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
This movie had so much potential to be hilarious yet moving but fell way short of either. It had a great story line, it just was not executed as good as it could have been. The weird "hallucinations" during his sleep scenes made absolutely no sense and definitely was not needed, they made no impact nor did they enhance or lend any understanding of what was to come or happen.
Jon Heder's character was OK but could have been expanded upon more. He played the crappy part he was given at his best. The character was funny, but again, it fell short of what could have been.
Mila's character was perfect and her performance was spot on.
In closing, the writing was horrible and more often than not, made no sense and his hallucinations did not fit with the movie at all. This movie, with better scripting and directing, could have been a contender to National Lampoon's Vacation as far as funny, bad things happening to a person on a trip across America.
Instead, it was only worthy of a second "flush". If I would have seen this at the theater, I would have demanded my money back and boycotted the film.
The only thing that this film did was waste an hour and a half of my life. It also managed to make all those involved in the movie look bad, simply because the movie was a stinker.
I do not recommend this movie to anyone! Ever!


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


user
If only the writer/producer/"star" had the slightest inkling of the limits of his acting range, and the way he is perceived on-screen (wearing glasses and a side-parting is not enough to make you look gawky and quirky if your face and teeth have been sculpted by various medical professionals to conform to American ideals of generic, characterless symmetry, erroneously perceived as beauty in this obsessively superficial society) he would have cast John Heder as the main character instead of attempting to pull a Good-Will-Hunting and create a vehicle to showcase his... his... well, himself.
The excellent supporting cast (Lord knows, they must be having problems to agree to this) is wasted in an agonising perpetual struggle to react convincingly to a main character incapable of delivering even the simplest line with appropriate intonation, and believe me, he is not short of simple lines to choose from, as the dialogue appears to have been composed by a five-year-old. Ah wait... it's the same person pretending to be a writer as pretending to be an actor. It's not often that I don't see a film through to the end, but this ejaculation was irredeemable from the outset and showed no signs of improving after the first hour. Excrement.


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


user
Romantic comedy movies are definitely the most fertile genre for "bellow from average" movies and source of frustration for viewers. This one is a perfect example of this and got a place in my "top ten worst movies".
History is far from creative and jokes are weak. I found no reason for a single laugh during all the movie! Characters are plain and the performance of the actors and just good. History develops slowly, it's tedious and foreseeable. Ending is also foreseeable and sugar-coated.
This is one that movies you watch in a rainy Saturday afternoon when you have nothing better to watch in my humble opinion.


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


user
Simply put this movies is without any substance whatsoever. Just take my word for it and save yourself the time it is a complete DUD!! I would say the characters are one dimensional but that would imply there was some sort of character development. I thought Eric Roberts was going to jump out any second it was so close to B-Movie status.
The girl from That 70's is beautiful...but unless you are a stalker type fan of hers this movie has nothing for anyone.
Avoid..Avoid...Avoid
This movie was straight to DVD for a reason...that being...it is a train wreck!!!


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


user
Rutger Hower fans Don't BE FOOLED - he only plays a cameo in this movie and that's IT. This movie loses an extra point for that scam. I think Rutger Hower has a total of about 2 very short scenes and 2 very short voice-overs.
The female lead for this film is way above this poor material in looks and talent-she's great, this movie is a dog and she's wasted on it. The story is of a Lawyer hoping for that partnership one day at the firm getting suckered into having to cart the Boss' niece across country. They have several encounters on the road with various oddballs and that is the vehicle for a variety of skits and the dude that played Napoleon Dynamite is thrown in the mix as a side character for good measure.
This is a road-trip where extreme circumstances put our repressed hero to the test and he slowly winds up loosening up a little bit by the end of the movie, ah isn't love grand, yadda yadda..
Only watch this film if you want to see a hot chick be annoying to a dork in a truck for an hour and half.


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 really bad. I mean really really bad. The scenes were like from a parody and special effect sucked a lot. And it was filmed in 2003!!! i think this was a great waste of time and money and Michael Shanks with his 'Shaggy from Scooby Doo' image just made me laugh. Never waste your time with this picture... I really don't know what the director was thinking after seeing the final cut of this movie but the fights were so unrealistic that it hurt my eyes to look on them. The 'latex cat women' fighters were like sheep just rolling around the scenes and looking frightened around like they had no clue what to do on the scene... I think this is a beautiful example of Bottom 100 picture.


