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
Disappointing film. Performance of actors is weak. Sets are fine, could have been better. The story is also weak. Battle sequences are awful. Sounds and quality of film are trashy. The history of Kazakh people was told very poorly. This film should have included more Kazakh actors, in leading roles. And also should have been in Kazakh language. Kuno Bekker and Jay Hernandez are Hispanic origins. I don't get it. Since when Hispanic people play Turkic-Mongolian people. This film is shame of Kazakh cinema. Rustam Ibragimbekov disappointed me. He is one of the finest filmmakers in the world. Czekh director is excused, since he is not nomadic origin, he cannot know true spirit and history of nomads.


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 simply put, the worst movie I have ever seen. It ranges from like 2+ hours, and the box art was totally misleading. My friends and I rented it because, we thought it would be a poor man's 300. You know, to laugh at and make fun of. No. There is nothing funny about this movie, only pain. Then, the movie starts up, and they are speaking some sort of different language. We think, 'Oh its just the beginning.' But no, from there the movie plummets and becomes more of like a super boring book you had to read in grade school, where nothing literally happens for hours, and the battle scenes rival those of 2 kids fighting on a playground. Omit Cinematography, and this movie belongs in trash compactor. Movies like this will lead to the world we see in Wall-E, which by the way was a good movie.


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


user
Pathetic. This is what happens when director comes to work just because someone is paying him to.
The intentions were good, great locations and settings for a film of epic proportions. But the performance, damn! I swear, in some shots you can see extras on the background staring in the camera, or looking at the actors because no one told them what they should do when they hear "Action!". The battle scenes are so bad you wonder - are these people for real? They could've done more damage just by hugging each other. In the slow-mo scenes you can see people on battle field walking around or just standing, waving their hands.
Only action in the foreground is somehow emphasized. But for what? The story is so illogical and discontinuous, it seems like random situations in chronological order, sometimes not even that. The dialogs are dumb, the love plot is more embarrassing and ridiculous than in Hong Kong action movies.
With a budget of 40 million, and you can see every dollar invested on the screen, in best case scenario, the final result of all this enormous effort is a shiny round laser disk in the thin cover placed on the shelf in video store.


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


user
Yeah, right.
I spent the first hour waiting patiently for the movie to take off. It was horribly boring, and consisted mostly of people riding randomly around the hills with no apparent direction. Then the hero comes into the picture. Born as an Asian, but when he grew up, he became white. Obviously white. He wasn't even close to passing for Asian. He looked like Justin Timberlake. It was extremely distracting, and the story did nothing to help the cause. Pointless battle sequences and lame dialogue. It's an hour and forty five minutes long, and by the end I was trying to eat my own face. I watched this because people at the video store where I work are always asking me if this movie is any good. Now I have an answer. It goes something like this: ahem. "NO! GOOD GOD NO! IT'S HORRIBLE! DON'T DO THIS TO YOURSELF! I would recommend another movie, perhaps one that's entertaining."


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


user
I knew nothing of this film before I was convinced to see it by a friend who had heard it was a "non-stop epic battle scene from beginning to end". That couldn't have been further from the truth. This was one of the most boring, poorly written, amateurishly directed, horribly acted films I've ever had the misfortune to lay my eyes upon. I'd rank it up there with the movie I consider to be the worst film of all time... Battlefield Earth. There basically is no story, it's hard to believe that the makers of this film thought that this cheesy soap opera crap would be taken seriously as actual historic fact. It also features some of the worst dialogue I've ever heard... like this little gem... Guy tells girl "You smell like the moon.". Girl replies "What does the moon smell like?" OMG! You have to be kidding me! The scene where the guy was drawn and quartered got some good laughs from the audience since it looked so ridiculously cheap and the sound FX of the guy being ripped apart reminded me of someone making a fart sound with their mouth. If this is playing at a theater near you, avoid it at all costs. This movie is so bad that I actually made the decision about 45 minutes through that I needed to catch up on my sleep... and I did. Awful.


