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
So, you've seen the Romero movies, yes? And you've seen Jacob's Ladder, right? And the later Hellraiser movies? Okay, now let's make a movie out of all three, only let's just jam everything together and make a whole big mess of it, sounds like a good idea?
This movie is terrible. Absolutely god-awful. Yeah, it's an indie flick, who gives a crap? Is that a pass to make filmic excrement? The film attempts to establish credibility by focusing on character interaction, that much is evident. Unfortunately for the writers, they're not good at character interaction. This isn't Night of the Living Dead; the characters are nonentities shouting their inane lines at each other in a vain attempt to be caught by the microphones on set. The dialogue is never interesting. For a movie that focuses so much on character interaction, you'd think the characters would have something more to say than "WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO" "I don't know" "WELL WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING" "Well what are we going to do?" "I DON'T KNOW." "We should leave." "LET'S JUST ACCEPT OUR FATE." "No, we've got to leave." "WELL LET'S LEAVE THEN." "No, maybe we should stay."
This isn't exaggeration, there are exchanges in this film that reach that level of redundancy and inanity.
The worst thing about this movie? Half of it is a dream, and it really has zero purpose. Nothing in the dream has any relevance to anything in the rest of the movie. The writers couldn't decide whether to make a zombie movie or a monster movie and so they just made both. It's patently ridiculous, the cheapest trick in the book, and it's maddeningly insulting, especially since I'm pretty sure they ripped off the idea from Jacob's ladder, which handled the concept a hell of a lot more competently than these jokers could ever hope to do.
And then there's the editing. Years of watching MTV and playing horror-themed video games must have inspired the filmmakers, but it's surely a sad thing they didn't realize what made the choppy editing and obfuscation in those pieces of media effective in the first place. In this film, you will be confused often, and not in the good, David Lynch way, but in the bad "Wait I thought she just got killed, no? Then who the hell was that? Wait, who is that guy? Where did he come from? How did they get here?" kind of way. It's constant and consistently bad.
This movie is a laughable piece of trash and should only be sought out if you want to get trashed with a few friends and laugh at it.
And as a final note: as for the "comedy" people in other reviews are talking about, it's all unintentional. There isn't a single intentional piece of comedy in this film. It's all supposed to be a big serious character study, because the filmmakers want to have credibility in their horror-concept. Sadly, their pretensions don't match up to their ability.


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


user
Hey, I'm a fan of so-bad-so-good movies but there's nothing so-bad-so-good about Rise Of The Undead. It's just so-bad and that's it. No redeeming cheese, no unintentional humor, nothing! - boring apocalyptic Zombie (The "Undead" : a few people with hardly any make up) nonsense with lame special effects (if you can call those effects), dumb plot and annoying actors. They also have the nerve to rip off and quote from other (better) movies (Resident Evil, Dawn Of The Dead & Night Of The Comet) and managed to put me to sleep on the side. However, it was Rise Of My Eyelids once the end credits rolled though. My advice: save your money. It's not even worth a rental, unless you want to p*ss off and/or put some people to sleep then go ahead and give it a spin. You've been warned ;)


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


user
Do not be misled. This is NOT a zombie movie. Take it from a guy who loves zombie movies, and who rents them all: the good, and the horrendous. Yes, this movie has an extended zombie sequence, but it's basically an artsy-fartsy exercise in existentialist dread, which is a long way of saying it's boring. If you've worked hard all day and want to spend a couple of hours being entertained, rent something else.
"Rise of the Undead" has cheap special effects, mediocre acting, and crummy dialogue. All of that is understandable in an indie, low-budget film, and I can forgive such flaws as long as a movie has an entertaining story to tell. Unfortunately, "Rise of the Undead" hardly has any story at all. Moreover, the acting is not laughably bad so much as non-existent. All of the actors seem to have studied at the Buster Keaton School of Wooden Faces. Would it have killed them to show some emotion? (And no, yelling does not equate with emoting). The one character who actually had some pizazz was killed off first. Granted, there was another character who briefly held my interest. He looked and acted like Kyle McLachlan channeling Norman Bates, but it was too little, too late.
The filmmakers seemed to have forgotten a tiny detail: film is a VISUAL medium. That means lighting your scenes well enough for the viewer to actually view what's going on. And all those artsy jump cuts and close ups might have seemed cool at the time, but all they did was make watching the film jarring and confusing. There is nothing wrong with telling a story in a simple, clear fashion -- just look at George Romero's low-budget "Night of the Living Dead" to see how it's done superbly. And I know these folks had a small budget, but if you can't hire the equipment and technicians necessary to actually make the dialogue audible, then just go ahead and make a silent movie (then those Buster Keaton wooden faces might actually work).
I will say this for the film: the zombies were creepy. Unlike most zombie movies where the undead are shown in all their decomposing glory, the grosser the better, the zombies here were just shuffling, bloody-faced people. It actually worked to make them more like us, and therefore, scarier. That's the reason I gave this movie 2 stars instead of 1.
The sad part about all this is that despite all of its flaws, "Rise of the Undead" does not insult your intelligence. The filmmakers seemed to have actually wanted to make a smart, scary, original movie, and it's a shame that they failed so miserably. If they could just forego the too-fancy editing, buy a few extra lightbulbs, crank up the dialogue, and come up with a real story that actually goes somewhere, then I think they have the talent to make something really good.
Trust me: do not waste your time on "Rise of the Undead."


