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


user
I only watched this because I saw a couple of good reviews for this, so I was expecting at the very least a half-way cheesy movie. Toybox doesn't even deliver that. There are so many problems with this flick, that I don't even know where to start, so I will list a couple of main issues (Once again, spoiler warning. Just read them, it'll save you the trouble of watching this later).
One, this movie starts out with, and often mentions, the mythical folklore of both Celeste Noir (A witch, who the main character claims she is the reincarnation of), and the mid-folker (or something like that, an evil man with a big smile who cuts people open with hooks and sells their innards in pies). I liked that, it was a cute concept, anything to do with pies is simply enjoyable. But then you watch the movie and it's all about this idiot girl and her boyfriend (And what was the deal with him? Was he psychic? Did he have powers? Why did he keep seeing visions that even the so called 'Witch' didn't notice??), and them meeting their insane family. Not really insane, they just argue a lot. That's what most of this movie is, arguing, and they barely touch on the supposed myth ever again except in a couple of confusing scenes that you can't make heads or tails of.
In one scene, Berenice (The main witch-related character) wanders off and does some sort of ritual by candle light. It seemed rather important, but absolutely NOTHING happened after she did it, it just wasted more of my time.
And who the hell was that guy with his dog? You see him walking towards the house from the very start of the movie with that evil red-eyed dog, and then he finally gets there and gets killed? What the hell?? Was he the mid-folker? Was his dog possessed? Did someone kill the dog? They never really showed that. Also, any scene involving the Vicar was completely pointless and only served to weakly explain the lame ending. It was like they had all these interesting character ideas and they all went nowhere! The boyfriend, who obviously had some sort of powers but never explains them. The grandmother, who appeared to also have some sort of witch powers, but never used them. The Vicar, who...OK, never mind, there really was no point for his existence at all. And then there was Berenice and her stupid amulet. Could she really do magic, or did she just use it to reflect light and blind people? This was a complete waste of time, and the only reason I give it two stars at all is because a) Berenice is kinda cute, and b) It mentioned pies. Save yourself the money of renting this and dear god don't even think about buying it, unless wasting money is a new fad.


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


user
I really wanted to like this movie, because it is refreshingly different from the hordes of everyday horror movie clones, and I appreciate that the filmmakers are trying for something original. Unfortunately, the plot just didn't hold together and none of the characters were likable enough for me to really care about them or their fates.
Visually, The Toybox was pretty interesting. The director took a lot of somewhat risky moves, like adding in little bits of (Flash-looking) animation in parts and really cheesing up some of the special effects (such as the light from a certain amulet). Sometimes this worked and sometimes it didn't, but he deserves kudos for the attempt, and the cinematography was generally of high quality.
Unfortunately, when this same approach of throwing lots of things at the wall to see what sticks was applied to the plot, the results were not very good. The film never really finds a tone that it likes, moving schizophrenically from black comedy to family soap opera to 80's witchcraft flick to childhood nostalgia to embattled-family slasher. Taken on their own, bits and pieces of each of these elements work fairly well, but nothing ever coheres into a satisfying whole. Besides that, large bits of the plot are never really explained. I'm not one who likes to have everything spoon-fed to me, and I like movies that leave things up to the audience to decide, but the parts that are left out from The Toybox just seem like they either ran out of money before they could explain them or they didn't really think things through to begin with.
I look forward to the director's next project, since I think there is a lot of talent lurking under the surface here, but I can't really recommend The Toybox on its own merits.


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


user
Really!Here the French cinema hits rock bottom ,and compared to it, the least appealing of the American adolescent horror movies,the likes of "Friday the thirteenth" "Freddy" and co are masterpieces of the seventh art.
It's all the more infuriating as there were exciting original elements :the forêt de Brocéliande and its legends ,the druids and King Arthur ,all were splendid assets for a dreamlike fantasy and horror film.Alas! Filmed ,as an user aptly pointed out in a fake forest,near Paris ,the movie is fake horror,fake Celtic history,fake vestiges -you should see the professor (Wilms who was a wonderful M.Le Quesnoy in "la vie est un long fleuve tranquille) scream for the "invaluable scrap" -which the production probably bought in a dime store-fake characters ,fake excavations...
The boys disguised as druids are unintentionally very funny ;so are the girls who seem to be experts in martial arts.And what can we say of the professors? of the monster? A ten year old would write a better screenplay than this grotesque farce.To think that people can spend money for such drivel when artists are still waiting for a producer!
Word to the wise:Maurice Leblanc wrote a marvelous story dealing with druids and old ceremonies in his Arsene Lupin saga called "l'île aux trente cercueils" .A miniseries was made 30 years ago.Avoid this "Broceliande" garbage and try to see it instead.