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


user
I would give this movie 5 rather than 3 if it would be at least in time... When i've seen it in first time it was just what you could wait from the work that is based not on the artistic abilities of the directors but on the idealistic or i would rather say idiotic habits of our (Kazakhstan) government... It's a shame, because 'Qazaqfil'm' was been shooting nice movies when it was not honoured by the name of Shaken Aimanov, but it was actually ran by him. The movies like 'Konec Atamana', 'Kyz Zhibek' or even 'Aldar Kose'. But after Mr Aimanov's death the production of quality movies went down almost dramatically in 10 years time there were very few films produced. However, in late 1980s, 'Assa' was shot, it was a film about first organised crime groups in the big country, one year later Mr. Rashid Nugmanov shot another film with the co-staring of the same actor/singer V.Tsoy, at that time he was already a soviet/Russian rock legend, - the movie called 'Igla' (The Needle or something) it was completely new, somebody called that period as resurrection or a new Kazakh movie wave. Unfortunately nowadays we do not have a quality movies, our directors shooting movies on the french and Japanese financial support, and thus movies are not for the public but for the authors professional critics, some of them take a price on international author movie festivals but there a very few of them become a business asset products... And again back to our 'nomads'. Such movies usually unpopular because of vast aspects. The same effects was with Nikita Mikhalkov's 'Sibirski Cyrilnik' about Russian tsars, that was also shot on parities with foreign partners, i think they were french or maybe British. Nobdy liked it, even in Russian public it become as a main topic of a comedians and comedy shows like 'KVN'. IMHO


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


user
"Dracula II:Ascension" is the story of a group of medical students who come across the body of Dracula.When a mysterious stranger appears and offers the students $30 million to harvest the body and steal its blood for auction,it's an offer they can hardly refuse.Soon the students also find themselves relentlessly pursued by a vampire killer from the Vatican!"Dracula II:Ascension" is a slightly entertaining horror film that has many flaws.The characters are one-dimensional and the acting is pretty average.There are some good gore effects like really cool double decapitation scene,but there is not enough violence for my liking.The film becomes quickly boring and forgettable and there is absolutely no suspense.So if you like modern vampire flicks give it a look.I prefer atmospheric vampire chillers from 60's and early 70's like "Lips of Blood","The Brides of Dracula" or "Lemora:A Child's Tale of Supernatural" to name only a few.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
Ascension is actually a step up in terms of what the original movie was in story and in special effects. Jason Scott Lee Is good as a vampire hunter looking for the count himself (if you remember him, he was from the movie Dragon, The Bruce Lee Story.') Jason London is funny as Luke, the kid who helps the woman he loves from a far steal Dracula's body from the slab. Diane Neal Is good as the woman who steals Dracula's body in order to finds a cure for her dying boyfriend, And Stephen Billington is great as Dracula himself. Giving a better performance than Gerard Butler did the count in the original film. Roy Scheider rounds out the rest of the cast in this movie, and he does a decent job as the mentor of Jason Scott Lee's character. This is the second sequel in the trilogy, and they are off to a good start. It's up in the air whether the last film will close the series out on a good note.


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


user
I cannot believe the same guy directed this crap and Dracula 2000. Dracula 2000 was innovative, fresh, and well written, if poorly acted.
This pile can't even claim that. It starts with the defeat of Dracula at the end of Dracula 2000. Then ignores the narrative afterwards describing what happened after that. Following the narrative properly could have made this a good sequel somehow, but Craven chose to go in the style of his older films, having no good tie but the main villain's name.
Even the actor playing Dracula was different (going from dark hair in Dracula 2000 to a blonde here).
Avoid this movie if you have any respect for your taste in movies.


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


user
This must me one of the worst takes on vampires ever conceived by men. How can one turn such a mesmerizing subject into a totally uninspiring story? Apparantly not such a difficult task... First of all, a conditio sine qua non of any vampirefilm is a dark and gloomy atmosphere with a nice sexy touch, this one lacks all these things.. Too much light - the spots! oh my god, why in the name of Christ/Judas was that about?
Every time Dracula came about he was devoured by light (in the script to keep him weak, for the record: just weak) There was only one scene that made it almost worth watching, near the ending of the movie (beatiful dancingscene with Dracula and his new conquest). I really enjoyed the first one, the Judas-twist was defintely original, but this one's just not good, not in any way. Hopefully the third one will cary the vampire-signature I like so much in other classics like Herzog's Nosferatu, Coppola's Dracula or even Interview with the vampire.


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


user
***Possible Spoilers***
When I saw this today I had some expectation of how it would be like, not too high, but not low either. This was nothing like I expected at all though, it seems to me like the movie makers couldn't make up their mind of what kind of movie to make.
In the begining of the film it's somewhat mysterious and kinda exciting, but that'll soon change to some ridiculous scenes - very obvious scenes... As I watched further I almost fell asleep a couple of times.
The ending is the most ridiculous of all though, almost splatter/comedy...
I'm not saying it doesn't have some good scenes it's just that the film never becomes "whole".
4/10 Movie-Man


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


user
1 out of 10.
This is the kind of movie that you cant believe you just wasted 2 hours of your life as you see the credits role. I honestly think I could make a better Vampire movie.... and I know nothing. The only thing that does not just suck (harder than a Vampire) is Jason Scott Lee.... his character is at least a little bit cool, has some mystery, and kicks a little butt.