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


user
I can't give it less than a star, I tried. At this moment, Im not sure if Im halfway through it or not, but I stopped actively paying attention around the time part of it was revealed to be a dream. Or not. Or maybe it was. I think viewers who posted a comment that didn't include the descriptions "horrible" or "awful" or "made me want to swallow a bullet" are probably being nice because it is an indie film. Don't listen to them, listen to me- there is no nudity in the movie, skip it. I needed ten lines to submit this warning, so I will also say that the goth girl that some users have described as "hot" is fat. She has fat elephant legs.


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


user
With the Terrible acting, the awful dialog, the multitude of bad humor, the crappy plot and over terrible film. This has to be the worst film i have ever viewed in my life, and i'm the king of finding bad movies. For the effects, they just threw fake blood on people and things, didn't spend the time to create wounds and make special effects worth anything. Most people making low budget horror flicks at least do something like clads of tissue or something to make a gashing wound. The dialog was far from even decent and the acting was without direction or effort. They just threw some actors on a set and said, have at it. I swear i've seen better films from my film I class at school. How did this ever get a DVD release?


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 the worst movie I've ever seen. Boring, illogical, terrible. Don't waste even a minute in your life to watch this crap! I hope the directors won't make any other movie because this movie bankrupts them. The movie seems to be created in one or two days with some friends of the directors (if we can use this word for these 2 guys). They use only camera in hand. Many scenes are in darkness and nothing can be seen. Lots of scenes (80% of the movie) are with conversation only. ! There are movies like Vampire vs. Zombies which you can laugh on but this one is simply bad, no point to making such movies. Please, stop Jason Horton and Shannon Hubbel. Don't make more movies!


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


user
"Beowulf" is like a very bad game : no characters, no story, no real dialogues, bad fights ... It's probably the worst movie in the history of cinema. It's deadly boring, a lost of time. I'm really sorry for Christophe Lambert, who visibly doesn't know how to choose a role. If someone suggests you to see "Beowulf", believe me : run like mad.


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


user
Christopher Lambert attracted me to this movie. What a waste! The plot has more holes than my string vest the special effects were not very good, it did not take much to figure out who the creature's mother was and the creature owed more than a little debt to Predator. Anti-climatical this movie could have been done a whole lot better. It does raise one interesting point however. When is Hollywood going to discover the rich vein of European folklore out there just waiting to be mined?


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


user
GOOD: Technomusic accompanying medieval swordplay. Also, the movie looks sleeker than most b-movies, but let's face it: Quake or Doom has more atmosphere.
BAD: Unintelligent plot, no acting and totally unbelievable universe. I am usually able to see the potential of even very bad movies; heck, I love a good B-movie like "Split Second" and the likes. But this one has has nothing but boredom and cliché to offer... Totally predictable from start to end. Oh, and I forgot the lousy special effects, they look more like an old Playstation game than anything out of myth! The use of a classic poem to sell this sucker offends me!
CONCLUSION: Quite simply boring. If you want to see Lara Croft, buy the game, it's way sexier!


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


user
Another B-movie for teenagers, based mainly on CGI-effects, industrial soundtrack and some medieval imagery. It's a pitty that the legend for Beowulf is used in such uninspired manner. I am a fan of Christopher Lambert, but I have to admit that he is getting worse as an actor and his movies too. Rent it if you are teenager only.


