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
Yes, I couldn't stop yawning, nor could my partner. Incredibly boring - 90 minutes seemed to stretch to at least 3 hours - and I'm not even a fan of action films, but this just falls asleep on its feet - unless you are a 70's polo neck sweater fan!
** SOME SPOILERS FOLLOW ** If you were expecting ANYTHING to happen, don't hold your breath - it doesn't!
But seriously, it totally fails to convince or involve the watcher. It's like a long, boring and rather disjointed dream. Frederic floats through it, able to leave work whenever he wants, and with attractive secretaries bringing tea and messages constantly. Obviously not real life! And an office with virtually no paper or files - just a giant calendar to let you know that the film really is taking 6 months to watch.
Frederick never seems to be touched by any real emotion, neither does his wife, and the children behave like rag dolls - in stark contrast to any real life. Even Chloe, despite her strong views, never gives the appearance of really feeling anything. The only 3 seconds of any real feeling occur between a couple overseen in a cafe, and have nothing to do with the plot.
Okay, so maybe there are some moral considerations, but if it's entertainment, or even good cinematography you are looking for, I think this film is incredibly over-rated by most other viewers.


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


user
Why this worthless piece of French cinema has garnered any sort of attention, other than negative, is beyond me.
Don't bother renting this one. It shouldn't have even come into this country.


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


user
1960's kid show with ex-vaudevillians playing handy men for hire. As you can expect they are a disaster at everything they do. Over the course of the 11 minute episodes (leaving 4 minutes for commercials in the 15 minute time slot), they do things like set up a fence between warring neighbors, help a magician on stage and deal with a found trunk and wallet.
Growing up I had never run across this show (which appears to have been shot in New York). I thought I had run heard of or seen a most of the children's shows from the period either through having watched them as a kid or viewed them at nostalgia conventions. Until Alpha Video released it on DVD I had been completely unaware if its existence.
The show plays like the Three Stooges mixed with Abbott and Costello as done by people aping the routines. (Indeed one of the pair claims to have created the legendary "Slowly I turned..." routine that Abbott and Costello perfected). Its not bad, but its really not good either since everything seems watered down. The timing is often off (Though that maybe due to bad direction) and the jokes were recycled years before the show first ran. Odds are you've seen it all before . On the plus side its the type of thing that would be perfect to introduce very young kids to the magic of vaudeville style comedy, however its going to be trying for parents to sit through even with the short episodes.
For nostalgia junkies only. Everyone else should look to seeing an Abbott and Costello or Three Stooges original.


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


user
From what I understand, Mr. Bava abandoned this project before completion...AND RIGHTFULLY SO!!! If I were him I definitely would have made sure that EVERY copy was burned and if anybody in the future ever asked me about this film...IT NEVER HAPPENED & IT NEVER EXISTED...end of story.
Despite some great sets and good photography this is one horrible film...is it supposed to be scary? (not in the least) is it supposed to be funny?? (puh-leese) A total waste of time...and I really don't like to have to say that!!


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


user
My only regret is that one cannot grade a movie on IMDb with a 0. "A Cena..." would definitely deserve that! At LEAST.
*SPOILER?* The movie starts with a bunch of people entering a crypt to awaken an ancient Vampire. When a guy cuts himself and his blood drips and falls onto the putrid and dried corpse that is supposed to be a bloodsucker, the metamorphosis takes place and the Vampire, in an ANIMATION-like effect (would you believe it!), quickly takes on a more human form,only to reveal that he's wearing a tux and a bow-tie! A BOW-TIE, yes. Red, if my memory serves me right! I tried to check out random scenes by skipping through a bit, but it did not get any better than the opening sequences. That's the point when I turned the movie off, cursing it for having made me hope to see a Vampire movie. This is surely not one,unless you're 5 and could take such stupidity seriously.
So, if you like Vampires and don't want to feel revolted or even disgusted,learn from my mistake and don't even try to see this garbage!


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


user
This started out as a good sketch comedy. The first few shows were very good and I was looking forward to a long run. What was really funny was the Mariah Carey imitation and the take off on Beverly Hills 90210 featuring the hair fight. The Delta Burke vs William Conrad heavy weight battle was also good. Unfortunately the following shows went downhill relatively quickly. The writing became uninspired and oh so predictable as if the show had acquired a cult following in it's young tenure. Nothing fresh was being offered and the recurring skits were boring. One example is the gun family (or whatever it was called) which became a weekly feature. This sketch was not all that funny to begin with let alone being a regular feature. An example of a quick promising start then a sudden fall.