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


user
It's like what other Dracula movies always do, the minions of Dracula always on Dracula's side, which is what disappointed me at the ending. Regardless the person wants to stay a vampire or not, I would like to see something like in the first movie that the minion fights against her master. It is much interesting (since you can almost predict how the story goes) than just either the priest or D. win the game (we need some surprising plots!).


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


user
I didn't even knew this movie existed until shortly after seeing Blade: Trinity, I was messing around on the Trinity board when I saw some user mention how the Wes Craven series is a lot better then the 'crap' that's Blade, So I did my quick research: Checked the scores on IMDb & RottenTomatoes for Dracula: Ascension, and somewhere along the search I found out that this is a sequel to Dracula 2000. I also noticed that within the Wes Craven Dracula boards there was a real strong following for this movie which is a big contradiction to the scores I was seeing.
Now let's take a quick personal recap here. I remember seeing Dracula 2000, and I remember not liking it at all, and then seeing the scores of Dracula: Ascension just lowered my expectations even more, but then again, I'm the type of person that truly needs to watch the movie myself (any movie) so that I can form my own opinion.
A couple of things I went in knowing when I started watching this movie was that it's low budget, so because of that, I'm going to have to ignore a lot of the v/fx and just figure it's going to compensated by story & acting, I was also slightly impressed by some of the casting in this movie (Jason London, Roy Schieder & Jason Scott Lee)
Oh geez This movie was CHEESY! But cheesy can be entertaining at least, I found it pretty fricken laughable, the bad audio synch from the re-recording of dialogue in a FEW scenes, the stupidity of the characters in this movie. Sure they all knew about vampires and some of the basic things, Luke even had a book on it, but did it prevent them from wanting to purposely get 'infected'? Nope, this is worst then slasher flicks where the girl has to get out of the shower and check out the noise she hears with nothing more than a towel on.
I also must've blinked at some point, because I'm not sure how 'Dracula' got clothes on his body, especially since he's big wild and angry & I figure if I was in that situation, I wouldn't want to be the one dressing him.
So the movie ends like any middle movie of a trilogy it doesn't, instead it's a 'Cliff Hangar' where I now get to wait for the 3rd installment 'Legacy'. Oh the entertainment value of Cheesy movies.


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 mediocrity, laziness, and thoughtlessness written all over it. If you are going to do a movie about vampires that has been done thousands of times already, then you better do a damn good job. I'll be the first to say that this movie just did not cut it. Some scary/horror movies just fail to break the mold of the "lets do something forbidden and forsaken for the sake of fun because all the stories are just lies" cliché. This one, sadly, was no different, and like all scary movies, once you venture down that road there is no going back.
And the ending? How do the heroes do the same job over and over throughout the movie, but then mysteriously they get wrapped up in the moment and cannot do the job in the end? The ending was very anti-climatic and spelled part 3 which I will never watch. Terrible movie.


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


user
A painfully protracted, maudlin and predictable drama, my twenty-fifth Sidney Lumet film, Garbo Talks, gets filed precipitously on the low quality end of my quest.
The film documents a harried young working man named Gilbert (Ron Silver), who is son to Estelle Rolle (Anne Bancroft), eccentric, feisty and above all, an obsessive fan of Greta Garbo. When Estelle becomes afflicted with a brain tumor, her son decides to go on an obsessive quest of his own: track down Greta Garbo, and bring her to his mother.
Anne Bancroft is in full-on, chew-the-scenery Auntie-Mame mode here, that kind of feisty ol' gal that film loves, where she mouths off to people, and stands up for her ideals, and ends up in jail all the time. She stands outside of the film as an obvious artificial construct, and every scene with her is yuk-yuk lame; every note striking false. The rest of the characters are equally as one-dimensional, but tremendously less-interesting. Ron Silver is flat as can be, and his attempted love triangle is as telegraphed as anything else in the film: He is dating affluent Lisa Rolfe (Carrie Fisher), but becomes smitten with oddball co-worker Jane Mortimer (Catherine Hicks), and I called every scene three scenes before they happen.
That's the other problem. One-dimensional characters can survive if they are posited in an intriguing and captivating story, but there's simply nothing here. The film's pace is glacial, resplendent with extraneous material that strengthens absolutely nothing, and when the film does begin to follow a linear plot, it's both plodding and uninteresting. There are plenty of guest stars, so to speak, including Harvey Fierstein as a gay New Yorker (imagine that) in yet another highly inessential scene.
Late in the film, it attempts to make a halfway-decent statement on the nature of idolatry and its role in our lives, but by that time, none of the characters exist as real people, and the film had bored me into submission, so it functions as a case of far-too-little, far-too-late. The film is my twenty-fifth Lumet-directed film, making him easily my most-viewed director, but outside of a couple egregious misses (A Stranger Among Us, anyone?), he hasn't plumbed the painfully uninteresting depths of Garbo Talks.
{Grade: 4.5/10 (C/C-) / #21 (of 24) of 1984 / #23 of 25 Lumet films}