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


user
Without doubt, this is the worst movie I've ever seen.
Poor acting. Poor script. Poor direction and poor production.
Why did they even bother? This entire movie was total nonsense. Suspension of disbelief can only carry so far, but this pushes the limits completely.
For a movie with no humour content, the audience laughed disturbingly often...


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


user
Once I heard that the greatest and oldest preserved Germanic heroic poem was transformed into a film it almost became my obsession to see it. The first glints of its appearance I caught never disappointed me. A futuristic interpretation With Lambert our favourite highlander and Mitra, tomb raider to be,in leading roles seamed appealing, though some doubts came to life (an important female character in Beowulf?)... Two hours ago I saw the film. After I had read the director's name my world fell apart. As I said - from that point on, there was not many surprises. First and foremost, the film has NOTHING to do with the original Beowulf if we disregard a couple of violently and pointlessly stolen names. If they had not stolen the names and declared it to be a new story, it might have passed as an f-class action stupidity with nice costumes and scenography. This way it is simply a crime! An attack on a legend and its ideology as well as on common sense. Ok let me be positive for a second... apart from the general electro-goth atmosphere which is nice it also has good music. That was it for both the positive part and this comment.


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


user
I've seen this movie during a festival here in munich with a huge crowd of real fantasy fans. At about the middle of the movie one part of the audience was sleeping and the other part was booeing. Boring dialogues, badly choreographed fighting sequences, a terribly dumb story and even worse special effects. Well, at least the actors hadn't much to do, except for looking concerned or (in case they were female) showing their breasts in the right light. Even Götz Otto, who was among the audience admitted afterwards that ge could understand the disappointment of the viewers. Be warned, folks, of the cheapest fantasy movie ever........


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 one of the worst movies I have ever seen! The only advantage seeing this movie is that the next movie can't possibly be worse. It's childish as hell (but Children aren't allowed)


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 Christophe Lambert as an actor. He has played in several good movies (Highlander, Subway, Greystoke, ...). But I can't even think he has played in that movie. The story is nearly nothing, the special effects are very bad and the actors also. To resume the movie, I have only one thing to say : it's the first time that I go to watch a movie and want to leave after 10 minutes.


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


user
bad acting , combats are very awful , 3-4 second between each text , bad music , bad effect and always the same plan during the movie. if you want laugh go it 2/10 ( for the fool laugh)


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


user
Christophe Lambert once said he was still making movies only to make good and easy money. When I see his latest releases, I can believe that.
Beowulf is, all in all, in the "good" part of the crap movies : there are some good thrill scenes, indeed. The actors themselves aren't too bad. But the plot is silly, the "Mortal Kombat"-like music has nothing to do here, the ending is really s****y...
Really, the only good thing about it is that me and my friends could laugh about how uninteresting it was. I even wish I wasted my money on something else.



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


user
Took a very good book and completely butchered it. Nothing was as it should have been. Some of the best parts of the book were missing, including the major point of the whole book. Simply the worst adaptation of a Stephen King novel ever. This movie made the mini-series for IT look good.


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


user
** May contain spoilers ** Horrible. Just horrible. I loved Stephen King's novel, and this is just a horrible adaptation of it. They change the ending. They change the plot. They changed Alan Pangborne's character from a grieving husband to a happy fiancé. If you are a fan of Stephen King's novel, stay away. Even if You are not, stay away.
The book was awesomely dark, even for Steve King. An 11 year old kills himself in the novel. A middle school principal is found with child pornography in the novel. THis is nowhere near as good as the novel.
This movie is my least favorite film of all time. I hate this film with a vengeance.


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


user
Reading the book I felt once again drawn into Castle Rock (Needful Things being the final part of the Rock trilogy), and the plot was a variant on the "demon comes to small redneck village" type story King likes to tell. The characters were all described in loving detail, and it made both a good psychological and gory horror. The film on the other hand is awful. Gone are the character interactions and clever plot, and replaced by a story that tries to be exciting but misses by a mile. If you haven't read the book then you might enjoy this, else avoid at all costs, as with most films of King's books.


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


user
Needful Things was one of my favorite Stephen King books. But this movie is one of the worst book to film adaptations I have ever seen they changed so many things around that it made me sick. Even the concept of the book being deception, things not always what they appear reminder throughout the book was not shown in the movie. Althogh it was enjoyable as many Stephen King films are, but as many Stephen King films this one did not follow the book and became a piece of Hollywood trailer trash. 2/10


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


user
The book was one of Stephen King's best. The movie was pure rubbish. It was painful to remain in the theater until the ending, which wasn't even the same as the book. I guess that this is the result when you try to cram 10 pages of story into every minute. There is no good reason to watch this movie.