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


user
Albert Pyun presents his vision of the lost city of Atlantis - and it's a vision so cluttered up with claustrophobic settings, weird costumes and noisy, "quirky" minor characters that one thing is for sure: you want to get the hell outta there as soon as possible (unfortunately, it will take you about 80 minutes). The "Alice in Wonderland"-like story is meandering and uninteresting, and there was probably no actress in the world who could have turned this into a good movie, though Kathy Ireland makes an appealing (annoying voice and all) attempt. (*1/2)


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 a bizarre fantasy tale, that I'm sure doesn't appeal to anyone over 10, but is too strange for children. The plot is stupid, and the acting is some of the worst I've ever seen.
25-year old Kathy Ireland plays a teenage girl who acts like a 9-year old. She seems to have gotten her character's voice by listening to Alvin and the Chipmunks. Her high pitched, screechy baby voice gets annoying the second she starts talking. All of the other acting is bad, but really Kathy Ireland is by far the worst. The plot is also terrible and is kind of a mix between Alice in Wonderland and Mad Max. Wanda Saknussemm (Ireland) gets a letter saying her father, who left her a long time ago, fell down a bottomless pit in Africa, and when she goes to find him, she falls into an underground world full of strange Australian accented people. It's one of the corniest movie you'll ever see, with terrible lines throughout.
It's annoying the effects this movie uses for character development. Kathy Ireland is a nerd who won't do anything or go anywhere. She flies to Africa....wow, what development! She drops her glasses and then doesn't need them. Why does dropping one's glasses represent them not becoming a nerd. It should represent her descent into blindness. It's just stupid. The only positive I can think is there are semi-good special effects and camera work, and the musical score sounds OK.
Overall this a ridiculous family fantasy that will only appeal to those who expect nothing from a movie.
My rating: 1/2 out of ****. 84 mins. PG for violence.


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


user
Even in her glasses wearing geek mode Kathy Ireland is very easy on the eyes but her acting is not easy to watch. Most of the actors in the film either take it way over the top (beyond "campy fun") or act slightly embarrassed at being there. The effects and soundtrack are nothing special and fairly low budget. The plot line REALLY stretches ones ability to suspend disbelief. Catch this one to laugh at if it comes on a premium movie channel or network Saturday afternoon TV, but DO NOT waist money on this thing.
One worthy mention for trivia purposes is that one of the underground mobsters is played by Deep Roy. Deep is now famous for playing (and doing it well) all the Oompa Loompas in Burton's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory."


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


user
The director of this waste of celluloid specialises in dreadful exploitation films where pretension is all; the previous year he did "Dangerously Close" whose good idea (about gangs getting too much power in school and the school paper editor against them) was submerged in a sea of sloppiness, and he would go on to do "Cyborg," Jean Claude Van Damme's worst film ever (no mean feat). This would-be comedy about a girl - Kathy Ireland in her film debut - who's a total schlump whose inner babe is only awakened after she falls to the centre of the Earth and has a set of badly filmed, impossible-to-follow adventures (chiefly involving a set of dwarves who want her because she has big bones - go figure!) before returning home changed for the better isn't funny, gripping or entertaining in the slightest. And anybody watching this to salivate over Miss Ireland will be put off too - not because of her voice, but because she spends most of the film buried under tons of baggy clothes, with huge glasses to boot. No wonder Cannon, the producers, are out of business. Amazingly, Kathy Ireland has made better films since then...or maybe that isn't so amazing. Next to this, "Barb Wire" is "Aliens."


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


user
This movie had a very convoluted plot and very contrived setting, that I, frankly, could not follow, which is surprising considering the acting and dialogue could have only been the product of a kindergartener's writing. If you like Kathy Ireland, then maybe you'd want to see this. The movie was probably made as a vehicle to try to get her into Hollywood, but if that was its goal I would have to say that I hope she didn't invest too much money in its production.


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


user
The opening credits are pure poetry and I have watched it several times. It had a corny 20's adventure feel to it. Of course Kathy is gorgeous, but that voice! Did she realize this was a talkie. One word--voice coach. Great film for chronic insomnia (along with a bottle of scotch).