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


user
What a production, what a waste of screen-time and money. Here is what some european so called producer think, of a scifi movie. Take former model, Alexandra Kamp, pair a with an US c-class actor and get one of film business most notorious producer Harry A. Towers. Towers then finds some obscure munich based prod. house, Tandem communication, Rola Bauer, and then mix it all up with no script whatsoever and you'll get "Sumuru" - a priceless gem among the worst movies ever done! Get a live people, and do something else, whatever you do, no movies please!! To top everything, producers went to South Africa for filming, what you see on screen is one giant sand hole, where the "action" takes place, between extremely bad actors and extremely bad fx that any film student would do better.


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


user
Pretty.
Pretty actresses and actors. Pretty bad script. Pretty frequent "let's strip to our undies" scenes. Pretty fair F/X. Pretty jarring location decisions (the college dorm room looks like a high-end hotel room - probably because it was shot at a hotel). Pretty bland storyline. Pretty awful dialog. Pretty locations. Pretty annoying editing, unless you like the music video flash-cut style.
This one isn't a guilty pleasure - this is more an embarrassing one. If you must watch this, pick a good dance/techno album and turn the sound off on the movie - you'll see the pretty people in their pretty black undies, and probably follow the story just fine.
The cast may be able to act - I doubt that anyone could look skilled given the lines/plot that they had to deal with.


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


user
I don't honestly know what legal or illegal substance they - the writers - were on when the wrote this horrid piece of tripe!
The cast - sucks The plot - sucks The editing - sucks The whole premise of the movie is that a girl with psychic/telekinetic powers comes across a lesbian vampire sorority, you just have to be totally out of your head to watch even 1 minute of this.
The only reason I had to watch it - it was on the here! network as part of a two-picture purchase and the movie that came on after it was the real one that I wanted to see. I fast forwarded through the whole thing and was just amazed how stupid this movie was in double speed!
Do not rent, buy, or watch this movie....the vampires in the movie don't suck as much as the overall movie and production does!
If you want a good lesbian vampire movie - The Hunger with David Bowie, Susan Sarandon & Katharine Deneuve - excellent movie to watch/own/rent in place of this piece of pure sh*t


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


user
I wasn't expecting "Citizen Kane" but I was hoping for some extreme guilty pleasure! The script is bad, but the school exterior shots were obviously done with the same 5 extras on the same day & the dorm exterior shots were easily shot during a hurricane.
The wardrobe was swapped around so much, I hoped the wardrobe mistress had some good strong soap to wash the panties. I know the budget's time but do you think they could have bought a couple of DIFFERENT styles of underwear? What oversexed up vampiric hot chick would wear boy-leg panties under latex trousers? I was relieved to see one appearance of thong in the penultimate scene.
Good points: the actors were all *very* attractive, and the girls had natural boobs. Too bad they never took the bras off.
The special effects were neither effective and could only be describes as special, if they rode the short bus to the edit bay. The final scene in particular is horrifically, laughably bad.
-Lizzzzzzzz


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


user
OK if you are looking for a fun lesbian romp. This is NOT the movie If you are looking for a fun movie with hot sociopathic characters (in the vane of 'cruel intentions' or 'wild things') This is NOT the movie if you are looking for a classic vampire lesbian seductress's movie. This is NOT the movie.
However if you are looking to wast an hour of your life, this is your movie. It is badly written, badly directed,badly scored, badly filmed.It had bad special effects...i mean really bad special effects. I think that you can actually generate the same special effects in imovie lol.
IT REALLY IS A PRETTY BAD MOVIE.
The actors were classic starlet beauties however look more like porn stars. it is shot like a soft core porn however you never get the money shot and the actors all look bored out of their brains. the 'girl on girl' scenes, which suck btw, were so LAME that there hardly worth mentioning. go watch the 'almost sex scenes' on youtube cos that's the only reason you would want to watch this movie and even there not worth it.
A WAST OF MONEY AND TIME!!! don't even pick it up, go watch 'Cruel intentions 2' instead - same movie without the bad special effects, bad storyline,bad writing,bad dialog and bad acting. actually i might go watch it now just to purge my mind


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


user
This was made in 2004 for gods sake, what happened to our state of the art special effects? What happened to our rough around the edges but still good actors? The actors in this movie were unbelievably horrible, there was one or two that weren't bad, but the rest, biggg thumbs down. Couldn't stand listening to the badly written dialogue, I mean, who the heck wrote that script? Please don't ever write again! Special effects? Don't even get me started on the special effects. SURELY they could have come up with better then fully fake looking green balls of light in the eye sockets. It looks so old and..lame frankly.! Even the easiest thing to make look real..the teeth, THEY looked so fake and stupid I would almost wipe a tear from my eye in annoyance. Come onnnn I cant believe this was even shown to the public.!