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: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits
Based on another of Stephen King's lengthy novellas, this takes place in the sleepy little New England town of Castle Rock (also the name of the film's production company!), where a new antiques store, the titular Needful Things, has opened. The owner and proprietor, Leland Gaunt (Max Von Sydow) hides, you might say, a devilish secret. There's an item in his store that everyone in the little town wants-a small cash price upfront is first required, before a far more sinister price is asked for. As suspicion, hate and madness tear the town apart, it falls to police chief Alan Pangborn (Ed Harris) to restore order and save the town from a terrifying end...
I read the novel of Needful Things earlier this year, and was eager to watch the movie adaptation again to compare them (like that was going to be any contest!) But it had been deleted on video and DVD and I couldn't find anywhere to rent it from. So I was happy when I finally found it in a flea market whilst on a shopping trip...
It's one of the cruelest ironies that King novels are generally the best to read but when they get adapted to screen nine times out of ten they are complete junk, as is the case here. The material that makes his books great simply doesn't translate into a movie script very well, for some reason. And I suppose there's always the question: why bother watching this when I could be reading the book again instead?
I appreciate that some are simply too lengthy (i.e. It, The Stand) to be made into a complete screen work with all the situations and characters included, but there's no reason this one couldn't have included all the material from the book. As a result, a lot of key characters from the book (i.e. Ace Merrill) are not included at all and we have some terrible character development that means we don't care about the characters that are involved since they are so stripped of depth and motivation- for example we have one character from the book, Danforth Keaton, who murders his wife toward the end yet we were shown no build-up to hint at any reason that he didn't get along with or hated her and so it has no impact when it happens, unlike in the book where there was a lot of depth invested and it really involved you to find out what happened to the characters involved. All the material in the script to fill in the cracks, if you like, is really stupid and corny and the typically goofy stuff that gets included in King adaptations like this.
Most of the film's problems are that it deviates so far away from the book but there's also some terrible acting from a cast that obviously can't feel for the daft material they're being asked to perform. In the 90s, a lot of King's work started skipping the cinema and just being made into made-for-TV/video territory. Rubbish like this must surely hint at why. **


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 based on a Stephen King novel in which mysterious new shopkeeper Leland Gaunt (Max Von Sydow) offers each citizen of Castle Rock the item he or she most desires - but there is a heavy price to be paid for these transactions. Local sheriff Alan Pangborn (Ed Harris) is soon forced to deal with a variety of brutal deaths and suspicious circumstances.
Below average for Stephen King cinema: I can see why some people would think it was boring. It plods along without offering genuine scares and forces the viewer to spend time (yet again) with a bunch of repulsive losers whose hatred of each other is spooky.
I do enjoy the novel and don't believe that this lackluster movie does it justice. There are too many unfortunate changes from book to screen.
Von Sydow makes Gaunt much too charming. We're supposed to be SCARED of Gaunt at the right times, not amused by him. I also hate it that the sheriff's primary deputy (Ray McKinnon) is written and portrayed as such an annoying, Barney Fife-type moron. Star Ed Harris looks as if he was forced into doing this picture by his agent, but professional that he is, he really sinks his teeth into his dialog. Bonnie Bedelia (as Pangborn's love interest Polly) and Amanda Plummer (in one of her standard mentally unbalanced roles) come the closest to creating characters who are likable.
Yet it is also foul and mean-spirited.
Although I'll be darned if it didn't feel a little cathartic watching a bunch of unlikable movie characters tear each other to pieces. The climax has some good explosions.
I often give movies a better rating than they probably deserve, but in this case I feel I should really be honest and just say: 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
Based on a Stephen King novel, NEEDFUL THINGS provides the intrigue and eeriness to keep you in your seat. A mysterious man(Max von Sydow) comes to town and soon becomes the most talked about citizen. Could it be that the devil himself has set up shop as an antique dealer in a small town in Maine? von Sydow is masterful and dynamic in this role that dominates the screen. Also starring are Ed Harris and Bonnie Bedelia. Harris is steady and Bedelia is deserving of your attention. Also in support are J.T. Walsh and Amanda Plummer. Not the best, nor the worst adaptation of King's horror on the screen.