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


user
In 1990 I saw Kathy Ireland in person - I was at UNT in Denton during the filming of "Necessary Roughness." Strangely enough, the voice she's using in this film isn't too far off from her real speaking voice.
Anyway, the plot goes like this: Kathy gets a letter telling her that her father's fallen into a bottomless pit in Africa. She goes and investigates the site of her father's death, only to get sucked into a subterranean world that's part dystopian nightmare, part uninspiring fantasy, and inhabited by rejects from the Plasmatics. This movie really wastes the talent of Linda Kerridge, who, in my opinion, could have been someone had she gotten that one big role that was right for her. Anyway, the main hero of the story, Gus, is a very lame Mark "Jacko" Jackson rip-off. The original is annoying enough to begin with, but this guy really is torture to watch. Eventually the nebbish Wanda comes out of her shell and ends up wearing a bikini top and a sarong at the end. If you're going to have Kathy Ireland in a film in skimpy clothing, it'd better be a bikini. Anyway, the film was just all around bad and rightfully skewered by MST3K.
Avoid this one if possible.


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


user
Kathy Ireland: the body of a goddess, the face of an angel, the voice of a Smurf.
And the acting talent of a shovel full of calcite. If you don't believe me, check this out: "Alien from L.A." actually depends on her to act throughout 9/10 of the movie! Sure, she ends up in a nice red bikini top and a wrap-around skirt near the end, but that's too little (so to speak) too late.
Seems Ireland plays the daughter of a renowned scientist who falls down into the center of the earth to find him. Along the way, she falls for a guy named Charmin (yes, like the toilet paper - make your own jokes) and finds out how "Mad Max" rejects live. Did you know that people that live down deep in the earth have Austrailian accents? Neither did I.
It's bad (it was MST'd, after all) and also a Golan-Globus production but after all is said and done, Ireland just basically looks lost, like she's trying to find where the photographers are so she can do a photo shoot instead.
And I don't blame her.
One star. And if you insist on watching this, do so with the sound turned off - save your eardrums.


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


user
And the title says it all: a cheesy sounding title that is a cheesy sounding joke of a film known as "Alien from L.A." Why not just call it "Alien from South Africa," as this is the place where this movie was filmed? My advice for watching movies that have been featured on "Mystery Science Theater 3000:" do not watch the original version of the movie at all! Period! Always watch the movie with the theater shadow at the bottom of the screen, with a man trapped in space with his two funny, wise-cracking robot friends sitting at the lower right hand corner of the screen. It just seems better that way.
Movie as it was originally seen: Awful! Movie as it was seen on MST3K: Genius!


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


user
Boy, this movie is bad. And not in a good, cheesy, fun way, either. Even MST3K couldn't stop it from being boring, and it's also confusing as all get out. But the most annoying part of this dull mess is Ireland's hideous high pitched voice, which I was tired of listening to in the first five minutes. Not to mention how really unappealing her character is. Even her Dad ran away and abandoned her! I can see why, frankly. If he'd had to listen to her whine in her little mouse voice for more than a few minutes, he'd have been tempted to do her a great harm. As I was, by the end of the movie. Plus, she's useless and annoying. When she falls down the long hole in the earth a la Alice in Wonderland, she'd have been done for in the first ten minutes if that inexplicably Australian accented miner hadn't kept saving her from all of the various plights she kept falling into. He should have just tied her to the Atlantean version of train tracks and been done with it. And this Atlantis underground with the weird, confusing obsession with bone density,I have to ask-where was the light coming from down there? Did they have generators that imitate the sun? No matter. There's no real plot anyway, just a bunch of oddly costumed Goth wannabees running around trying to catch Kathy(probably so that they can stick a gag in her mouth). Stupid, pointless film. Thank you Golan Globus, for this cinematic abomination. May you burn in the seventh ring of Hell for all eternity.


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


user
I watched the MST3K version of the movie, and this review includes minor spoilers.
When I started watching this movie, it looked like it might have promise as a cheesy sci-fi flick, but the more I watched it, the more disappointing it got. The first reason is pretty idiosyncratic - I liked the mousy shy girl with glasses a lot more than the model Wanda became by the end of the movie. More deeply, it was the fact that the loss of glasses and change in clothing replaced any actual character growth. Instead of growing into a character that could take care of herself, Wanda was just as dependent on males to do everything for her as she was at the start of the movie. The acting could have been better (though I got tired of cracks about Ireland's voice - they were even in the movie itself! It's not that bad.) The background was okay, but it was a little hokey (aliens = humans with facepaint), and could have used more explanation.
Maybe it was just that I was interested in the movie itself, but Joel and the bots did little for me. The movie might have been better without them at all.
Overall (for the movie itself, not the MST3K), a 3 out of 10. It was an okay flick, for what it was.


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


user
...don't watch it. Here's a hint: tune in to the last 5 minutes and you'll catch her in a bikini. Otherwise you'll just have to sit through the flick and endure her helium-sucking voice view for screen time with the inexplicable Aussie accents of the lost city of Atlantis or wherever the heck she goes to to locate her missing father. We now know why Kathy pursued a non-speaking career of modelling: she couldn't have survived the death-threats from those poor headache-suffering victims who heard her voice for more than 30 seconds. The rest of the story is some kind of weird poorly-lit Mad Max mish-mash.


