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
Creep - "Your journey terminates here." Some very graphic scenes and...well, yeah, that's about all for this film.
No real plot, no storyline. No likable characters, well, 'characters' isn't correct considering you don't have a clue who anyone really is. I mean, they are being chased by some weird looking 'thing' in the sewers (who is this thing? why is he there?), that's quite scary I guess, but do I really care? No, I don't. Why don't I? Because I don't have a clue who these people are and I don't know if I should want them to live or die. It's one dimensional and relies upon gore and sound effects to scare you, which it rarely does.
This film lacks any meaning, any purpose. It feels like I fell asleep and missed out the 45mins of build up. It jumps right into the action. Basically, some women and her friends get locked in the London Underground, get chased by a weird creature, then they eventually escape from it.
Creep has its moments which make you jump, the art is good, the location is excellent and the sounds are OK, but that isn't what makes a decent horror film, so unfortunately all that goes to waste.
It's nothing new. Another predictable modern 'horror', where Kate (the lead 'character') consistently does the stupid "hey, I know you lot sitting at home think I should do the sensible thing in this situation, but, oooh no! I'm going to do the total opposite because I'm a dumb blond" thing. I wish they wouldn't do that, it's done so many times, it's boring and gets predictable. In fact, I'm pretty annoyed the silly woman didn't get stabbed by the, erm, grey alien-looking creature.
"Your journey terminates here" is the films tag line. Well, Creeps journey terminates only a short while into the film. If you've had a few beers, got a couple of mates back at yours,then sure, watch it by all means. But if you want something original and clever, 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 just rented Creep and was not at all impressed. I didn't feel anything in this film. I felt sick because the gore alone was shocking.
I walked out of my living room several times in desperation that something would happen with this film. Haven't we seen this all before? I didn't like any of the characters barr the guy in the sewer cage. I felt bad for him. But then again I couldn't think as to why he was still alive and not murdered by the Creep? So many questions need to be answered.
Someone mentioned references to the PS2 game Silent Hill and I can see similarities vaguely.
Not a bad film, not a good one. judge for yourself.


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


user
This is quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen. Worse than the most abhorrent American dross; worse than Glitter - Mariah Carey in American dross par excellence. I can only imagine that the writer and producer were taking huge amounts of recreational pharmaceuticals, and when discussing the plot actually thought it was a good idea. it's not. It is abject rubbish from very bowels of Satan himself (who could probably have written a better script had he put his mind to it). Robert Jones as Exce Producer, spending our tax payers money (lottery money folks) on this piece of nonsense, should be accountable. Who on earth thought it would be a good idea to re-make Deathline??? I ask you - camp as a Christmas Tree, Deathline ... 'Mind the doors' is classic of really bad British film, we really don't need a reminder. And we certainly don't need a poor, second rate, badly scripted, badly developed and badly piece of rubbish like this. All this this from the UK funding agency that brought us Sex Lives of the Potato Men... I rest my case.
Do Not Pay ANY money to see this. It is absolute and utter crap - the one saving grace for the producers is that they got a huge wedge of cash... our cash... for making it. They should hang their heads in shame.
I am staggered at the low, low standard of this film. It makes me Mgr that our national body for the support of film actually thought it was worth supporting. There is no hope for the British film industry whilst idiots are running the show. Harvey Wienstein where are you? Come back, we forgive you!!!


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


user
All logic goes straight out of the train window in this British horror film, set in the London underground and starring the usually reliable Franka Potente (Run Lola Run), Franka plays Kate, a businesswoman on the way from an office party to meet friends who falls asleep at an underground station, only to wake up and find she has been locked in and finds herself being chased by "someone" or "something" with killer intentions.
Plot holes and unbelievability are rife and there are very few moments that are actually jumpy/ scary but plenty that are just plain dull.
All in all an unpleasant film that should just stay locked underground forever and do us all a favour.
The only plus point here is the inclusion in the cast of popular veteran actor Ken Campbell, who's done better than this  that's even including "Erasmus Microman"!.