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 fan of Ed Harris' work and I really had high expectations about this film. Having so good actors as Harris and Von Sydow is always a big advantage for a director but if the script is bad what can you do? I really think that Needful Things is the worst movie of Harris' filmography and that getting involved with it was a huge mistake. Anyway, I've seen much worse movies in my life but Needful Things was a disappointment because of the waste of acting talent. The story as an overall seems too unbelievable and fake. I don't know if that is because of the book, 'cause I haven't read it. But if the script was so bad, I can't see the reason for filming it. Maybe it was the commercial success of King's books, or the need for low-quality movies for the VHS era of the 90's. Whatever the reason was, though, this movie was a very bad choice for anyone involved.


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 is anti-Christian bias big-time! This is based on a Stephen King novel and he written this kind of bias before and then Hollywood exaggerates it even more. In this film, we see a Protestant minister and a Catholic priest BOTH act like fools and be profane at the same time. Of course, the Devil has taken over the town so maybe his influence is into these guys, too, but they are typical Hollywood portrayals. They never show a minister who talks and acts like Billy Graham, or your local minister or priest. And - another "given" - they make the Satan character the most interesting of the film.
Max Von Sydow plays the Devil and makes him a likable guy. Ironically, Von Sydow has played a number of these roles after portraying Jesus in the 1964 film, "The Greatest Story Ever Told." You wonder why actors are so screwed up? They don't know if they are God, Satan or anyone in between.
Ed Harris, who played a lot of unlikeable roles up until the last few years, is appropriately cast in this story. He and the rest of the mean-spirited characters in this film do NOT make it fun to watch.
From what I've heard, King's book is even darker and more sick than this hate-filled movie but better constructed. Frankly, who cares. King and Hollywood deserve each other.


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


user
I gave this movie a rating of 1 because it is by far, the worst movie I've ever seen in my life. This movie was made in 2003 and I've seen movies made in the 60's with better special effects. I wish I could go into detail, but words can't describe how crappy this movie was. I could have done better with a home video camera and $20! I pray that Chuck Norris never makes a movie again. Now If you think I'm downing this movie because it has a Christian theme, you're wrong. I like the fact that IL' Chuck decided to make a movie that at least attempted to make God look good, but why would he make poor viewers like me suffer through such a crappy movie? This whole film can be summed up in 3 words: RE DAMN DICULOUS.


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 possible the worst movie ever made. I know people talk about how horrible Ed Wood movies were (Plan 9) but this movie makes Plan 9 look amazing.
Chuck Norris makes a cameo, for what reason I have no idea. Perhaps to ruin his movie career. Aside from Chuck Norris, the movie's cast consists of extras in daytime soaps and Mike Norris... that's right, Chuck's son.
This director doesn't even have a resume and I have no idea where the plot or screenplay originated. This must've been green lit by a horrible Southern Baptist minister that somehow had a 3rd cousin that owned a studio (which I'm sure has since been shut down).
I don't really know what else to say about this movie. I would like to give you a plot summary but I'm lost. There is something about Jesus and Satan... some eternal battle. Other than that there are Indians. And a bunch of freaky kids that don't know how to act... they're just awkward and should not be on camera. I don't know what was going on most of the time but I know the movie was a great laugh. Mike Norris pushes his daughter (on her bike) into the street somehow... but in the shot he's in the middle of the park. So somehow she learns to ride her bike with speed equivalent to that of The Flash and gets hit by a car or bus... I don't know. But she's dead. This is actually the funniest scene in the movie. I know that sounds sick but once you see Mike raise his hands in victory and then hold his head and scream in terror... you'll understand. It doesn't show the daughter getting hit or anything... you just have to assume she got hit by some vehicle. But, the movie's not clear. So maybe it was completely unrelated and she died from cancer. Anyway... after that the movie gets really confusing and I have no idea what really happens. I am a Christian and I have no idea why this movie was made. I don't see any value for this movie in a religious or non-religious sector. This is probably the first thing they show students in Film-making 101... this is what you DON'T want to do.
Just see it... you'll hate it and me for suggesting that you see 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 recently had the idea to make a short film featuring a man who is hit by a car and wakes up thinking that he himself is Chuck Norris. This meant that I would have to do extensive Chuck research, and find out as much as I could about the man. I later find out that he is not in fact a man, but an angel sent from heaven. With a face like that, who could ever doubt it? I have watched more Chuck Norris movies in the last four months than any one person should. I am proud to say that Bells of Innocence ranks pretty close to the top of the all time worst list. I spent most of the film wondering if I could return my copy to the local Wal-Mart without the receipt, which I had been biting down on to keep myself from swallowing my own tongue. The biggest reason why I chose to purchase this film was that it not only had Chuck in it, but his son Mike. I was anxious to see if Mike was a chip off the old can't-act-his-way-out-of-a-wet-paper-bag block. I came to the conclusion a long while ago; the Chuck Norris is one of the worst actors in cinematic history for one simple reason. The only character he ever plays is himself, Chuck Norris. No matter what movie, no matter what situation, he is always Chuck Norris. The one thing that he holds over his son is that he is consistent. Mike doesn't seem to understand how human emotions work. In the scene where he is talking to the little girl about his dead daughter, he seems to be extremely happy! Maybe this is because he actually pushed his daughter out into traffic, as depicted in one of the oddest flashbacks of all time. His actions confused me throughout the film, making it very hard for me to focus on what little plot there was. The other two lead actors were just as painful to watch as the son of Norris. The guy, who constantly wants to eat or tell a stupid peacock joke, was simply one of the most annoying characters that has ever graced the Direct-to-Video screen. The only thing I remember him being in other than this movie, was an episode of Walker Texas Ranger, in which he plays an equally annoying character. Maybe Chuck owes this guy something. The other guy, which is the only name I can think of because he was so forgettable, was your average Christian fanatic. I don't have anything against Christians, in fact I am one, but this guy was just too much for me. To round out the story, you have a multitude of townspeople who love to call people "friend", and a couple of villains who don't seem to be able to decide which one of them is in charge. Not to mention the creepy kids who remind me of the dollar store version of every other group of creepy kids in movies. All in all, the movie is possibly one of the biggest failures of all time, on more levels than Chuck Norris can kick people's asses. Despite being one of the worst actors of all time, I still can't get enough of Chuck. Maybe he really was sent from heaven...