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


user
After seeing the movie in a class of mine and having a talk with the filmmaker, I found out exactly why the film bombed the way it did. The creators of the movie had no intention to call the film "8MM 2." Originally, the film was called "The Velvet Side of Hell" but was changed at the last minute by Sony Pictures to 8MM 2 without letting the filmmakers have any say in the matter. By doing that, it screwed them out of theatrical releases and doomed it to a straight to video release with minimal advertising.
Again, this is from the filmmaker's mouths, not mine, so I really can't say what is truth, and what is hype.
If you look at the film as "Velvet Side of Hell," it isn't THAT bad. It isn't great, but it is not god awful. It would basically just be a B-movie that likes to show boobs. But as a sequel to "8MM," the film fails terribly.


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


user
Sure, this flick set in Eastern Europe is filled with sexy, but it absolutely has nothing to do with the Nicholas Cage flick "8mm" An ambassador's daughter and her fiancée mix it up with a local woman in a threesome that ends up being taped. The tape is used for blackmail and the stakes get higher and higher as the couple try to work it out themselves instead of going to authorities.
The sex comes and goes -- and would be the only reason for renting it, I suppose if you like this sorta thing -- and is quite gratuitous towards the middle when we cruise along the porn scene looking for the "other woman." I definitely question how it got into Blockbuster even with a Youth Restricted Sticker considering how just a hint over the edge of soft core it is. (Oh that's right, it's the double standard. Actual art-house flicks like "The Dreamers" and "Y Tu Mama Tambien" get castrated R versions, but Straight To DVD crap like this get the UNRATED banner proudly attached. Whatever.)
The acting is horrible, the plot is mind numbingly unoriginal, but really the worst offense is the idea that this is a sequel to 8mm. I'd give the flick a D for a grade and be nice, but considering they tried to trick me, it gets the F it frankly deserves.


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


user
1st watched 2/9/2008, 4 out of 10(Dir-J.S. Cardone): Sexual political thriller that doesn't really succeed in any of these areas very well except early on where there are some interesting soft-core scenes. The movie starts off portraying a couple exploring their sexual fantasies amidst their work environments or wherever and whatever suits their fancy. The couple takes an excursion to a retreat and bathhouse where they run into a woman that's willing to be a part of a three-some and fulfill some of their fantasies. At this point, we only know that this couple is well off but we don't know until they return that the fiancé is part of a well-to-do political family. The man hopes to be on the rise to the point of possibly getting a congressional seat after the marriage. They then receive a package in the mail from an anonymous source with explicit pictures of their encounter at the bath house and their qwest begins as to how and why they were filmed, who sent the package, what they want, and how to clear their names before any of this gets out. This qwest becomes an obsession that leads them deeper into seedier worlds and takes a lot of their time, to the point where their friends & family wonder what they're doing all day and why they look rundown all the time. This movie is interesting at times but drifts into ridiculousness as they personally seek out the problem instead of getting the police involved early on because of their pride. This mistake, of course, keeps the movie going. The performances are fine despite the no-name cast but the lunacy of the situation overrides and the movie starts to become ho-hum about ½ the way through. And of course, they throw in a twist at the end that defies and challenges everything that happened prior(as is the norm these days when they don't know what else to do to spice up the movie). This doesn't help this movie one bit, though.


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


user
First off, the first thing that came to my mind after I finished this film last night was "Why the title of 8MM 2?", because I saw the first one obviously, and what did this have to do with the first movie's plot? The only thing that was similar was the fact that the couple had to go into the porno industry and that wasn't even needed in the plot, because after you see the ending that I will not spoil, it just didn't make any sense.
A diplomat and his fiancée are in Hungary and notice a woman who is swimming naked in the pool area, she's very attractive, so when they see her at a club, they decide to have a little fun and have a steamy threesome. But things get extremely intense when the diplomat is mailed pictures of them all having the affair, fearing that it might go public and jeopardize his career, they pay off the guy who sent the pictures, the diplomat freaks out and "kills" the guy, leading into a murder case. He and his fiacee decide to find the girl they had the affair with, but things just get deeper and darker as they go further into what they got themselves into.
What could have been an alright thriller, turned into an unexplained and not well thought out movie, which was sad. Like I said, the title really has nothing to do with the first one, so don't fall for it. It's just a sexual thriller that makes no sense, but it's good for those nights alone, because quite frankly this is one of those films where it's so close to porn that it might as well be labeled as soft core.
4/10