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 really, really disappointed with this movie. it started really well, and built up some great atmosphere and suspense, but when it finally got round to revealing the "monster"...it turned out to be just some psycho with skin problems......again. Whoop-de-do. Yet another nutjob movie...like we don't already have enough of them.
To be fair, the "creep" is genuinely unsettling to look at, and the way he moves and the strange sounds he makes are pretty creepy, but I'm sick of renting film like this only to discover that the monster is human, albeit a twisted, demented, freakish one. When I saw all the tell-tale rats early on I was hoping for some kind of freaky rat-monster hybrid thing...it was such a let down when the Creep was revealed.
On top of this, some of the stuff in this movie makes no sense. (Spoiler)
Why the hell does the Creep kill the security Guard? Whats the point, apart from sticking a great honking sign up that says "HI I'm A PSYCHO AND I LIVE DOWN HERE!"? Its stupid, and only seems to happen to prevent Franka Potente's character from getting help.
what the hells he been eating down there? I got the impression he was effectively walled in, and only the unexpected opening into that tunnel section let him loose...so has he been munching rats all that time, and if so why do they hang around him so much? Why is he so damn hard to kill? He's thin, malnourished and not exactly at peak performance...but seems to keep going despite injuries that are equivalent to those that .cripple the non-psycho characters in the film.
The DVD commentary says we are intended to empathise with Creep, but I just find him loathsome. Its an effective enough movie, but it wasted so many opportunities that it makes me sick.


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 sadly disappointed by this film due to the fact that it felt false and the characters were not strong enough to carry the films pretty weak attempt at horror. The basic idea for the film was interesting but unfortunately it wasn't able to excite, really scare or shock me - there was one part in the entire film that I thought was gruesome but even that didn't redeem it. I did get to like the character of Kate by the end of the film as she seemed to soften and become a little more realistic by the end, the character played by Jeremy Sheffield was not actually needed for this film and I think the director/writer got carried away with the myriad of characters used for no purpose, if he had left it at the basic characters making it more of a solo effort on Kate's part, it may have worked - Jeremy's acting was wooden to say the least and I felt uncomfortable watching the bad on screen chemistry - or lack of it. Such a shame. Disappointing.


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


user
Honestly, I went to see the movie, not because of the actors, not because of the plot but because it was rated 17 here in Luxembourg and a movie has to be really brutal or pornographic to be put in this category. Believe me, being a movie-freak, I have seen quite a lot of brutal films in my lifetime (Ichi the killer, Irreversible, Hellraiser) but this movie was by far the most disturbing and brutal picture I have ever seen.
The plot is plain stupid, the directing is awful, acting was mediocre even the music was a cheap copy of so-called "Horror Soundtracks". There isn't a single intelligent aspect in the whole movie, and some of the scenes are really hard to stand. (especially the scene, where you see the embryos in the glasses and hear the baby cries--horrible). I can't understand why the movie was rated 16 in Germany, where normally the criteria are real tough (e.g. kill-bill (brutal but it made fun of itself and had great allusions to Asian cinema and besides a magnificent directing) even a movie like state of grace is rated 18). No one can call this a Horror movie, because actually it was more about showing gore than about scaring the public (Showing the "Creep's" face in the middle of the movie was a very bad decision); for me (excuse my expression) it is just one insane director living out his disturbing fantasies. In some scenes you see violence, that has absolutely nothing to do with the plot nor does it explain anything. The plot has holes and flaws, the dialog is boring, honestly I can't mention a single positive aspect of the movie except for the British and Scottish accent.
If I had something to say, I would ban this movie from the theaters, I fully understand why none of the big production companies invested their money in this crap.
I'm looking forward to getting feedbacks to my thread and I'd be happy to discuss about one or the other topic.
"Livin' the dream baby, livin' the dream" David Aames