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


user
OK, I'm 26 so I've been thru all the action heroes 80's hype, and Chuck Norris along with Seagal, Van Damme and the rest of the guys were my childhood heroes, fighting the bad guys, shooting dozens of bullets from one round only;) I saw the advert of this movie on TV a couple of days ago - Chuck Norris was throwing some fireballs from his fingers. WHOA! 'That is a must-see crappy movie!', I said. And indeed it was. Only a lot lot worse. It is very difficult to see all the movie - stuffed with some religious thoughts, ridiculous zombie-like monsters, who serve Satan, all the idea of a plot set in some forgotten community, which represent whole mankind - it is a load of Christian fundamentalist's wet dreams.
I've nothing against Christianity, even in the movies, but this one lacks taste, it lacks almost everything that connects with a common sense, c'mon, Chuck Norris playing an ANGEL, whose job is to look after little town, where Satan lives?!?! The whole plot is so damn straight and boring, not mentioning its silliness (yes, it's not stupidity anymore, we're talking silliness like... like a retarded child's joke) make altogether terrible movie, made as far as I suppose for elder people very much devoted to Catholic Church, because young viewers laugh at almost every scene. Technically it's incorrect, the fx are worse than the ones you've seen in early 90's in TV series, the plot seems VERY stupid, actors could be easily exchanged to cardboard stands, not mentioning the music which as far as I've heard was played on a childish toy piano. I've seen a lot of movies, even the worst ones (the ones from the IMDb bottom list) like 'Space Mutiny' or 'Manos - hands of fate' BUT believe me nothing compares to this ridiculous, terrible, horribly acted quasi-movie which brings some students' prank movies to my mind rather than regular production. Avoid it. At all cost avoid it. There's even nothing to laugh at. Chuck Norris has officially finished his movie career.


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


user
Normally, I don't like Chuck Norris films. I appreciate his work as a martial artist, and his fight scenes are usually fairly well-choreographed. Chuck is undeniably one of the martial arts greats. So, in my local used bookstore, I found a film I hadn't seen before and took it home.
While the acting in this movie was worse than most Chuch Norris films, I was hoping to see at least one fight scene. I quickly began to realize that this wasn't a typical Chuch Norris film; rather it was a Christian film, destined to illustrate the "good will win out" paradigm.
There is really nothing on the packaging to indicate that this is a Christian film, with the exception of the label ... Goodtimes Entertainment, which I had never heard of before. I'll certainly keep that in mind the next time I see a film from that company.
I don't have a problem with Christianity ... I do have a problem with sneaky proselytizing. If someone is going to make a religious film, at least have the good sense to indicate to the viewer that such is what they will get. The only redeeming part about the exercise is that I spent only $3.25 to spend 97 minutes to watch a great martial artist not fight. At least it was during supper-time, and I spent some of that cooking and eating.
In short, if you're looking for a mediocre martial arts film, and not hoping for much, don't bother with this film because it doesn't even offer that.