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


user
Every boy eventually learns the lesson that just because a girl is good-looking, it doesn't mean she's good. Well, lemme tell you, at age 19, lesson learned. It's hard to tell what's worse: Kathy Ireland's acting skills, or her ultra-high-pitched voice; the one that sounds like a screeching mouse on helium scratching its tiny little claws down a blackboard. With an incomprehensible plot set in outer space with dwarves that want Kathy Ireland's bones for some obscure reason, this movie is just wrong on so many levels. If there were ever a candidate for a Mystery Science Theater 3000 revival, this would be it.


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


user
Because they all just watch there MST3K with their artificial friends who make (mostly) not that funny and obvious comments about movies. And that's the only way these people watch them and then they comment and down-vote them on the IMDb based just on that, they don't even try to watch the film on it's own.
I watched this film on it's own, I didn't read the reviews first, I didn't have some people telling what to laugh at, I just got the DVD (bought for the flip side Morons From Outer Space, an old fave) and watched it.
Of cause I knew kind of what I was in for when it's a Golan Globus, Albert Pyun film, but usually they can be quite entertaining.
The film is a non too stressing on the brain Alice down the Rabbit-hole story done so many times, and kind of similar in basic structure (but completely different in content) to Warlords of Atlantis, another entertaining B-Movie.
The voice, was annoying, but then that's the idea, which they even poke at with a few lines in the movie.
The hero character had one of the worst over-the top voices/accents in English language film history, but you grow to accept it and enjoy it.
It's not a good film, but it's not a really bad film, it's just a bit of an average B-Movie DTV kind of film, nothing too new nothing too outstanding, and probably would be enjoyed more by a younger age bracket (say 7-14 year olds) than I. It's a bit of light-hearted Fantasy.
Will I see it again, probably not maybe about 10 years ago I would have.
Don't be so harsh on a movie because a couple of puppets told you too, this film isn't taking itself seriously and it's certainly no Troll 2 or Space Mutiny.


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


user
As a native Chinese, I can not accept this kind of idea that some people must die for a 'better world'. I said 'better world' because it is a lie that Chinese people have been indoctrinated for thousand years!
I guess most western audience may don't know Qin Shihuang(means the first emperor), the king in this film is the most notorious tyrant in ancient China. The Tianxia(Chinese word was spoken by the king, means 'the land and the people') spoken from his mouth is totally lie. From then on, one after another, all the king in ancient china spoke the same thing but very few of them did as what they said.
Another fact is, Qin Shihuang's empire only lasted about twenty years before it was destroyed by people.
Well, I do like the beautiful scenes of this movie, but it can not make me accept the idea that people should die for a tyrant.


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


user
The message of Hero is quite clear: the idea of Greater China is more important than the death and the suffering of millions. At a time when China is dangling its war toys over Taiwan, it is unacceptable for Western viewers to endorse this piece of over-produced, government-sponsored, dogmatic trash.
Particularly surprising is the promotion of this film by the liberal media. Roger Ebert of Chicago Tribune, David Edelstein of Slate, Charles Taylor of Salon, and many others have wholeheartedly endorsed Hero. In so doing, they have implicitly legitimated its reactionary political message. The only critic (that I know of) who saw through the film's glossy facade was J. Hoberman of The Village Voice, who wrote of the film's "sanctimonious traditionalism" and its "glorification of ruthless leadership and self-sacrifice on the altar of national greatness." I, for one, sign my name under Hoberman's final pronouncement: Hero is nothing more than "fascinating fascism."


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


user
Impressive vision indeed, and some hot chicks with swords flying around, oh and those hypnotic Chinese violins too... Let me think, "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"?
I kinda liked CTHD, with its down-to-earth simplicity and well developed characters, that still left enough room for you to enjoy the vision without having to think about the DEEEPAA Meaning of it.
"Hero" on the other hand is painfully pretentious and demanding both visually and conceptually. The larger-than-life moral was horrible. I mean, sacrifice your life, sacrifice your beliefs, sacrifice your love so that your mighty nation can succeed???? WTF??
No, thanks.
But, hay, Mao and G.W.B. would be proud!
Viva