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


user
Anne Bancroft plays Estelle, a dying Jewish mother who asks her devoted son (Ron Silver) to locate reclusive one-time movie star Greta Garbo and introduce the two before Estelle checks out for good. Might've been entitled "Bancroft Talks" as the actress assaults this uncertain comedic/dramatic/sentimental material for its duration. Hot-or-cold director Sidney Lumet can't get a consistent rhythm going, and Bancroft's constant overacting isn't scaled back at all by the filmmaker--he keeps her right upfront: cute, teary-eyed and ranting. Estelle becomes a drag on this scenario (not that the thinly-conceived plot has much going on besides). Silver and co-stars Carrie Fisher and Catherine Hicks end up with very little to do but support the star, and everyone is trampled by her hamming. *1/2 from ****


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


user
This movie was based on actual fact? I sincerely hope not!
We get to see what appears to be numerous armed cops empty an equal amount of guns at 2 guys who only got armored torso's. That's a great idea; aim for the armor!...excuse me, but how about those big fat unmissable heads or their legs for crying out loud. Or were there invisible tanks protecting them? were they from Crypton?Did i miss something here?
This movie started out decent enough but after 20 minutes of shoot-out it really takes a turn to boringlane.
And that documentary style didn't work for me either, but thats just something one finds likable or not.
Highly unbelievable stuff which makes it hard to see it through 'til the end.
3/10 for the fine editing.


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


user
Contrary to my principles, let me first come up with a conclusion, because I have just seen this piece of "art", and still am under strong impressions. The reader is asked to excuse my stronger vocabulary.
Well, this movie is absolutely horrible, and I would never bother to write a single word about it, if it were not for the fact that "44 Minutes" made me sick to death, which rarely happens to me. The fact that I paid for that does not exactly makes me feel better, as well as the fact the movie deserved the high user rating here.
So what is wrong with the movie? It has a fashionable title - "44 Minutes". One first thinks about "15 Minutes", which is by the way a much better movie, but still bad in my book, and indeed the two can be compared to some extent. But, as luck would have it, the things they share are their worst characteristics. They both feature Mr. Oleg Taktarov, who with his strong Russian accent obviously meets the popular expectations and prejudices. His purpose is to appeal to the Cold War mind. Ah, do we miss the good old times. Now, I don't imply that he is a bad actor, I am yet to judge his true performance, but he is simply not a true individual here, he is more like an archetype. How anyone can still indulge in such things is completely beyond my comprehension. We can recognize modern American xenophobia here. The point in the movie when Taktarov explains to his companion that Romanians are not Germans, and that they are in America is truly laughable. Are we to assume that the greatest desire of the wretched duo is to become "true" Americans?
Then, there is the media issue. Yes, it seems that the most of what we learn comes from cameras, interviews and reporters. The director should have made us feel the rhythm of the presumed 44 minutes. Instead he bores us with interviews throughout the movie like in a cheap TV show, trying to reinvent the wheel. In 15 Minutes the issue of media is the central one.The point is presented in a way a teacher addresses an obtuse student, but that deserves a separate comment, we are focusing on 44 Minutes now. So, I have been trying to identify the purpose of this movie. What is it? To provide good time for the audience? To glorify weapons? To glorify police? Portray violence? Oh yes, the officer gives the Bible to the underage delinquent. So it must promote peace and understanding after all? I don't think so, but don't ask me. I only know I didn't enjoy any of this.
Ah, Michael Madsen. I admit, I am a big fan. I hoped he would be a bright point, but I was wrong. It's not his fault though.
As the final note, comparing "firepower" to "willpower" at the end of the movie was one of the worst lines I have ever heard.
To summarize, on the scale 1-10, I give it a pure, unadulterated 1.