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


user
Why was this film made? What were the creators of this thinking?!?! The first 8MM film at least had a plot that made sense and was potentially interesting. The first film was about the snuff film industry. This sequel is about... hold on... the porno industry!! Yes, as if the snuff film industry, an industry in which people are supposedly killed on film for entertainment, were at all in the same league with the adult film industry, an industry in which people film other people engaging in unstimulated sex acts and situations for eroticism. The idea alone should warn you about how poorly conceived the idea for this film alone is. It isn't helped by a lack of plot, character, acting, direction, script, logic, theme, or even sound design. This is a remarkably boring film that never once held my attention. Literally nothing works. Why would a mystery thriller film about the porno industry involving assassination and betrayal work anyway? I don't have much of an interest in adult films, but I certainly have watched them before. Why would somebody make a film about the evils of it and that they would make it in a sequel to a film about snuff movies? I don't even know if there is an industry involved in snuff film making, but I hope it doesn't. The idea of a snuff film alone is horrific and only people who are truly sick and bad would be a part of it. I don't think that the adult film industry revolves around murder and torture. I'm pretty sure that a lot of people make pornographic films for good intentions rather than to hurt and kill people. It is never okay to hurt another human being. The adult film industry isn't about hurting people. It's about creating films that are, to me, a diversion and a waste of time. What is this film trying to say? It doesn't work.


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


user
I believe the production value is OK..probably deserves a 4/10 or 5/10.it's traditionally filmed,featuring good looking people with model quality and a little class..
but the premise let me annoyed..a decent woman would do such dirt? I mean she is gonna marry a man who would have sex with another woman?
and what's more serious she is also active in the behavior...... only in de Laclos's mind....the film also have many aspects that makes Eastern Europeans seem immoral
after all, it's just movie, if it doesn't intend to degrade women in general, I will give one more point..but obviously, it does
conclusion: a nasty piece of crap with a little taste


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 another one of those movies I just knew I would hate, but it ended up not being as bad as one would expect.
It has a lot of T&A in it and even the DVD menu is chocked full of women's breast. The first few scenes of the movie has a lot of sex and nudity and I was beginning to think there would be no story at all just exploiting nudity for the sake of making money off a popular prequel 8MM.
As I continued to watch there was just more sex and nudity and main characters that I could care less about, but then the story started to unfold and I started to see a point to it all, and it was a tad better.
It is about a man who's fiancé is the daughter of an Ambasador and they all have a promising future until nude photos of a menage a trois sex act shows up and blackmail is in the senders cards. The man and his fiancé must now get to the bottom of who sent the pics and how to shut them up.
The movie first of all is nothing to do with part 1, it doesn't even have anything to do with 8MM's, its about a sex video though so I can see the similarities, as small as they may be.
The acting is neither good, nor bad, its just nobodies playing parts anybody could do. The films production value is middle of the road and its pure drama yawn.
I did enjoy going along for the ride getting to the bottom of the blackmailers motives. I was anticipating answers which is way more than I could say for the first one which I consider garbage. This movie has some nice twists too which are always welcomed.
It's not great, and it is very slow started, but it does ultimately entertain. I wasn't on the edge of my seat and I won't rave to my friends that this is a must see, but hey if you watch a lot of movies and always seek something new, this might entertain you for 90 minutes.


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


user
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning
David (Johnathon Schaech) and Tish (Lori Heuring) are a couple in Budapest, on business commitments and staying at a luxury hotel. One night, they meet an attractive woman at a nightclub and invite her back to their place, where they end up in a threesome. All is well, until David receives some negatives in the mail and he and Tish end up being blackmailed. But when some people involved in the deception are found murdered, things get messy and they are forced to enter the seedy underground world of pornography and hardcore bondage to track down the woman who may hold the key to everything.
Whereas the original film dealt with the concept of snuff films, this straight to DVD sequel deals with the more wholesome (!!!) theme of threesomes and sleazy sex. It plays like a porn film, a cheap piece of titillation with plenty of hot T/A action going on. If this sounds like your idea of a good film, you'll probably like it, but you'd probably be more at home in a porn shop than a video store.
This tries to copy the original film's dark and voyeuristic feel, but while it does a pretty good job of this, it still can't hold up to that of the original's. It has an apathetic story, with a dodgy narrative flow. And compared to Cage, Schaech comes across as interminably wooden.
Better than I thought it'd be, I suppose, and better than your average one of these DVD direct sequels that seem to be coming out a lot these days, but really, haven't we seen enough? **


