There is an endless supply of trashy horror movies. It seems that people never get tired of trying to scare and thrill. Alas, very seldom these attempts succeed. This, unfortunate movie has almost no redeeming value. The story is highly predictable, most of the actors very uninspired, or just plainly miscast, special effects of very low quality. It took a lot of effort not to switch off the DVD and go to bed. With such a limited number of foreign movies issued in the USA, why in the world would anybody want to import this drivel. To top it all, apparently there is an "Anatomy 2 ", for those who have nothing better to do. I'd rather watch the paint dry.


assistant
0