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


user
The funniest scene of this movie is probably when our saviours get their medals and plaques and whatnot. So the basic idea is, the police outnumbers these gangsters by like a million to one, but they're powerless because the villains' guns are just a bit bigger. I guess police ammo just kinda bounces of. They decided to shoot this movie in documentary style with fake interviews and all and seriously, what is wrong with these guys? They're talking like they were armed with rolled-up newspapers. Okay I admit, it's probably still dangerous to be in the line of the fire, even when the situation is so much to your advantage, but don't go nuts. And why the hell did it take 44 minutes to solve everything anyway? I'd say that's a very long time when you have them surrounded and you're allowed to shoot. They're like ten ft. away, they hit absolutely nothing. Then they go and buy bigger guns themselves to increase their heroism. And then yeah, there you have it, one of the cops actually hits someone. Bullet was probably diverted by a lamp post or something. I had a good laugh I guess.


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


user
Men, do I love police movies filled with action, shooting, chases etcetera.
Boy, was I let down after watching this short and unsatisfying movie. We've seen it all before, the hostages, the bank, the surrounding... Yet, 2 bad guys that shoot down multiple officers and innocent people who simply stay in the line of fire - without getting hit due to some Kevlar.
Not just a few shots, no, hundreds of shots. Going back into the bank, where the dumb hostages didn't lock the safe or doors when the bad guys went out. How stupid did the director think we'd be.
Okay, the shots in between that fake a documentary were good, but after seeing the film I only got the thought: why didn't the police get a decent shooting course? And why where there so many cops and was SWAT on a real long break. Truly bad.


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


user
Yeah, Madsen's character - whilst talking to the woman from the TV station - is right: the LAPD IS a corrupt, violent and racist police. And this movie changes nothing about it. Okay, here are the good cops, the moral cops, even a black one, whow, a Christian, a martyr. But this is a fairy tale, admit it. Reality is not like that. And most important for the action fans: The shoot out is boring. It's just shooting and shooting and shooting. Nothing more. Play Counter Strike, then you will at least have something to do. The only moral of this film is: The LAPD is good now. No more bad cops in it. If you like uncritical, euphemistic commercials for police and military service, watch this movie. It's the longest commercial I've ever seen. (2 Points for camera and editing).


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


user
As we all know Hollywood enjoys changing historical events around for our enjoyment, and 44 minutes is one of those hollywoodized movies. For example the bank robbers never did go back in the bank when they started shooting at the LAPD yet in the movie we see them go back inside twice! Another example is the number of LAPD officers who were shot near the end of the movie, this is far from the truth! But of course Hollywood must have a good bloody ending so they *add* some more blood and guts. Some events were combined and many of the lead actors played several different people but this is what Hollywood has always done so why complain? I guess the only sad part is that I have watched some one hour documentaries about the North Hollywood shootout on TLC that were far better then this!


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


user
This was a better than average movie I thought, for it being on cable. I had expected something along the lines of cheesy melodrama and bad special effects seen in such classics as Christmas Rush or First Daughter/Target/Shot, etc.
The cast was well chosen...I especially liked Ron Livingston as the hard pressed SWAT Commander. It's good to see him revisiting the same material he had so much fortune with in Band of Brothers. The producers and designers had done their homework because all the scenes and shots looked like they did on that day back in 1997.
So, if you get a chance to see this film, and I am sure you will since FX reruns everything 50 times...take 2 hours and enjoy 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 awful. At the end of it you will realize that several hours have been stolen from your life that you can't get back. The "twist" ending is very contrived. The character development leading up to this ending is not consistent with their final actions at the conclusion. Ninety minutes of preparation-- with the premise that the Rob Lowe character will die on Christmas Eve-- is explained away in literally ninety seconds of "No we were just tricking you." Then the Rob Lowe character is not even upset about it! "I will forgive you if you can forgive me," is as upset as he gets. If someone took weeks to convince me I was about to die and then said "No, sorry , just fooling you" I would raise some serious hell. I don't feel bad about giving away the spoiler because I might be able to save some of you out there from watching. Please save yourself and DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE.