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 by far the worst movie I have ever seen. What were they thinking. Stop preaching to me already! This is why all of us watch Walker Texas Ranger and wont admit it to our friends. Terrible acting and a extremely phony plot. While the movie is unfolding the story stops and the actors start preaching to the audience. The director somehow believed the two meshed well. It looked like crap! When I saw the title at my local blockbusters it looked interesting. Their should have been a warning on it saying it was religious instead of the false advertisement of an action / adventure. First time in a long time I stopped a movie and couldn't tolerate finishing it.


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


user
OK, Chuck Norris has shown up in many an entertaining movie over the years. This is not one of them. I won't even bother trying to get into the plot about a Bible shipment gone wrong. The "acting" of the main characters is so wood like, Pinocchio would have done a better job! The synthesizer based soundtrack is even worse than the one in Deathstalker. Whereas traditionally low budget spooky movies are often trying to catch their audience by adding plenty of graphic violence, this one is trying to catch an audience by throwing religious mambo jumbo at the spectator. The plot boils down to different versions of the Bible.


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


user
When you watch the making of with this DVD - they tell you what is attempted here- they are retelling the bible story of good versus evil & trying to preach it to a main stream movie audience. In a modern society such as ours, this is where the film fails. There are way too many sheep depicted in this movie. People are too empowered for this type of preaching today.
As far as the acting, directing, & technical functions, they are done OK. Chuck Norris actually is OK as an angel as the unpredictable appearance of Norris as an angel is no more absurd than Tommy Smothers was in the 1960's sit com.


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


user
Boring, rank nefarious plot, some of the worst direction I've ever come across, inane acting and horribly clichéd. The movie ends with one of the main characters waking from a dream. WHAT's WITH THAT? Even JR from Dallas couldn't survive that lame twist.
You have what can only be described as an inappropriate relationship developing between a main character and a young girl, which is ostensibly meant to be fatherly, but which comes off as perverse. You have freshman community college movie school special effects with loopholes the size of the Kimberly Hole. This is like Children of the Corn meets Passion of the Christ imposed on an endless loop of government administration training video - by the end of it, if you aren't contemplating ending it, you have no brain.
Don't bother.


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 fundamentalist Christian movies that hit you over the head with religion like a sledgehammer. You know you are in trouble when the setup of the story is completely ridiculous. Three men are flying to Mexico to deliver Bibles. This makes no sense since the church is Protestant and most Mexicans are Catholic. Protestant and Catholic bibles are not the same. The Catholic bible has books in it that are not in the Protestant bible. I also find it difficult to believe that churches in Mexico would not distribute bibles to them. I can understand if they were going to a place where Christianity is in the minority. But Mexico is far fetched. If you cannot believe the setup of a story, then you don't the rest of the story either. A movie about religion can be entertaining, but not this movie.


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


user
my friends and I are always on the lookout for chuck norris films to just bash and make fun of. One of our favorites so far is Lonewolf. i went to a wal-mart Christmas shopping and i came across this movie in the 5.99 bin. i had to get it. i had high hopes for this movie and although being absolutely hilarious at times, we agreed that bells of innocence is the worst movie we've ever seen, made, produced, thought up, etc... who the hell would think this is a good idea. not only is it confusing at times, but the acting is just hard to watch. the man who plays oren has acting i can compare to my own vomit, and chuck took a dive on this one, he's not the greatest actor, but this was terrible. and what kind of names are oren, conrad and jux........ jux. come on people. if you honestly thought this movie was at all watchable, great for you because it was hard for me and i seriously had a headache and stomach pains after watching it. I'm telling you now if you haven't seen this movie, DON'T!!. For the love of god please do not subject yourself to such a horrible 90 minutes of your life.