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


user
In the early 00's, production companies had a short-lived craze for supernatural genre movies in France after "The Crimson Rivers" and "Brotherhood of the Wolf" turned out to be hits, so several movies were green-lit or saved from their "direct-to-video" fate. However, France, as opposed to the US, UK or Italy, has little tradition of fantasy B-movies and it turned out quickly that "Samouraïs", "Bloody Mallory" or the "Crimson Rivers" sequel were ill-advised attempts at recreating a kind of magic that had never existed in French cinema in the first place. As they flopped, producers have gone back to their usual fare: derivative farces or the umpteenth self-referential tribute to French New Wave by a former critic from "Les Cahiers du cinéma".
"Brocéliande" could only have been green-lit during this short window, as it serves no other discernible purpose. It's your by-the-book slasher movie mixed with vague mythological element and horror references and you'll find bimboesque female characters, a French University looking like a US campus and plot twists so lazy you don't even care because you had guessed it by yourself an hour before, even before the movie started.
These elements make all the fun of a 70's or a 80's B-movie and you expect them in a 70's or 80's movie. However, we're not in the 80's anymore and nobody warned director Doug Headline, as this tribute to the slasher movie genre is nothing more than a derivative slasher movie. Headline himself is no rookie and has been writing as a critic about this kind of pictures since the early 80's but as a first time director he shows a lack of skill and ambition that makes "Brocéliande" a bore.
When you put together clichés from a movie subcategory and hand them to a skilled and inventive director such as Wes Craven or Quentin Tarantino, you get a "Scream" or a "Death Proof", movies that are imitations from old guilty pleasures but also magnify these clichés and add a great deal to them. That's called "talent" and that's why you can't confuse these recent movies with their original inspirations shot decades ago.
"Brocéliande" takes the lazy path and only reproduces the worst elements from past movies (unfortunately for the male viewer, the gratuitous nudity is mostly missing). There are very strong similarities (presumably unintentional) between the plot of "Brocéliande" and the reviled "Halloween 3: Season Of The Witch", as both deal with supernatural Druidic evil rituals and some silly attempt at taking over the world on Halloween night. As even the plot of "Halloween 3" makes more sense than this one, it means that something seriously wrong went with "Brocéliande".


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


user
The actresses are cute and the sets, while simple, quite OK. Apart from this, there is nothing to save from this movie. Incredibly bad acted, dumb to tears dialogues, all-too-expected plot, a lot of goofs and inconsistencies (for instance, a pretty young girl gets hits in the head by a morning star and not only she survives, but barely with a scratch !)... To make it short because it does not worth more, even the fans of the genre can avoid it.


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


user
After a few misfires, we are still waiting for THE French horror movie that the critics will certainly vilify, but will launch a new trend. Not this time. Doug Headline can't be accused of not being knowledgable in the genre (He is editor of a high-class fantasy imprint, has worked for legendary magazine Starfix.), but why a scenario that uses EVERY cliché in the book (except maybe the Odious Comic relief) ? Why make it so predictable ? Even the nods towards Argento fails flat. It's not even an euro-teen movie like the German "Anatomy", much better, just a compilation of scenes that barely seems to have any relation one with the other and features LOTS of plot holes. The whole "Celtic" aspect is barely touched. And, after a "revenation" painfully predictable, the screenplay offers us a boring, endless chase in a subterranean necropole which seems bigger than Parisian catacombs. I really wanted to love this film. Really. But even a mother would not. Oh, and writer Valerio Evangelisti was supposed to have a cameo, but I vainly looked for him.


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


user
I HATE THIS MOVIE!!!!!! I have never seen such utter, complete trash in my life!!! I live in France so it turned out that I was in the front line to watch this awful movie. At first, it seemed cool, kind of like something about a cursed forest that chomps people. Unfortunately, it turned out it was something QUITE different: a good start with a girl that meets a guy and all that whatnot, then the girl gets threatening messages in the form of ravens shut up in her bathroom closet(ludicrous), from that bit and on, the movie starts to slide downhill very quickly with a lot of desperate thrashing in the process. The movie ends with sacrificial druids galore and ancient ugly, stinky creatures coming back from the past to kill a few people. Many questions were rushing around my head by then: why the heck did they bring back that scummy monster? Do druids look like maniacs dressed in bedsheets? Why did they even bother making this movie?? The "climax" of the movie was so goofy I laughed all the way through it: the "awful" stinky monster does battle with the two young women(who appear to be expert kung fu masters) and the professor gets sliced in two or something. What surprised me was that the monster was so slow and ungainly in battle, wasn't it supposed to be a god of war or something? Anyway, the movie in it's death throws was a pitiful sight. A brief condensation of the contents of this movie: Kung fu mayhem+druid stones+mysterious murders "à la thriller"+ancient prophecies+shabby ravens+old clumsy boneless war god+nutty professor=complete and utter, diseased, boneless, worm eaten, GODFORSAKEN, GODDAM, RECYCLED, FAKE, WANNABE, LUDICROUS SH*T!!!!!!!!! Things I learned from this movie: -Ancient war gods are lousy at kung fu. -All young women who study archeology at university in France are kung fu experts. -Professors are so resistant they can survive being sliced in two by a saw-mass-whatchamacallit without any injuries.