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


user
JUDAAI was a bold film by Raj Kanwar at it's time In 1997 when such a topic was damn out of the box
To give him his credit he does succeed in showing how greed changes a person and to what extent the person can go to get what she wants
The film however is damn melodramatic, many places ridiculous
One wonders why Anil doesn't buy a TV for his wife? when he earns so much Just to show how poor he is?
The twist is well handled but the handling is straight out of 80's The Johny- Paresh comedy which entertains here and there stands out as a sore thumb as it doesn't fit in the story
Even there are several cringeworthy scenes
Direction by Raj Kanwar is adequate though at times too melodramatic Music is okay but most songs look forced
Anil does his part well Sridevi is excellent in her part Urmila is decent Amongst rest Kader Khan is as usual Johny Lever is funny, Paresh irritates Farida is decent


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


user
Well, if you like pop/punk, punk, ska, and a tad bit of modern psycho billy, then seeing the live performances are about the only thing worth watching. This movie has tons and tons of band cameos, along with president of Troma, Lloyd Kaufman as a semi-major role, and lots of goofy death scenes. Sounds like it may be good, right? Well, the deaths keep coming, and repeatedly to many different bands of the Warp Tour and the fans at the event. Some of the deaths start of stylish, but then they are recycled over and over, to the point of being completely repetitive. Almost everyone dies of having their head smashed, or intestines being pulled from their stomach. The gore looks as if it was from Andreas Schnaas' "Zombie 90: Extreme Pestilence"; with this being the "watered-down type blood", but now that movie is actually decent, and provides humor-something that this movie terribly lacks. Sure, the movie is made by Doug Sakmann from Troma, it's got great low-budget potential, and it tries...but just too hard. Everything is overly meant to be funny in this movie, and thats what brings it down. Everything tries to be too comic and goofy, by using intentional bad acting, an overuse of pointless deaths, and doing the same thing...over and over. It's basically "Mulva: Zombie Ass-Kicker", "Chairman of the Board", or any movie you have made with your friends: it's funny to those who made it, and that's about it.
Great potential, great idea, great use of effects-but it's the same thing...over and over: A band plays, a band dies, fans die. Everyone dies, blood is sprayed everywhere, the process is repeated.
The question is for these types of movies-which is basically 'bad slap-stick'-do they try too hard, or not at all?


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 finished watching this movie. I was very excited since I'm a big fan of Punk Rock, Horror films and Spoofs. I was very surprised at what I saw. I knew it was low budget, but I wasn't expecting it to be taped with a video camera. It opens with a good song and a great, very underrated band, The Horrorpops, reforming their song, Where They Wander, and promptly getting killed in various gruesome ways. It's a great opening. But the problem is the fact that, up until the end, this was really all that the movie was. A live performance, A death. Another live performance, A death. It gets old. And there is a gross(literally) overuse of intestines in the death scenes. Why doesn't the killer use other body parts, like legs, or eyeballs, or brains? Don't get me wrong, this movie has some parts that are awesome. Like the hardcore French band, known simply as BERET, the prospect of a band named Atticus, the scene containing a performance by members of the The Used and Simple Plan playing together, since neither bands had enough members to play their show, and Bowling For Soup's Overweight-and-proud-of-it guitarist getting killed in a truly hilarious manner, that I will save for the future watchers of this movie. But the big problem I have with this movie is the at first comical, but after a while, terrible lack of acting talent in a lot of the "actors". Especially Warped Tour creator, Kevin Lyman. He tries very hard, but I suspect that he didn't want to make the film, but was contractually obligated or something. In addition to that, the sound quality is terrible and there are no subtitles on the DVD. The Movie's resolving plot is very hazy and very random. something about a magic sword and Lloyd Kaufman as the devil. Bottom line, this movie has a lot of good qualities, but not enough to be anywhere near a decent Horror, Music, or Comedy film. Although I have to credit it with turning me onto a few bands that I would never have listened to, otherwise. Such as Tsunami Bomb, and the Phenomonauts(an insane, Psychobilly band). I recommend that you rent this movie, watch the first 10 or 20 minutes, if you like it, watch the next 20 or 30, if you still like it, then watch on. If not, just go to the special features and watch all the music videos and live performances. They rock! Long live Punk Rock and Horror!


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


user
It's not the most well made slasher movies of all time, but for what it is, it's pretty amusing. The plot is lame but the kills are not too bad. I have to be honest, if you don't follow the bands that are featured in this film, you wont find this film as funny as those who do. I knew someone who saw this film and was really disappointed because of the poor quality of the film but you have to understand that it was made in the spare time of being on tour, in between playing to moshing kids and drinkin' with friends backstage...it's not made to be taken seriously. It's ubber cheese at it's punk best and with over 100 kills,most of which are ultra gory, it's a fun movie to have friends over to watch, drink and be merry!