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


user
I'm so sorry, but I have to tell this film was the most terrible I have ever seen before. I thought that it will be a good film after 8mm. WHAT A SELL!!! There were nothing interesting in it, except the beautiful Hungarian women. Everything might be known forward. It's a miracle I didn't sleep trough all. I don't understand how might you let make it!! I'm so sorry, but I have to tell this film was the most terrible I have ever seen before. I thought that it will be a good film after 8mm. WHAT A SELL!!! There were nothing interesting in it, except the beautiful Hungarian women. Everything might be known forward. It's a miracle I didn't sleep trough all. I don't understand how might you let make it!!


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


user
I'm sorry, ELO fans, but I was disappointed with this concert at the CBS Television City in Los Angeles. It's decent music-wise, but the presentation is simply boring - big-time. Most of the songs sound the same and lead singer-writer Jeff Lynne is about as animated as a store mannequin. He has a pleasant voice, but he isn't much to watch. He just stands in one spot and sings for an hour and 40 minutes. The songs all sound like 1970s-1980s bubblegum stuff: pleasant but not exciting.
Lynn is accompanied by a very pretty woman, Rosie Vela, but she isn't too animated, either. The only song - out of 23 - that creates any excitement is the last one: "Roll Over Beethoven." Now if only some of the other 22 songs had that excitement to them, this could have been a much better concert DVD.


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


user
I rented this film for $5 and felt sorry I did it...I wouldn't give a 5c for it if I knew.This is the worse movie ever...None of the filming locations was in former Yugoslavia,map at the beginning what the...???English actors are trying to speak Serbian eg. pretending they are Serbs and they did it terrible bad.My first language is Serbian and I could not understand what they were mumling about.They drove a big jeep in a country where 3 sides (Croats,Serbs and Muslims) are in war and they wrote on it peace 4 Sarajevo???Ha,ha, how stupid was that...Don't know why English are making stupid films about war like this one...or even if they do why they are blaming Serbs for everything,when there was another two sides in a war too.And we all know they were killing too,not just sitting and pretending innocent,so they should at least show the whole truth.This film also Harrison's flowers,Behind enemys lines,The hunting party and few others were total bullshit and that's proved eg The hunting party was biggest loser in 2007/08 spent 20 mil 4 it and they earned 800.000 ha,ha, what a crap...The truth will come out sooner or later.Proud to be Serb!!!


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


user
6 out of the 8 comments on this subject rated this film as worth watching, so let me redress the balance.
If this is the best that British Independent film makers have to offer then they need to pack away their cameras right now and find jobs in another industry. Unfortunately for me that was 82 minutes I'll never see again and hopefully I'll save some of you from wasting 82 minutes of your own.
Whilst the idea behind the film is interesting, it is not developed enough to keep the viewer attached. The student characters are bland and uninteresting and quite frankly you won't care about what happens to them. The soldiers are practically caricatures of every baddie ever seen in film, I kept waiting for Captain Markovic to twirl an imaginary moustache. Some of the effects were quite good and showed some imagination, but these were ruined by the shockingly bad acting, poor script writing and patchy camera work. The budget may have been better spent sending the "actors" (and I use that term loosely)to acting classes or the Thomas Brothers to film making school or maybe on a spell checker because the subtitles were incorrectly spelt. The fact that the mis-spellings were not picked up on and rectified speaks volumes about the immaturity of the whole production.
I can only assume that the positive comments are staged by the film makers, either that or they were watching a completely different film. I implore the Thomas Brothers to never give up their day jobs for if they continue in this field, they will surely starve to death.


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


user
The positive reviews on this page are planted by the filmmakers and their friends. This film is amateurish in terms of direction, acting, in fact in every aspect. If the IMDb are gonna allow filmmakers to dictate what is written about their films then that is a very sad thing. This film has a marketable premise but it is absolutely horrifically made.
Film is subjective so everyone has their own opinion. But this film is on a par with the work of Ed Wood, but without any of the charm. To think otherwise shows bad taste of the highest order.
This is not a personal thing. I don't know anyone associated with the film. I'm just a film lover who feels that the reviews on this page are completely inaccurate and therefore I felt the need to address the balance and give a more accurate view of the film. It's very poorly made and the direction is below even film-making by the numbers. The acting is the worse ever committed to film. The best thing about this film is the poster and DVD cover art. Beyond that it's not worth the time.