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


user
What should i say? I only saw this flick for curiosity, and this is truly a shame... I grew up in Brittany with stories of celtic legends, and spent 5 years in Rennes, the town in which this film is said to take place... Shame that not any actor nor camera from this flick ever arrived in Rennes. They could at least have chosen a likely town, or a likely forest, but nothing even SEEM like Brittany nor Rennes... And calling it a film about celtic legends is really making a fool of the audience. Besides those details, it could have been a good film, but it's crap. Silly scenario, silly characters and no originality. Definitely to avoid.


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


user
Yes, absolutely dreadful, And this coming from someone who loves bad movies - but there's a limit. I enjoy all sorts of horror/suspense films, and have seen some wonderful work from European film makers. Broceliande is sadly not among those those wonderful pieces of film-making. The camera work is worse than amateurish. Not the fashionable, shaky MTV "cameraman needs Ritalin" type of camera work so many film-makers use to camouflage their lack of talent. This is simply bad frame composition and terrible image composition. The acting is farcical when it is not entirely two-dimensional. The dialogues are stilted and unnatural - even more so than your usual run-of-the-mill horror/suspense film delving into pseudo-mysticism. I think that what put me off the most was the horribly choreographed fight scenes at the end of the film. These were bad to the point of being ludicrous. I've seen what a small budget can do, and it can do wonders. This was just bad film-making. Very, very sad.


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


user
Another try, another miss. France may be doomed for not being able to produce a good horror movie. I mean... the least they could do was to shoot the movie in the forest of Brocéliande, but even the forest is fake ! It was shot near Paris ! The subject is useless, the actors are really insignificant and the text makes you wish you were deaf. Nothing could save it.
Bad... to the bone. I wasn't warned. I want my money back.


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 a stupid movie. Like a lot of these karate movies it is badly written, awkward, and sometimes just stupid. The action really isn't all there and the movie overall leaves much to be desired. Everyone here is talking jive, doing bad karate and doing a very bad job of acting.
Watch for Scatman Crothers in a small role, he is too good for this movie overall. Jim Kelly is good at karate, but he is a terrible actor. Gloria Hendry is real bad. All of them are, there are just so many parts to this film that make absolutely no sense. The supposed love/running away scene with Hendry and Kelly, what the hell was that? They destroyed that man's guitar, for no reason!
And then there was the mandatory girls on trampolines!!! Now what was that? They were in the movie for five seconds, then you never heard from them again!!! Then there is the whole racially charged element of the movie, which is cool and all, but in this movie it goes absolutely nowhere. Like I said, this is good for a laugh one time, but don't watch it again.


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 a parody. That means, there are no characters as such, they are all plain stereotypes, and the movie relies completely on the quality of the jokes.
Well, there ARE quite some good jokes in this movie. Unfortunately, they are hidden in a mass of real stupid ones. If one expects all dialogues to be absurd, the fun wears off.
You see, there is American Pie 2, my all time favorite teenager movie. It contains a lot of real original characters. Maybe the jokes are tasteless, but all the people have some kind of live. For example, they feel embarrassed if something embarrassing happens. That is what makes the jokes themselves actually funny !
Not so this movie: every scene is clearly arranged as a pure parody, so there are no characters at all, therefore there is really no room for any sympathy. Too, if you know the original movies, you know whole scenes in advance. Add the fact that many jokes are not funny at all, and you have this movie.
The only thing that saved me from getting completely bored where in fact the comments from some teenagers in the cinema where I was watching the film.
Ah, and my personal highlight of the movie was the very short appearance of Melissa Joan Hart in one scene. Sigh. She is just too cool, she can't be real. Hmm, worth a whole movie ?