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


user
I couldn't believe I spent $14.00 on this. The only redeeming quality is the outrageous gore. The dubbing was worse than any I have ever experienced. It looks like it was shot with a VHS camcorder. I think every pfennig was spent on the special effects because there was a whole lot of blood and body parts everywhere. Its one of the worst movies I have ever seen but I do have to acknowledge the plentiful gore that wasn't as disgusting as it could have been because the whole movie is so silly and unbelievable


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


user
Karl Jr and his dad are now running an army on a remote island. They capture a trio of guys who stumble upon the island. Whom after a while fight back. (well the survivors) This one has non-stop blood, gore and carnage, which would have been good if any of it looked remotely real, or if the production didn't look like it was made with a weeks worth of saved up lunch money (I may be overexxagerating there. it was probably just a couple days worth). The horrendous dubbing didn't bother me as much and I suspect if I had been really drunk, some of it MIGHT have been slightly humorous....maybe. But as it is, at merely 78 minutes the movie still felt way too long by.. Oh I don't know... 78 minutes. Don't waste your time.
My Grade: F
DVD Extras: Bonus movie: "Zombie '90: Extreme Pestilence"; and Trailers for other Shock-o-Rama released films


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


user
I felt obliged to watch this movie all the way through, since I had found it in a bargain bin and bought it for my own, but I came close many times to turning it off and just writing off the money I had paid for it. If you are a fan of gore and sadism, this movie is OK. If there is one thing that the makers of this film know, it is the creative use of fake blood and body parts for a sickening effect. If that doesn't thrill you, then stay away.
This movie is shot on a home video camera, with grade school props and terrible actors. It's dubbed from German, but even allowing for that, the sound is awful. This film is about as budget as budget gets, except for the aforementioned special effects. If they had spent a little more money on actors and a real script instead of blood and guts, the film might have been a little more enjoyable.
The story is about three men that land on an island inhabited by an army of tin-masked sadists. They are captured, and the rest of the movie is about their attempt to escape. I call this a story in the loosest sense, since it is really a series of scenes of torture and combat strung together by inane obscenity-filled dialog.
There is nothing whatsoever redeeming about this movie, unless you like mindless gore. Consider yourself warned.


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 like B movies...I know what B movies are supposed to represent. But this is just awful. I am amazed it got such a decent overall score. The only redeeming qualities of this flick are the (mostly) marginal splatter effects. Don't get me wrong, gore abounds in this flick - but few effects really jumped out at me (like the anal "probe"...that was great!).
I believe this movie was filmed on a camcorder. C'mon - rent a Betacam at least, I've seen porn with better production values (and better acting as well).
Acting - sucked! But not in the Troma or Full Moon sort of way.
Story - contrived! But thats what you get from films like these. Very loose!
Sets & Props - sucked! My 16 year old brother makes more elaborate sets for our house on Halloween.
Dubbing and dialogue - sucked! Horrible voice acting (I shouldn't even call it acting) and every other word is "S**t" or "F**k".
There are tons of good classic and B rated horror / splatter flicks out there and they are not that hard to track down. Do yourself a favor by not wasting time on this crap!


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


user
I am a big fan of low budget horror movies like this, but come on! This has to be the worst piece of monkey S@#t I have ever seen! I ignored the reviews posted on this site figuring that it would fall into my taste in horror, but I got bored and turned it off.Let's see:
The wardrobe: Consisted of cheap cameo outfits and painters outfits from home depot. The masks were made from what looks like tin foil.
The Gore: The Gore was pretty good, I must give it that. But Ittenbach's Burning moon was better for a low budget movie.
Acting: Was horrible! I didn't mind the dubbing. I find this humorous like in Ittenbach's "Premutos" (great movie). The fighting and action sequences were pi$$ poor.
Bottom line: Don't watch any of Schnaas's movies. There are much better directors like Jorg Buttergeit and Olaf Ittenbach with movies of the same gore and subject matter. Check Premutos, House of blood, Schramm and the nekromantiks.


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


user
I cannot believe how bad this piece of garbage is! I want my $3.99 back! Words defy description of this poorly made piece of crap! The dubbing in no way shape or form aligns with the actor's mouths. The movie looks like it was filmed with a 1970's vintage camcorder. I have shot better movies with my cell phone camera. The gore is laughable due to the silly unbelievable plot. The acting is what one would expect if you called all your friends over on a Saturday afternoon and proceeded to get completely ripped, then tried to put on a play in your garage. Don't get me wrong...I wasn't expecting O'Neil and I love Zombie movies, but the production values are so low in this film as to make it unwatchable. Avoid!


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


user
I am dumbfounded that I actually sat and watched this. I love independent films, horror films, and the whole zombie thing in general. But when you add ninga's, you've crossed a line that should never be crossed. I hope the people in this movie had a great time making it, then at least it wasn't a total waste. You'd never know by watching it though. Script? Are you kidding. Acting? I think even the trees were faking. Cinematography? Well, there must've been a camera there. Period. I don't think there was any actual planning involved in the making of this movie. Such a total waste of time that I won't prolong it by commenting further.