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


user
Salesman Lenny Brown (Woods) is fast losing his knack of selling the proverbial ice cream to Eskimos. Given a chance to shine in California by a philanthropic entrepreneur, Brown and his wife Linda (Young) live the high life off tax shelter investments; a fortune they lose when the federal government changes the tax laws.
Seven hundred thousand dollars in the red, and in need of a 'boost', the yuppies without portfolio begin to hoover vast quantities of Colombian marching powder up their hooters, until they find themselves with rather hungry monkeys on their back. After briefly cleaning up, Linda's coke-induced miscarriage sees Lenny once more careering like a pinball between uppers and downers. Living purgatory follows.
A contemporary take on Reefer Madness, with perverse echoes of Albert Brooks' Lost In America, The Boost was overshadowed on release by tabloid revelations concerning an alleged affair between Woods and Young, and their tumultuous falling out. Woods, then engaged to horse trainer Sarah Owen (now his ex-wife), reputedly slapped a $2 million lawsuit on his spurned co-star for "emotional harassment" during filming, citing Fatal Attraction-style late-night phone calls to his fiancée and, in one noteworthy incident, reputedly leaving a mutilated baby doll on his and Owen's doorstep.
Ironically, the lack of chemistry between the supposedly loving leads is one of the more depressing aspects of this latter-day exploitation flick - the only real passion Woods demonstrates towards Young is when he's kicking her around the room. The script too is hilariously dreadful, perhaps mitigating Young's near-comatose performance when given howlers like "stay with me - 'til I fall off the Earth" to emote. Further, given Woods' edgy dramatic personae, his jittery descent loses all credibility when actually he looked that way to begin with.
Ultimately, The Boost must be seen in context: in the 21st Century cocaine use is ubiquitous. However, in 1988, with America still embroiled in an unwinnable "war on drugs", the very fibre of the nation looked to be in peril - hence one of the most hellish - and for that read hysterical - depictions of drug-abuse.


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


user
My gosh, this movie was nothing more than filmmaking by numbers. Struggling salesman can't make a go of it in New York, mentor with a heart of gold takes him under his wing, struggling salesman moves to California and makes it big, then loses it big, then bounces back with the simple life, then hits rock bottom trying to get back to the top. I don't think I can remember any part of the plot that took more than five seconds to develop. Case in point (spoiler?): When the John Kapelos character calls to say he and his girlfriend were coming to Santa Cruz to visit, and James Woods says there's practically no chance he would come, you knew with 100% certainty they were coming in the next scene or two.
On the other hand, Sean Young sure looked good.


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 this film in the theater when it first came out, I'm sorry to say, and it was one of only a few films I have ever wanted to walk out of early. I didn't have a problem with the drug content and I could see how this cautionary tale could have been powerful. The problem was, the film-maker, working with James Woods and Sean Young, drew two of the least lovable characters I have ever seen on film. I hated this pair and couldn't have cared less if they sunk straight to the inevitable bottom. Their was not one surprise in this film. Every turn of events was so painfully obvious that I felt I could have written the script myself; although I like to think I would have done a better job. I subsequently heard nightmarish stories about the incidents on the set between Sean Young and James Woods along the lines of some sort of stalking events. It made me wonder if the terrible acting arose out of some bad feelings and dysfunction. Anyway, I refer to The Boost as the worst film I've ever paid money to see.


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


user
This film is right up there with The Oscar and Moment by Moment as one of unintentionally funny films of all time.
It is worth the rental for a some wildly great laugh's.
The story is absolutely ludicrous.nothing in life would happen like this.it's so completely unbelievable. the way James Woods tries and hustle heavy hitters, than they give this supposed two-bit hustler a job 3000 miles away in LA what a joke
I love the old beat VW bug to signify how low they've gotten in life because of all the `tootski's'.
Sean Young is as unbelievably bad as the, "I'll love you forever, no matter what, wife" you'll ever see.if it wasn't so funny you would throw up at how sugary sweet Young tries to project herself.and as bad acting as you'll ever see.
James Wood overacts throughout the whole movie and he's so extremely funny and is way, way over the top, it's just not to be believed, Woods seems like a parody of a cocaine fiend off Saturday Night Live.but watching Woods on `ludes' is worth the price of the rental.
I love it when Woods tells the guy who wants to give him some more `ludes' that he doesn't do that stuff anymore, right before that, Woods just did three giant lines of coke.
This is some very funny stuff.
The ending is so comical but right on par with the rest of 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
Its almost embarrassing to say I even saw this movie. I mean it doesn't take much to make a good zombie movie besides good special effects, lots of blood and gore, some scary moments and a decent plot. Does House of the Dead 2 do any of these things right? No, not one. Of course, its not as bad as its predecessor, from Uwe Bowle and thats the only thing about this movie that scares me.
The dialog in this movie is notorious, with such lines as "What do you do for a living?" in response "I kill zombies" and "I was never a disk jockey, I was a soldier." The special effects are embarrassing even for a made for TV movie, I mean seriously, the zombies all look like they have bloody lips are hyped up on crack. The army base in this movie, is a parking garage, with a desk and a open gated room. This movie is so low budget that they couldn't even get co-ed locker rooms. In fact it seems like this entire movie was filmed in a middle school.
Also, why is it that the all the female soldiers in this movie are models? And for that matter why is everyone in this movie so clueless at to what is going on that they simply just stand around letting the zombies kill them. Heck one guy even trys to give food to the zombie.
Overall, this movie makes even the worst of Scifi Channel movies looks fantastic.