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


user
Of course, all this nonsense begs the question 'Does a genre as self-referential as the teen comedy really need another parody movie?' The woeful 'Scary Movie' (I and II) took the formula about as far as it could go - 'Not Another Teen Movie' really doesn't have anything either intelligent or shockingly excessive to add.
The plot, essentially based on fairyfloss teenflic 'She's All That', walks a shaky line between parody and homage ('John Hughes High School'). Everything from 'American Beauty' to 'Varsity Blues' is mined for references. The result is ultimately an unfulfilling viewer experience. The downside of giving us a carbon copy plot of 'She's All That' is that we all know where its going anyway. And if we didn't then the jokes would be meaningless.
There's extremely little to recommend here. The token gross-out scene (an erupting toilet) seems badly out of place here amongst all the 'feel-good' references. There are moments of humour - the song is funny enough and the odd good line is send the audiences way. It stinks, don't watch it.


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


user
This movie is not a remake of She's all That ( 1999)?
Where is the renewal of the american movie? This was probably the worst movie I saw in the last 5 years. This and the last movies of Schwarzenegger.



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 have seen Hershall Gordon Lewis movies before but this one really takes the cake,its really gory and gross,not to mention disgusting the way the strippers are done in,I'm talking bad acting that makes plan 9 from outer space look like hamlet,the only saving grace is the late great Henny Youngman as the strip club owner,yeah take my wife..., please.the stripteasers are real sexy for 1972,i believe they used this same plot again in the Roger Corman movie;stripped to kill in 1987.i did enjoy the earlier H.G.Lewis flick 100 maniacs,which was a mini masterpiece of sorts,but bad acting,no awards here,but be aware this is a splatter movie that paved the way for Friday the 13th,and saw.in one disturbing scene a half naked stripper has her butt spanked with a meat tenderizer.ugh!morbid stuff here.H.G. Lewis strikes again. 2 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
what a lousy movie, took me 3 times to finish it. The thing i disliked the most was the infantile sense of humor. jokes made by a 10 years old child. not funny. pretty annoying actually, for example when the detective cant get a place at the bar he yells "she's taking it all off" and then they all run "fast foreward" slapstick kinda' rush. so stupid. and also a guy sitting at the bar smashing fruit to work out his post traumatic stress disorder. on the bar! and the bartender is supplying him with more and more fresh fruit. thats supposed to be funny? and i mean ... i love good ol' exploitation gore flicks, and saw a lot of terrible movies, but his one is plain bad. and also the "gore" is not that exciting. don't bother. i wouldn't 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
I love camp movies, believe me and the usual technicolorian gore of Gordon Lewis don't bother me at all, but this is just one of his most stupid movies, even more than BLOOD FEAST, i'm not kidding. THE GORE GORE GIRLS is about a mad person who kills a lot of go(re) - go(re) girls of a night club. A detective and a reporter tries to find out the big secret. Maybe the performances here are slightly better than the usual average acting H.G Lewis films, but that is not saying much. The camera work is even dreadful.
But at least is kind of watchable with the go go girls acting ... you going to pass a good time with it, and the killings are just absurd in a very, very bad way: A girl is killed with a wooden hammer punching in her butt (!) and just don't let me talk about what it does with the nipples. You going to laugh like anyone with this. But the better of all this mess is a scene that i only love of it's campness: the go-go girl before being attacked by a lot of feminists dancing in a very American way. Though is important to note that this was one of the first films that got an X rating because of it's violence.
ONLY if you want lo laugh and pass a good time (But only with a lot, A LOT of beers).


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


user
I debated quite a bit over what rating to give this one because it's my least favorite Herschell Gordon Lewis film so far other than The Gruesome Twosome, but it has the best acting I've seen in a Lewis film. However, we all know that's not saying much. Once the movie was done, I was happy because it felt like I had been sitting through a 4 hour movie, though it was only 82 minutes long. I'm trying to see all of HGL's films and that's probably the only reason to see this one.
The gore is good as usual, the one thing that Herschell seemed to get right. The acting is just as bad as usual with one exception. That exception is Frank Kress. Now, would I say that he's a good actor? No way, but he's good compared to everyone else. The story is boring and flat and goes no where and by the end, I didn't care what happened just so long as it ended. I know this is a cult classic but I didn't enjoy it very much at all. I hope you will.