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


user
Wow...I can't believe just how bad ZOMBIE DOOM (aka VIOLENT SH!T 3) really is. I'd heard the rumors, read the reviews - but had to make my mind up for myself. Well, let me tell ya - IT BLOWS!!! The worst acting of any film ever made, dubbing that must have been done while everyone involved was completely wasted, inept and laughable gore FX, no discernible plot, "cinematography" that looks like my grandma filmed it with her camcorder, weapons props that are no joke - made out of tin-foil - the list goes on and on...
Three guys get stranded on an island where a bunch of weirdos run around with plastic and tin-foil swords. Two of the captives are freed along with a rebel of the island freaks, and are given a day's head start before they are hunted down by the rest of the "tribe"...that's pretty much it...
Honestly - this is one of THE WORST films I've ever had the misfortune to subject myself too. The budget had to be about $200 and was spent entirely on the gore FX (which actually may not have been a bad idea...). There is NOTHING to ZOMBIE DOOM other than strung-together ridiculous looking gore scenes with lots of HORRIBLY dubbed dialog. This film makes other no-budget outings like PREMUTOS: LORD OF THE LIVING DEAD look like TITANIC. Some may rank ZD in the "so-bad-it's-good" category - and I guess if you're REALLY drunk or high and watching it with a few friends MST3K-style - I guess it could be looked at that way. But not by me. I hated pretty much everything about it. If ZOMBIE DOOM or ZOMBIE 90 (which is equally appalling and is included as a "bonus" on the Shock-O-Rama release of ZD) is indicative of Andreas Schnaas' other works - then he should be banned from ever having anything to do with making a film ever again under penalty of death. There is one amusing kung-fu battle in the latter half of the film, and a lot of blood - so I'll grant this one a VERY generous 3/10 - Do yourself a favor and skip this.


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 another Christian propaganda film in the line of The Omega Code. Not that that is necessarily bad but for the fact that most propaganda films sacrifice sincerity and realism for the message they wish to deliver. If you enjoy a styrofoam portrayal of life on the streets and the way the Gospel can change a life, than perhaps you may enjoy this movie. I say, save your money and rent The Cross and The Switchblade or The Mission. When will Christian directors learn that sometimes people say bad words? It was frustrating to see criminals depicted who are not allowed to swear (huh? criminals say bad words?) and flat characters I really could not relate to. Also, it would've been great if the movie had shown some T&A. Now that would be something I'd like to pay to see. Who was the blockhead who compared this communion wafer-thin story of a movie with The Boondock Saints and The Sting?


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


user
STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits
In this debut effort for Nick Park's beloved man and dog, they are forced to fly to the moon when good old Wallace runs out of cheese.
As well as being the shortest feature at just 22 minutes, this W/G adventure is also the earliest and it kinda shows. The plasticine animation is a little creaky and funny here, sort of reminiscent of the Mork animation about the little man in the box.
Admirable though the craftsmanship behind it is, I've never actually been hugely into Wallace & Gromit (maybe a bit too clean and traditional for someone of my generation.) The only one I've really enjoyed is The Wrong Trousers (and that was more from when I was younger and less aware of, shall we say, the seedier pleasures of life.) I was driven to actively seek out this early effort due to the resurgence in popularity as a result of the hugely successful recent film adaptation.
As technically impressive as the first two (all things considered!) this one lacks the emotional angle it's successors were to possess. That being said, it's fairly good fun as a first try and certainly set the standard for greater things to come. Two stars, but a good two stars. **


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


user
I'll be honest, this is one of the worst movies ever. If not, then it's VERY close. Ever seen a bad teen soap opera. Well this is like one of those. Except worse. For example: (POSSIBLY SPOILER) girl: I wanna go somewhere else.
guy: all we need is here.
girl: but I wanna take myself somewhere different.
guy: I'll take YOU somewhere else.
... Proceeding this line they have sex. The music is bad pop and bad punk rock. If you've EVER read the book, avoid this movie like the plague. They completely change the personalities of the characters and the events. Additionally, they just get rid of things. Also, the movie ends about before the book finishes. It is an AWFUL movie. So, if you haven't read the book, don't watch it. If you HAVE read the book, burn it (the movie). If you like stupid teen soap operas that are lower quality than your average low quality teen soap opera, go for it. Then again, should we expect anything different from MTV?


assistant
0