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 I have ever seen. The highlight of the movie is a comparison between the smell of natural gas and a dirty vagina.
The acting is pathetic. I know acting is hard work and stuff, but that's why it should be left to real actors. Watching these people act is like watching Michael J. Fox perform brain surgery. It's shaky at best.
One of the other comments would have you believe that the movie is saved by the acting talents of Dan Gordon as Chris. Only Dan himself or maybe his mother could believe that was good acting.
The special effects in this movie were terrible. The worst special effects were for the gas explosion in the lighthouse. It looked like someone was shining an orange light up from the bottom of a model constructed from a refrigerator box. Sure there was a little bit of computer animation layered over top, but it didn't help. I suspect that the special effects on this movie were created and rendered using a single Amiga computer from the late 80s.


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


user
It's incredible how a movie can take so much time and effort and still end up being abominable. For those of you who appreciate painstaking special effects and inconceivable detail in every shot you will watch this film in awe. Simply because Predator Island contains none of this. It is a redundant remake of every horror monster movie in the last two decades. Now I appreciate bad horror films, they have a certain flare for humor in the most dramatic of circumstances. However, if your goal is to create a memorable work that will thus be engulfed in the Cult Hall of Fame then my first suggestion is to find some imagination/creativity plus get some talent. Oh, and a few extra bucks to put into your picture.
One horror film tradition has been to shock the audience with violent deaths and gore. However, shock doesn't deliver for more than a few seconds. To really evoke a satisfying reaction from paying crowd there should b development of characters, some identifiable traits. I know, you're probably saying this guy is not providing anything intelligent to the filmmakers, he's just stating an amateur remark. Well, that goes to show you how amateur these filmmakers are.
Despite having to go through the horror of watching this movie, there was a silver lining. The performance by Dan Gordon as Chris is splendid. He is given nothing to work with in a script and yet he is able to come out of that film looking like a star. Out of all of the actors he is the only who believes in what he is reciting. He not only provides the audience with someone we can identify with but we also have someone we look forward to watching so we can get through the rest of the film. Gordon shows genuine talent and the ability to pull off quality work and overcoming a huge obstacle, that being the rest of the cast. Dan Gordon is going to be a star, hopefully sooner than later. That is to say if he can get away films like this that will hold him back.


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


user
The kind of B-movies from the 1950's that were schlocky yet so much fun are to what Predator Island pays homage. Filmed in Connecticut, Predator Island is set on an island called with a lighthouse Hell's Beacon which is inhabited by only the couple who tends the lighthouse. In typical 1950's sci-fi fashion after a half dozen young adults crash their boat into the island's rocky shore hideous creatures from outer space invade the island after a meteor hits nearby. The creatures start both inhabiting the bodies of their victims as well as devouring them. Lots of cursing and lame comebacks are the primary form of dialogue in this movie. It is so hokey that you just have to laugh at times. If you are looking for a movie that is stupid, but in a fun way, then this one fits the bill.
Interesting note: I appear in the film as a dead body in the far background of the final scene. During filming they needed about 50 extras, yet around 300 people showed up for the opportunity. They eventually used nearly 200 of them.


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


user
Once in a while it is good to see a really bad film like this, just so you know how decent an actor Keanu Reeves is by comparison. The premise of this story is good: teenagers go out on a boat, meteor lands in water, aliens kill teenagers. What's not to love about that, if you're into scream thrillers? But I should have known something was up when I read it was only 75 minutes long. I thought, "I hate judging movies by how long they are. Who says a movie has to be 90 minutes?" But once I took the DVD home from BBuster, I was shocked at the awful production quality, acting, directing of this completely amateurish piece of garbage. The only reason I watched it to the end was because I don't have cable TV, and I already paid four bucks for it. However, there was one ray of light: the actor who played "Chris" is actually decent, and far outclasses this dreck. First of all, the special effects were cheap and unconvincing. Then the aliens--the costumes seemed interesting (rubber suits) but since most of the film takes place in the dark, you don't really get to see them! And hardly any of the actors were convincing enough to suspend disbelief. Finally, I must say that the DVD jacket was made with much higher production standards than the film itself, which felt like a rip-off, so beware of that when you rent other DVDs. Save your $4 and buy a pint of beer.