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


user
Say what you will about cinema's "Wizard of Gore," Herschell Gordon Lewis, it must be conceded that from his first films (1963's trashy "Blood Feast" and 1964's crackerbarrel massacre "Two Thousand Maniacs") to his last (1972's "The Gore Gore Girls"), the man remained faithful to his muse, gleefully chopping up the bodies of young men and women for the delectation of the camera. In "Gore Gore," for example, someone has been mutilating the pasty-faced and pasty-clad strippers at the Tops & Bottoms Club, and obnoxious ex-detective Gentry is hired by a hotty cub reporter to assist on the case. The film features remarkably annoying and repetitive background music, terrible lighting, abysmal acting, repugnant characters, problematic sound AND, of course, some of Lewis' patented gross-out scenes. Thus, one of the strippers has her face shoved into boiling oil; one has her head ripped open; another has her face ironed and her nippies cut off; and still another has her bum paddled with a meat tenderizer until her entire backside is covered with what appears to be Buitoni tomato sauce. (I could be wrong here; it might have been Ragu.) The film also throws out some fairly lame humor, although some of the lines ARE pretty funny. For example, we learn that the real name of slain stripper Suzie Creampuff was...Ethel Creampuff! A bottle of acid says "Made In Poland" on it (don't know why, but I thought this was funny). And some of strip club owner Henny Youngman's lines are, of course, amusing. Still, this is NOT the movie to show to Aunt Ethel or Sister Agatha. It is one of the sickest you'll ever see, with only one surefire, crowd-pleasing moment--the title card at the film's conclusion that reads "We Announce With Pride: This Movie Is Over"!


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


user
Low-budget schlockmeister Herschell Gordon Lewis reaches a new low (even for him) with "The Gore Gore Girls," a 'film' (snicker) that possesses all of his technical trademarks: badly-recorded sound, poor lighting, and OTT gore. This would be tolerable, even a bit charming, if the film at least had an interesting plot ("Blood Feast," in all its ridiculous glory, is a fine example), but "Girls" is a total snooze. Completely unlikable pompous-ass private investigator Abraham Gentry (Frank Kress) is recruited by a newspaper reporter to find out who's been murdering out-of-shape strippers (you'll stop caring who the culprit is long before these two are wrapping up the case). As before, the appeal isn't the plot, but the creative methods of bloodletting (including a girl's fanny being tenderized with a wooden mallet) and the occasional flashes of then-risqué skin...but this just isn't enough to elevate the material above tedium.


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


user
Give H.G. Lewis points: He managed to incorporate beefy exotic dancers, gallons of his notorious fake blood, and Henny Youngman all in one movie. "The Gore Gore Girls" was Lewis's horror film swan song, and ends with a head being squashed by an automobile. Oh... Henny plays a surly night club owner whose girls are falling prey to Lewis's standard butchery.


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


user
This sequel to "In the Heat of the Night" will suffer in inevitable comparisons to its infinitely better predecessor. Instead of looking like a theatrical movie edited for television, "Mister Tibbs" looks suspiciously like a TV movie edited for theatrical release, with grainy photography, cheesy opening titles, and sets that look like they're made of plywood. The murder sequence has a glaring continuity error: the camera shows two hands choking the girl, then a shot of a hand reaching for a statuette, then a shot of the girl being choked with two hands again, and finally the statuette coming down for the fatal blow. Solving the case should be easy: find the only guy with three hands! But the shoddy production values can't completely obscure this film's considerable merits: namely, Sidney Poitier's performance as the cool detective determined to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, even if it implicates a friend. Martin Landau is also convincing as the do-gooder preacher-activist suspected of brutally murdering his prostitute girlfriend. In addition to being haunted by the case, Tibbs is conflicted about his home life, but the issues of race and Tibbs' barely concealed sense of social outrage are absent here. So is the complex murder mystery that made "In the Heat of the Night" so compelling.


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


user
Pumpkinhead was in itself a decent 80s horror flick. No classic by any means, but an enjoyable piece of fluff. Why then, have we now been treated to a fourth film in this franchise is beyond me. As in previous sequels, there's nothing here to really connect the films except for the monster, the witch and Ed Harley (Lance Henriksen). This time out we follow the feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys. Part of the film is a Romeo And Juliet romance as a young McCoy boy and his Hatfield lover decide to run away to be together. Soon, however, they are torn apart and the boy's sister is killed. The boy escapes to the woods and gets the witch to resurrect Pumpkinhead for some vengeance. The acting is passable at best, amateurish at the worst. The titular demon doesn't even really show up for almost forty minutes and when it does its a pale comparison between it and the original design. Overall, Blood Feud fails to impress. It may be worth a watch once, but certainly not an addition to the collection.


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


user
Well they've done it again a new pumpkin head film, the first pumpkin head film was perfect for its time, a dumb, gory, and clichéd monster flick. so heres how it goes, some one loses their loved one, goes to the witch in the woods, gets her to raise pumpkin head and have it murder everyone responsible. unfortunately the film makers have deemed it irrelevant to try and do any other than this, for the films fourth outing, deeming it far more suitable to add some lame romeo and Juliet sub plot, involving an idiotic family feud (over a car!!!!) and surprise surprise some gory pumpkin head slayings, so far so formulaic, but it doesn't stop there the acting talent in this flick is dire...oh so bad half of them can't even keep up a southern accent without slipping into their native and often posher accents. Lance henrikssen is on board so surely he would bring some gravitas to the movies proceedings...but no lance merely ambles on screen lets the words fall out mouth with absolutely no emotion or seemingly direction, and walks off again, i honestly think he just turned up for the money, then went off to his trailer to drunk and reminisce about aliens.
this film is utter cack there is no redeeming feature other than it ending credits which signal its all over.
despite the failings of ph:bf...if you want a no brainer that'll make you laugh for all the wrong reasons watch it.
if you want something with abit more meat and originality avoid.