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


user
(Chances are, I'm gonna spoil Valuable Plot Points while writing this and because I can't determine and don't really care what YOU think is a Valuable Plot Point, then if you are thinking of watching this film and have an issue with learning such things, then I suggest you hop right on to the next review.) You know, I don't mind the cult films being filed under the "cult" section. And people who believe it can go there and get their fill of the "reality". I mean, is it too much to ask that the overtly pseudo-Christian propaganda films be filed with the other Special Interest movies?
I couldn't have been more flabbergasted had Pat Robertson made a porn movie. (or would that be "flubbergasted"?)
It was bad enough that there was an egregiously insufficient count of kicking and punching in this. It was bad enough that the same story has been done repeatedly in much better ways. It was bad enough that it wasn't filed under Special Interest, with other cult films. It was bad enough that it somehow is receiving nods for being "realistic" as if we live in the world where towns get possessed by the "debbil" and the really profound and nasty evil ISN'T done by human beings -- usually in the NAME of religions based on the god of Abraham. It was bad enough having to simply shut the thing down because people were complaining so loudly that it was awful.
No, the really BAD part was when one of our guests stood up after we finally had to just turn the damn thing off, and declared "I for one would like to see something really violent or pornographic now, just to get that OUT of my head. Preferably both, if you have it." And we had just MET her.


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 an admirable attempt from first time filmmaker Ham Tran, offering little-glanced perspective dealing with Vietnam war victims struggling for liberation, but plays out as a glorified history special. With clunky, self-consciously informative dialog and sub-par acting, even a relatively impressive budget with attention to detail will not spring to life this sagging, albeit historically worthy, melodrama. Paying no mind to the often distracting disconnect with the actors to the reality of situations on screen, and you should be left with an informative, if somewhat impersonal educational lesson in Vietnamese post-war history.


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


user
I saw recently saw this at the 2007 Palm Springs International film Festival and I can't believe that this is Sweden's official submission to the 79th Academy Awards to be considered for best foreign film. Producer Anna Anthony last year also had Sweden's official submission for best foreign film with Zozo. I wasn't personally a fan of Zozo but at least it had some production value to it. This could have been shot as a high school film project. As a short film it may have worked but as a feature film it is as lost as it's characters. This is a story about five twenty something friends who live in a small Swedish town and have no goals or hopes or ambitions for the future and like to live in the past of their long gone childhood. Actually Falkenberg isn't like some remote northern Swedish village. It's a popular summer resort with a population of city and townships of almost 40,000 and lies between two major southern coastal Swedish cities of Götborg and Malmo. The characters are likable enough guys but if they were high school age kids with a bleak or confused attitude about what they plan to do with their lives I would undoubtedly care about them more. They are however long past the point where they should be making plans to deal with adulthood. If they want to stay in Falkenberg forever than certainly there must be some jobs in the tourist or fishing industry instead of just riding bicycles, drinking, smoking pot and occasionally painting a house. Maybe if they hung around with a girl or two in their circle of friends, of which girls are absent from this film altogether which doesn't make sense. Jesper Ganslandt makes his directorial debut and co wrote the film along with the cinematographer, of which I use the term loosely, Fredrik Wenzel. the acting isn't too bad. I would give this a 4.5 out of 10 but despite it's submission for consideration for the Academy Awards I would not recommend it.


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


user
How on earth were these guys given funds to make this movie? The lack of script is one thing, but the cinematography makes you want to weep. A hand held camera can be of great value to the look and feel of a movie but in that case you need a photographer who knows what he is doing. I am well aware that the actors are amateurs but it's of no defence since the director might be the least talented one ever directing in Sweden. It would be a shame for the industry if he (or any in the team for that matter) is given money to make a film ever again. This movie simply provides fuel to the argument that too many movies are made in Sweden each year.


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


user
Director Nico Mastorakis has made a cynical cash-grabber (by his own admission) that is too cynical to impress anybody but a sophomore genre fan.
The most extreme, confronting genre pics, to paraphrase a character in VIDEODROME, "have a philosophy"; that is what makes them dangerous.
ISLAND OF DEATH's philosophy is to throw many "shocking" elements into a cinematic mix and stir slowly. The result is a dish with no taste but an ugly appearance.
Not to be confused with Serrador's brilliant WHO COULD KILL A CHILD? (sometimes called ISLAND OF DEATH), Mastorakis's effort is set on a Greek island which is a stage for various forms of slaughter, a little bestiality and some wholesale perversion.
Everything moves at a snailish pace and the violent set pieces are poorly directed.
Touted as "The movie that the censors didn't want you to see", I'd hazard a guess that the censors never saw it, they simply read the presskit until their knees jerked upwards.


assistant
0