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


user
From the opening shot of the meteor falling towards Earth, you know you're in for something special.
This is an ultra-low budget shot on video movie about a group of teens stranded on a lighthouse island with some monsters. The story is unremarkable and nothing you haven't seen a thousand times before. The acting isn't great but isn't completely horrible, however the special effects - of which there are a good deal - are laughable at best. In fact, if you can read this sentence, chances are better than 50% that you could do a more credible job creating the video explosion and compositing effects in this movie than the filmmakers.
The movie's saving grace - if you're in the mood for a grade Z turkey of a film - is that there's always something happening and it never gets boring. And if you like making fun of bad movies with your friends, you might just find this worth a dollar rental.
And I must say I appreciated the opening joke, "that is the dumbest name for an island I've ever heard." Probably the best moment in the movie.


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


user
Predator Island starts as six friends, Eric (Tom Dahl), Chris (Dan Gordon) along with Heather (Iris McQuillan-Grace), Kim (Iana Baker) & Denise (Melissa Roby) get invited to spend sometime on Kevin's (Michael Wrann) father's boat partying in the open sea. What could go wrong with such a super sounding idea? Well for starters a big green meteorite could crash into the sea near your boat & an alien life-force could emerge from it & try to kill all of you, then again that's just a ridiculously stupid idea, isn't it?
Co-edited, written & directed by Steven Castle I thought Predator Island was crap & it's a simple & straight forward as that really. The script is of the worst kind, you know the sort of abomination that's full of highly annoying teenage character's who do & say the most stupid things, it's full of clichés & is utterly predictable, it makes next-to-no sense, things just suddenly happen without any build up or explanation, it's boring even at only 70 odd minutes & it has virtually no entertainment value whatsoever, not even unintentional laugh value. The film doesn't really have much of what I would call a plot, there's no explanation given as to why or how this alien creature can take over people's minds or why it can be selective in the sense that one moment the person will be 'normal' the next, when the story calls for it & with no apparent cause, they suddenly get green glowing eyes & a sudden urge to turn cannibal. There's not enough horror in it, the so-called action scenes are pitiful & I really don't want to waste another second thinking about Predator Island let alone wasting my precious energy typing these words...
Director Castle doesn't do anything to make this thing watchable & the 'special effects' are absolutely terrible, this alien creature dude wouldn't even get into a 50's sci-fi film. The filmmakers even play some blooper footage over the end credits but this has to be the least funny collection of mistakes ever, I mean they can't even get it wrong right if you know what I mean! Forget about any decent gore as there isn't any, there's a bit of cannibalism & some intestines placed on the unfortunate actors stomach so another unfortunate actor can pick them up & pretend to eat them.
With a supposed budget of about $150,000 I have to concede that the filmmakers were working on a seriously low budget, that's still no excuse for making such a poor film. The whole thing looks very cheap & the acting is pretty bad.
Predator Island is crap, I'm sorry but that's the way it is & I just fail to see what anyone would get out of it. In my humble opinion this probably one to avoid.


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


user
I carefully checked if there's another movie named as this one, and there isn't ! But I really don't think we all saw the same movie ! There's no way ! How can you vote more than "1" for this movie ?! The idea of this movie let's say it's acceptable. Oh, and the acting of Dan Gordon (Chris) is quite good. But those are the only two things acceptable in this project. The others are... awful ? It's a very delicate word to describe the acting of the other actors, the directing, the (so said) "special" effects, even the way that the crew was filming ! I don't even like the way that the camera operators were moving to record the scenes ! This may be the most miserable film I've ever seen. I really don't remember a movie lower than this one... Maybe there is, but... I don't think so... Ehh, what's done, it's done... That's the movie and there's too late for anyone to change anything. I've voted "1", but my realistic vote starts with a "-" (minus) in front....


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


user
I like to think I have seen it all. SS DOOMTROOPER. The one about a family of sabertooth tigers. The one about a family of pteranodons. GOAT EATER. DEMON CHILD (a nonanimated child's rubber doll with horns glued on its head. Several SASQUATCH flicks, none of them good. A couple of giant spider/insect flicks. Endless HELLRAISER sequels. Endless LEPRAUCHAN sequels. Endless JASON sequels. A kickboxing scarecrow. AX 'EM, which is actually about an urban street parade recorded on someone's $199 camcorder. And so on. I watched part of an STV the other night about folks stranded on a desert island kickboxing to the death with a group of badly animated totems. I have even sat through DREAMCATCHER, as recently again as last night -- well, I should say I sat through parts of it, having seen it in all of its awful glory years ago. But nothing compares to PREDATOR ISLAND, about a group of youths trapped on an island during a storm, forced to do battle with aliens that arrive in a meteorite. The meteorite looks like it came out of a SUPERMAN cartoon from the 1940s. So do the aliens, for that matter. The photography and acting and directing and writing are all equally bad. I turned it off halfway through. Good luck.