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


user
Writer/Director Michael Hurst's Sci-Fi Channel sequel to Stan Winston's classic horror tale of revenge gone awry has its moments and some decent gore, but ultimately falls short in comparison to the original.
I'm pretty sure the filmmakers weren't trying to make a comedy, but I caught myself laughing throughout. A family feud started over a car accident is the basis for this entry into the franchise. The Hatfield and McCoy families live in a backwoods town with dirt roads, drive pickup trucks, drink moonshine, and kick each others asses every chance they get. Just when they thought it was safe to hate each other and live happily ever after, Jodie Hatfield (Amy Manson) and Ricky McCoy (Bradley Taylor) decided to fall in love causing the fit to hit the shan. One night the two lovebirds decide to head out into the woods for some quality time while Ricky's sister plays lookout, but it just so happens that on that very night some of the Hatfields accidentally kill Ricky's sister and catch him and Jodie together. You know what happens next. Ricky finds his sisters body and decides to pay a visit to Haggis so that he can exact his revenge through the mighty Pumpkinhead. Ye Haw! Also, Harley (Lance Henriksen) is back to warn potential damned souls against using Pumpkinhead to ease their pain. Which really put a kink in the story because Harley is supposed to have called on Pumpkinhead years before this story takes place, but the setting and characters look like dirty Pilgrims that somehow traveled through time in order to bring the pickup truck back to Plymouth. Then there's the Sheriff (Rob Freeman) who has his own ties to the demon and looks like he belongs in a 70's revenge movie instead of a made-for-cable horror flick.
Some of the gore and special effects were cool, but instead of sticking to the man-in-a-suit way of thinking Hurst used some terrible looking 3D shots for certain scenes. One particularly embarrassing shot shows Pumpkinhead jumping from tree branches like a badly rendered 3D monkey. The cinematography was exceptional and elevated the quality of the movie quite a bit. The acting was pretty decent also, with the exception of a few poorly executed accents.
Family feuds never end well, especially when the families involved in the feud have to deal with Pumpkinhead. I didn't enjoy every minute of this flick, but it was much better than most of the movies the Sci-Fi Channel spits out. Maybe it's a sign that the Channel is trying to bring the quality of its movies up to match the quality of its original series'. I wouldn't waste any coin on a rental, but if you get the chance to catch a rerun of it on the boob-tube I would say to check it out. It's a not-so-killer-film but it rises slightly above the level of trash that makes it onto DVD these days.


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


user
I realize it's a small statistical sampling (8 votes as of this posting), but 5.9 out of 10? I'm giving this movie a 3 and even that's generous. I've tried to watch this movie three times now (the Saturday night 9 p.m. premiere on SciFi Channel, and the Saturday night at 1 a.m. and Thursday night re-broadcasts) and I've fallen asleep all three times before the movie ends. Which leaves me with a laundry list of unanswered questions. For example, is Lance Henriksen that strapped for cash that he has to keep playing supporting roles in these god-awful "Pumpkinhead" sequels? Is Henriksen contractually banned from doing any non-"Pumpkinhead" movies? Can't the creators of this franchise do better than a monster that looks like a geriatric, emaciated "Alien" who walks like he has a stick jammed up his a**? When are the hick characters in these movies going to realize that handguns and rifles don't hurt the "Pumpkinhead?" Why don't they try jamming another stick up this thing's a** instead? And, lastly, are the writers of this movie so creatively challenged that they couldn't come up with names for the two feuding families more original than the Hatfields and the McCoys? While you're at it, why not write a screenplay about a fictional president and name him George Bush? Someday I may have the mental stamina to watch this movie all the way through without drifting off to sleep. Until then, if somebody has the answers, please let me know.