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


user
I haven't had a chance to view the previous film, but from what I've read on other posts it was supposedly worse than this one, although I doubt that is possible. I'm a huge fan of the "Zombie" genre, and I am fascinated by the psychological aspects of viewing creatures, that for all intents and purposes are human, as an atrocity that is only worth shooting in the head. That said, HOTD 2 takes the "Zombie" movie to an all new low.
Without giving any big spoilers (which I really should do just so you won't bother wasting your time actually watching this movie) I would like to express my utter contempt for the way the writers of this film portray our countries Special Forces. Gomer Pile could have probably survived longer than the "Spec Ops" soldiers in this film. For crying out loud they should have called them the Special Education Forces instead. If you are going to write a script where you send in an elite team to deal with an outbreak of zombies, at least have the soldiers be smarter than the walking corpses. I understand that you have to kill off some or most of the team, but you can find better ways to do it than having them set down their machine guns and walk over to lay a tender hand on the shoulder of the drooling crazy person rocking back and forth in the corner of the dark creepy basement.
The writers actually try to take the whole zombie thing to a more high-tech level by making it a virus that they are searching for a vaccine for, and the idea has merit, if it wasn't stuck in the middle of such a ridiculous display of wayward film making. I mean come on, zombie films aren't exactly "high art", and the viewer expects some tongue-in-cheek cheesiness along with the gore and thrills, but HOTD 2 is the type of cheese that makes you turn the channel in disgust and awe of the sheer stupidity of the characters. If you are a zombie movie fan like me, please do yourself a favor and stay away from this one.


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


user
Granted, HOTD 2 is better than the Uwe Boll crapfest that was the first one, but thats like saying drowning is better than being chopped alive. OK OK, I'm being a little bit harsh with this one, its just that Video Game adaptations of Zombie movies always leave a bad taste in my mouth. Resident Evil was alright, but its sequels are pure rubbish. The first HOTD was entertaining crap more than anything else; Uwe Boll saw to that. And HOTD 2 was...better? The entertainment value was there, the hot chicks were there, the gore was there, but... this is it? The script, even though subpar, was better than the first one. But in the script dwells horribly written characters, stupid action sequences, clichés, and an ending that drags on and on reaching a level of ridiculousness which would make the Bollmeister very, very proud. But, it could've been worse right?
HOTD 2 stars Sig Haig (Yes, Sid Haig) as an insane doctor looking for a cure to death. As you may guess, it all goes to sh*t. A nearby College Campus seems to be the center for the Zombie (or Hypersapien?) epidemic, and as you may expect, a group of Commandos and two Zombie scientists try to save the world by going there and neutralizing the problem. Their main goal? No, it ain't blowing sh*t up. Instead, they have to get a sample of zombie blood, so they can create a cure to the deadly virus. Between this and that lays bland character interactions, an insufferable amount of clichés (but hey, at least the black guy isn't the first one to get killed), and decent looking Zombies.
The acting is passable. Who would've thought that Sticky Fingaz was a passable actor? Not me. Emmanuelle Vaugier and Ed Quinn shine somewhat as the leads. And the supporting cast was passable too. It was all passable.
The make up effects on the Zombies were alright, it could've been worse like in the first HOTD: just guys running around in dusty mummy suits. The gore was alright too. Cheap scares and even cheaper tension are almost non-existent in this movie, which is a good thing. The action sequences were stupid as f*ck, but at least there wasn't any sword fighting zombies or that ridiculous slow motion bullet effect.
Overall, this movie will appeal only to Zombie enthusiasts, fans of the arcade games and for someone who wants to rent a cheap Horror movie for the weekend. Apparently there's going to be a third one as hinted by the ending, but I wouldn't count on it. Unless Uwe decides to do it. A 4.