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 got to be the WORSE move I've EVER seen!!!!! It was not only boring, it was "gag me with a spoon" dumb. Where'd ya find the actors ... on a street corner? Who did the special effects...Maaco? For God's sakes I could have made a better movie with my CELL PHONE. And if that wasn't bad enough, you even had extras at the end of the movie so we could see just how stupid the actors are in real life. Who ever did the makeup for the aliens...must have spent $5 at your local used costume store and called it a day. And who in the world wrote up the movie description on the back of the DVD case should be shot. PUHLEEZ!! It's not even 1/8 % of what it is described as. That description is just to suck people in to buying, renting or paying a ticket to see it. No wonder there was never a trailer to it....ya would have drove them all away!!!!!!!
Bad Actors...$5
Special Effects...$5.50
Fake Fire....$1.89 (cigarette lighter)
Time Spent Watching This Movie....total waste! (I should sue ya for my time watching it)


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 is so bad. but its so bad that i was laughing my ass off. for people that like movies, do not watch this one. for people who like movies good and bad, i recommend this one. the story lines shaky,the script is horrible,the acting is horrible to mediocre. the soundtrack throughout the movie was corny but i loved it. the cool catchphrases were a plus tho. ha ha. "if it can bleed, it can die". the fight scenes cracked me up. it seemed to me like they spent more time on those parts than any other cuz the fight scenes for the most part were pretty clean. i almost feel like this movie could have been good if it weren't for the f/x....no it would have still been a crapshoot. the eye thing was corny. and how the chick was eating the guys stomach in the kitchen,they coulda done something where shed be actually eating something or at least put more of the fake blood on her face. and the lighthouse explosion disappointed me. i thought they might have gotten real fire instead of crappy computer synthesized stuff. and the ending was so predictable, which surprised me when they actually did what i though they might do. so overall. id say this is a classic as far as crappy movies go. its in my bottom 5.


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


user
I see that the majority of the comments so far have been if not overly positive, then at least positive. I can not understand that. The only explanation I can find is that the people who commented had something to do with the film, because this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It makes "Boggy Creek II" and "Mutant" look like masterpieces of horror. The acting is shaky at best, and awful for the most part. The entire movie is almost pitch black, probably so they could shoot it all in the same location. The monster looks like something from one of Roger Corman's worst films. And the plot...well, the less said about it the better.
One to avoid at all costs.


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


user
Rented(free rental thank goodness) this as supposedly filmed in CT where I live....could have been filmed in a tunnel for all that matter! Dark ninety percent of time, and just an awful attempt at a low budget flick, which can be good if done right. In a nutshell about a bunch of young adults who witness meteor fall, and subsequently fall prey to aliens on a lighthouse island, assisted by keeper and wife. Analysis:
- acting = dreadful
- writing = uninspired
- story = done a million times before with different settings
- production values = okay (lighting) for budget
- effects (creature, digital, other) HORRIBLE,VERY CHEAP LOOKING
So, you get the gist of it. To add insult to injury, end credits has bloopers of filming - really now......who cares! Distributed under a Universal company, shocked they would even do so after viewing.
Finally as alternative, try "CREEP". Low budget, but well written, well acted, and fairly, well, creepy!


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


user
Wow. So my boyfriend and I went to the movie store to rent a film. I like dumb horror movies, so I browsed the variety of terrible films they had to offer while he went off in search of Michael Moore's 'Sicko'. So then I found the worst of all of them (as I would soon find out). It looked good on the cover and the description on the back seemed decent enough. The fact that there was an IMDb quote on it as a review was proof that it would be bad in a good way. So the next night, we put it in the DVD player and from the first five minutes, we were so incredibly confused.
The movie is utterly incoherent, with badly placed time-jumps from past to future that leave you asking a major 'WTF?' The plot has no sort of coherent story -- other than the vague allusion to a local myth about a murder, but this only actually comes into play in the movie in the last twenty minutes of it. So pretty much for the first hour you have this: random, confusing time jumps; incoherent plot; parents who don't age; bad acting; bad dialogue; a boy who magically changes hair colour; and a host of obnoxious characters for you to get bored with!
The movie moves so slow that it's a chore to actually sit there and watch. I'd rather be scrubbing the toilets, honestly. Don't bother with it.


assistant
0