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


user
I loved the original P.H. and was somewhat satisfied with Bloodwings (II)and Ashes to Ashes (III), then I saw part IV. Oh boy..... As a Pumpkinghead enthusiast, I did my best to give part 4 as much credit as I could, but it's pretty bad. The wedding reception fight right at the beginning of the film is a horrendous mess for one thing. The Hatfield and McCoy storyline is incomprehensibly stupid and cliché. How did the producers get away with using that tired family feud storyline? Wow, unbelievable. The acting, besides Henrickson, is below average. The plot and script are mind-numbing. The actual editing and cinematography are average, as is the directing. I mean, the movie isn't a total loss. As always: I really enjoy watching Pumpkinhead, I love seeing Haggis the Witch, and like watching Harley's ghost in action. But all three characters had WAY too much screen time. I thought Haggis and Harley would wind up going out to a supper club for an evening bite to eat and drinks, the way the were being so buddy buddy in her cabin. The bottom line is.... Is that I wanted all the characters in this puke fest of a plot line to be dead within 20 minutes of the start of the picture. Where does Sci-Fi get these so called "film production professionals" from anyway!? I could do a better job writing a script stone cold drunk. I'm sure there was a limited budget and everything, but come on! See it if your a fan of the other three, but just once. And then go back and stick to the original two. Shame on you Sci-Fi!!!!


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


user
I just wanted to leave a quick comment as its not listen on here ,but i have just seen this movie,the version I just rented was released in 2005 as far as I know and it was actually called "Don't go into the attic" I only realized it was the same movie as Devils Harvest upon searching for some of the actors who looked familiar in the movie. Anyways I'm in Ireland so maybe this has only been released over here and in the UK now,but thats what its called over here..........not really like it matters because I would not recommend this movie.The only words that spring to mind watching it are CHEESE CHEESE CHEESE!! My one mark out of ten is purely for the one little jumpy bit :o)


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


user
The artist Daniel King (Chris John) and his mate Laura Peters (Lara Clancy) are invited to move to an old house in Cornwall, in Great Britain, by his childhood wealthy friend Natasha Carlton (Carol Kentish). Natasha has a crush on Daniel, who is an ambiguous man regarding his sentimental life. While alone in the house, weird things happen and Laura is startled and scared. When Laura meets the old insane priest Gabriel Norton (Brian Blessed) on the road, she is advised to immediately leave the house, since evil lived there. But the couple stays and has to face tragic consequences.
What a messy screenplay and awful and cheesy movie this "Devil's Harvest" is! The cinematography and the camera work is not totally bad, but the amateurish performances of Chris John and Carol Kentish and direction of James Shanks, together with the terrible story, ridiculous situations and dialogs make this movie one of the worse I have ever seen in the genre. I have occasionally seen in YouTube a couple of shorts from cinema college that are better and better than the pointless and dreadful "Devil's Harvest". In the end, it is not a horror movie but a horror of movie. My vote is three.
Title (Brazil): "A Colheita do Diabo" ("The Devil's Harvest")


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


user
How in the name of decency did this film ever get made?
One presumes the subtitles merely say 'awful' on every single frame of this truly dismal effort.
Horrendous acting, woeful dialogue and the lack of talent from everyone involved in this nightmare make for an excruciating 90 minutes.
Overall impression?
A bunch of excitable drama students got lucky with a lottery grant and proceeded to make one of the most painful films ever made.
This makes Hammer Horror TV shows look like Oscar material.
And don't for a second think this falls into the 'so bad it's good' category. It's not even that bad.
But the fart lighting scene is probably worth another look.


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


user
So this ugly guy with long, nasty hair and his girlfriend end up in this house and they argue and argue about his old girlfriend. There was suppose to be something scary in it but I didn't see anything scary at all. There is some mention of a demon from the sea but that doesn't go anywhere at all. I wish it did because then it would've taken the tension away from the jealous love triangle. The title of the movie makes it look like it would be a scary and exciting movie but it is so far from it that I couldn't believe it. I waited and waited for it to end and was so happy when it did. It did not live up to the title like it should have so boo hoo hoo. The cover had a cool picture but I shouldn't judge a cheesy movie by its cover.


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


user
The Gun is probably the worst film I've ever saw. The comedians direction is very poor, the dialogs sounds like they were written by a 13 year old teenager, the plot (what plot?) is another "suspense" in which it is very hard to get into. Finally, nothing in this movie is any good. A big thumbs down to everyone involved and particularly to the Montreal film festival who presented this movie IN COMPETITION!