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


user
I was on a mission to watch Uwe Boll movies to see if they were really as bad as all that. The first one I saw, BloodRayne, was not a complete loss. I liked it more than most people, and actually rated it a 4 out of 10. Next up was the first House of the Dead movie. Now THAT was horrifically bad. I could stand watching ten minutes of it, and fast-forwarding a bit, and that was it. I could see where it was going and I didn't need to see any more of it in order to rate it a just 1 out of 10.
But I had access to the sequel, too (which however is not by Uwe Boll, but, mysteriously, written by the same guys who so incompetently wrote the first one), and since it got a higher rating at IMDb than the original, I thought I'd give it a chance. And I actually managed to watch all of it. It started out with some funny references and cool lines (like how the president got his orders from the vice-president!), and acting-wise it is light-years better than the first. Here we have cool muchachas like the ultra-hot Emmanuelle Vaugier, whose coolness is in league with Carrie-Anne Moss, Claudia Black and Evangeline Lilly. Man, I hope some Matrix-style movie comes along for her sometime. And the always delectable, super-aerobicized Victoria Pratt. I love athletic women. And, there was also Nadine Velazquez (Catalina on "My Name Is Earl"), who performed quite well.
The story wasn't much, and the action wasn't great, either, and the ending was a disappointment, as they didn't succeed in their mission. Oh well, at least the two mains survived. Guess that's some small victory, too.
Good cast, but a pretty bad movie. The actors make it watchable, but there's no real substance there.
3 out of 10.


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 the first House of the Dead and expected a root canal to be more pleasant to attend, so when it wasn't as bad as that, I was delightfully surprised.
Unfortunately, I then got my hopes up that the second one might be okay as well...and I was wrong.
Apparently I'm one of the few people who saw this movie that thinks it was bad.
I don't know whether to watch it again and force myself to see whatever all the people who gave it good reviews saw, or wonder if I saw the wrong movie.
Ed Quinn as Ellis and Emmanuelle Vaugier as Alexandra 'Nightingale' Morgan did a great job in roles that were way beneath them. They deserve to be in better movies.
The special effects were okay and some of the characters likable/hate-able and that made for a tolerable watch, but for the most part, this movie was just a waste of time.
Oh and I have to ask this because I found myself asking it aloud ALL the way through the movie...did anyone not know how to close doors behind themselves so zombies wouldn't just wander into the rooms? Only once did it happen, (zombies wandering in) and I found that a little convenient...soldiers walk into a room, leave the door wide open, pay little to no attention to same said door so the zombies can just walk in if they feel like it (with the hapless "livings" being cornered with no way to escape) and yet only once did zombies follow them in.
Nitpicky? Maybe but honestly...if I was fighting for my life, the last thing I'd do would be to walk into a room and leave the door wide open so zombies could swarm in and eat me.
That is really the only thing *bothered* me throughout the movie, and just the movie for the most part was a bad sequel to a not totally abominable original.


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, but they did leave the impression that these commandos fought zombies before. But they sure didn't act like they even seen a zombie before. Jumping and turning their backs on them like amateurs. Second, the characters are pretty badly written. The actors did the best they could with what was given, I blame bad writing and bad directing. Lastly and here is where the spoiler warnings are highest. They loose the sample twice and the girl Jennifer Holland doesn't know if she's been bit or not. How stupid is that? As much as it hurts to be bitten, one would think you would know, plus gallons of blood leaking from your body is a good clue. Dumb, the first movie had it's flaws but it has re-watchablity, unlike this disaster of a movie, which I could barely get through once. I give the HOUSE OF THE DEAD 2: NO GUTS, ALL STUPIDITY THE CRAP-O-LANTERN


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 most awful movies I've had the misfortune of picking up. Don't get me wrong, I love a good zombie flick, but this wasn't one of them.
...Might as well (from the opening scenes, at least) been called 'Titty Zombies from Outer Space'. It had absolutely nothing to do with the other movie or the video game (as far as I could tell.)
The best aspect of the film is how the two main characters can get covered with so much blood and remain so nonplussed. I would certainly suggest giving this one and miss and staying with a safer zombie pleaser like '28 Days Later' or 'Dawn of the Living Dead' (the remake, of course, unless you're into some serious campy action.)


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


user
"House of the Dead 2: Dead Aim" (2005) is the sequel, though you really don't need to see the first "House of the Dead" to get this film. That said, the production value is definitely here, with great zombie effects and it's edited quite nicely, with very effective sound design. However, that said, that's about all that's good here.
The story and script are awful . . . there's blatant plot holes everywhere. It's also funny how the soldiers don't mind if they get blood on their faces (unlike in 28 Days Later where blood in any part of the body will infect you). Also realistic how there's little order with the soldiers here unlike the usual US Military discipline.
A 4 out of 10.