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 quite excited when I saw this film in competition at the Montreal Film Festival. Along with Elephant and a few others, I thought the issue of American gun violence/culture would be treated intelligently and in a fashion compelling for film-goers. The press-release promised (in not so many words) a `Red Violin' for the gun-violence crowd, something to make us ponder our NRA-shoot-em-up mindset in this country.
After waiting until after 9:15 to be seated for a 9AM screening (what technical difficulties they would have encountered is beyond me), we were finally let into the venue to see the film on DV (where did the advertised 35MM print go?). I think I just answered my first question.
The result is an abhorrent mess. We get the "gun", in a vignette with the most unrealistic "biker' I have ever seen (and I do know more than a few). The film then lapses into irrelevant "character development" only because the characters are either a. stereotyped, b. losers, c. stereotyped losers, and/or d. racial caricatures. It takes another 30 minutes to get to the plot movement, and once we are there, we wish for the inane conversations between the couples and/or the bikers and pawn brokers.
The film finds it's conclusion, but not without leaving any cliché untried. I didn't care for the white-trash characters who came in contact with the gun, and the depiction of the minority characters should have the NAACP crying foul immediately. All these people WOULD chase after a gun, because they are at the bottom of the societal trash-heap, and would look for an opportunity wherever it was found. Placing the action a level up would have at least provided some soul-searching on the part of the characters.
The biggest problem is the promise unfulfilled. The plot outline was great. In the hands of a P.T. Anderson or Gus Van Zandt, it could have been a powerful piece. But due either to bad screenplay, direction or both, the thing is an unmitigated mess that needs to be ignored at all costs.
My bigger question is who at the MFF thought this was competition material. Better bury this on Showtime at 3AM.
Art Blose


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


user
Wakayama Tomisaburo's portrayal of fugitive ex-Kaishakunin Ogami Itto felt entirely natural. His demeanor, his voice, his appearance- all of it spoke to dislodgement. When he entered a space I, as well as characters on the screen, could feel he didn't belong there and that his determination to be there spelled trouble.
I read somewhere that Mr. Wakayama actually took Kendo (Japanese swordsmanship) training and that would explain his comfort with the katana, which showed magnificently in every cutfest. If you watch the movies, from the moment he draws to the moment he sheaths the sword you feel as though you were witnessing something inevitably ugly. He'd even spin the katana quickly to flick off the blood before sheathing it and it would happen in an effortless instant.
Nakamura Kinnosuke's rendition comes across as a rendition. It feels as though he were trying too hard to be someone else or tell someone else's story. As a result, every time I tried to engage I'd lose my grip because HE didn't seem to have a firm grip on the role, himself. As though it were awkward for him.
The swordsmanship in the TV series was entirely old-school Hollyweird, too. Camera cuts to disguise Mr. Nakamura's awkwardness with the katana, slow action, targets sitting still, etc. Extremely bad, from a viewer's perspective. There was a moment in the episode The Castle Wall Attack when Mr. Nakamura drew his sword like a child. It was embarrassing. He handled it as though it were heavy! I almost fell off my chair.
And let's be frank: The story is about an excellent swordsman. Period. Swordsmanship is an issue.
Realism isn't, however: the swordplay in the movies was excellent and manga-like, as was intended, I'm sure. (The baby cart was outfitted with a cluster of automatic, rapid-fire muskets operated by a 3 year old? Yes...manga-style.) It's how the story seamlessly weaves historical cultural accuracy into, basically, superhero fantasy that makes the movies captivating. (Read Yoshikawa Eiji's Musashi [%historical legend]%!) I couldn't really sit through the TV series episodes. They just felt cheap. See the movies first and you'll know what I'm talking about.


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 a very interesting acquaintance! "Two-fisted tales" contains three foolish and childish episodes - genre isn't actually horror or action, more like something in between. Where's the suspence? Where's the fun? Where's the common sense? Definitely not in here but if you don't expect to get it, you don't necessarily miss it.
First segment is called "Showdown". It's a violent, absurd western. I failed to understand the whole idea of it. "King of the road" is a stupid story starring Brad Pitt. At the time of "Two-fisted tales" he was just a pretty face who really didn't know how to act yet. Luckily he learned the skill later and now he's a fantastic, talented actor - one of the big ones of the younger generation. Story is almost ok in all of it's stupidness. Final episode "Yellow" is the only segment that's almost entirely successful. It's foolish but funny. We have to thank Kirk Douglas for that.
This movie is something to watch when you sit in an easy chair and eat popcorn. (I should know, that's what I did) If you loved "Tales from the Crypt", you'll love "Two-fisted tales" too because basically it's all the same. I understand these three episodes are actually extremely rare "piece of art" and very difficult to find anywhere. I have the whole package on VHS but I don't think it's a big privilege. You'll have to be a fanatic Brad Pitt fan to search it out. Otherwise don't bother, it's not worth the effort. Silly crap.


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


user
Corny and horrible, I was not surprised this short lived show didn't make it. I remember fondly when Tales From the Crypt tried reusing these corny episodes like they were actually scary. Coupled with bad acting and lousy music, I was surprised this crummy showed was ever conceived. It never showed up again, and one can only be thankful for this circumstance.


assistant
0