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


user
How bad can you make a film. A good question which House of the Dead 2 succeeds in answering. I could not believe it was possible to get something worse than the first House of the Dead but amazingly the director has succeeded. The only feeling you get from the film is that its bad, just bad. What with overacting, bad FX and a stupid story. Its this kind of movie which gives a bad name to Z-Movies in general. Why could they not learn the lesson from the first House of the Dead movie? Anyway I guess you will have understood by now that you should not see this film. It is but a waste of time. Watch "Bad Taste" or "Dawn of the Dead" if you want to see some good zombies.


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 get over how lazy the director is with this movie. Instead of setting up scenes in a creative way he relies on boring old zombie clichés.
Where the two unarmed leads have to get down the college steps into the van he surrounds them with zombies yet neither of the leads is bitten. He can't be bothered to direct a decent fight scene so we see the leads shove their way down the steps.
Sometimes the zombies limp about and at others they run like the wind. This is really convenient for the director because he can set up anything he likes without bothering with continuity in the behaviour of the zombies.
With careful planning and a lot more inspiration this movie could have been so much better.


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


user
Terrible, boring zombie sequel is only marginally better than Uwe's horrible first film. It consists of a group of soldiers going into a zombie plagued college campus to find a certain type of blood which could assist in finding a cure for the infection. These soldiers are your typical lambs to the slaughter and none of them are that drawn out(or at least aren't very interesting)so you don't feel a sadness at the pit of your stomach when they are disposed of. The film has the typical zombies biting humans and blood splatter. It even has the same munching on guts. It just doesn't do anything for the zombie genre to give it memory. And, the story's climax is rather anti-climactic and ridiculous. One wonders how two people can submerged in an army of zombies and not get bit(for they are the main stars who seem to always manage escapability)while others seem to get bit rather easily. The film sole motivation is to show people getting bit..nothing else. Just go watch a Romero film for lasting effect.


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


user
So lame it isn't even funny. A zombie infection overtakes a small college campus and a government squad of secret operatives back up a couple of scientists sent to find the origin of the outbreak. Collecting zombie DNA damn sure is not easy. Once bitten you're one of "them". The entire university has been completely infected by the run amok undead.
This sequel does not even redeem the awful original HOUSE OF THE DEAD(2003). Senseless entertainment is accomplished though. A few glimpses of female nakedness added to a gaggle of gore and exploding heads should keep any zombie freak happy. Credited cast members: Emmanuelle Vaugier, Victoria Pratt, Ed Quinn, Sid Haig and Nadine Velazquez. The "F" word holds together an unimaginative script.


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


user
If you haven't seen the first one you have to at least know someone who has and you have to know it was painful to sit through. There just wasn't anything good to say about it at all. So what's different with the second one? Why bother making a sequel for a movie that was wretched? This one doesn't take itself too seriously. It knows it was made for TV and doesn't try to impress with great or serious dialogue. There are moments where it tries to get 'serious' or 'intense' but these moments are so corny you have to laugh.
Thankfully gone are any elements of Uwe Boll and any hint that this originated from a video game (other than the title of course). Don't go into this movie expecting anything worth mentioning to your friends unless they're into camp, lame zombie movies, or are interested in making a drinking game out of this movie. Take two shots whenever Ed Quinn's character mentions his dead brother! Take one shot whenever a bullet would have been better place in the head of a zombie instead of pumping three in the chest! etc etc.


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


user
I used to work in a video store. I saw this title in the horror section and took it home as a free rental one night.
This movie was truly awful, there is no redeeming quality about it, because it actually takes a well respected sub genre of film and just goes about destroying it. If the first film wasn't low budget enough then this film truly takes the biscuit, being housed (mostly) indoors and at night...therefore avoiding the scenic cost setting of the first film In the first 5 minutes of this film a college lecturer comically runs over an attractive student. Rather than be mortified, the lecturer half heartedly apologises and the girl mentions that despite being thrown across the cars bonnet (he sped up as he approached her) that there is nothing to worry about...after which he attacks her with a crowbar and kills her! If this isn't strange enough, he wants to perform an experiment upon her, bringing her back from the dead....and so feels the need to remove her clothing to do so.
Soft core female nudity (and pubic hair) is rampant throughout the film and is, to be honest,the only real thing to hold the average male viewers interest...like the swimming scene in the first film...but even having said that this film goes from bad to worse with its bad character acting, crappy dialogue and absurd plot turns....why introduce a pivotal character who has survived 29 days from zombie attack only to kill them within 10 minutes....its just a very very bad film


assistant
0