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 compelled to write a review of this IMAX feature as a means of warning others to SAVE YOUR MONEY. Almost any episode of Desmond Morris' "The Human Animal" or David Suzuki's "The Nature of Things" could have bested the material presented. Not only does the director fail to make use of IMAX's incredible 65 to 70 mm film stock and gigantic presentation screen, everything on screen is extremely unimpressive given the accessibility of such programming mentioned previously. Viewers are introduced to a pregnant Heather, her husband Buster, and their niece and nephew. We follow them for an interminable forty-odd minutes as they eat, sweat, listen to music, etc. Although we are given access to scenes inside the human digestive track and learn about babies' natural diving reflexes, do we really learn anything more than most grade-school graduates? Are we even remotely entertained by the trans-Atlantic Heather? Do we care? Avoid this film at all cost. If you do wish to see an IMAX feature, I suggest the beautifully photographed "India: Kingdom of the Tiger" or the technically thrilling "Space Station 3D". Trust me.


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


user
This film differentiates itself from the run-of-the-mill "wonder of the human body" documentaries by bravely, if bizarrely, opting to elicit disgust in the viewer. In one scene, the camera closes in on a gigantic 50-foot zit as a teenager squeezes pus and fluid out of it. In another, the camera is semisubmerged in a swamp of half digested food and stomach acid as parts of a pasta salad drop in from the esophagus and plop into the goo. In a final tour de force, the camera takes the viewer on a harrowing ride through a forest of...teenage armpit hair. Unfortunately, I'm not making any of this up. See this film if you must, but: bring your vomit bag, and don't have pasta salad beforehand.


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


user
After what I thought was a masterful performance of two roles in Man From Snowy River, WHY was Kirk Douglas replaced by Brian Dennehy in the sequel? It just wasn't the same without Spur and Harrison, as portrayed by Douglas. Maybe he recognized how poor the plot was--Jim returns after extended absence, to find Jessica being pursued by another man. He could not expect any girl to wait that long with no contact from him, and not find competition. For a Disney movie, this contains foul language, plus the highly unnecessary part when Jim & Jessica shacked up without being married--very LAME. Quite an insult to viewer intelligence, according to members of my family. I'll stick with the first one, and try to forget I ever saw the sequel!


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


user
The original movie, Man From Snowy River, is one of the best I've seen, nearly perfect. A Lady and the Tramp storyline in two senses--rich girl/poor boy, and ability vs. bloodline. The sequel, however, is not only a shameless attempt to capitalize on the good name of the original but also a ridiculous, overblown Disneyfied mess best summarized as "Rambo Meets the Black Stallion." Without the charm of The Black Stallion. The young hero comes back from a 3-year absence, and suddenly he's Superman on horseback; in the original, good film, he was real and believable, but sadly reduced to a caricature in the sequel. I've hardly been as disappointed in a movie, and at times this thing made me quite angry--they missed hardly a cliché. Brazen audience manipulation--do studio heads think that all you have to do with a horse-loving audience is put pretty horses in front of them, to make them happy? A mess of a movie.


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


user
This film, like the first one ("The Man From Snowy River") has the same good and bad features, perhaps even more so than the original. Unfortunately, the bad outweighs the good.
The GOOD - Magnificent scenery, better than the first film. I love those high country shots in Australia. Tom Burlinson is still a likable guy, as "Jim Craig." Bruce Rowland did a nice job with the music, too.
The BAD - Once again we get an extremely obnoxious feminist heroine "Jessica" (Sigrid Thornton) who is a world-class pouter with an extremely annoying face and manner about her. In this film, we also get a big downgrade in who pays the father. Previously it was Kirk Douglas, now replaced by the always -profane Brian Dennehy. Speaking of that, it is a disgrace that a Walt Disney film would includes usages of the Lord's name in vain. That was one reason was almost totally down the tubes in the 1980s. This film, like the first one


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


user
I bought this adaptation because I really liked Anne Brontë's novel when I read it some time ago and usually particularly enjoy BBC dramas. But I'm very disappointed, I never thought it would be as bad as that: the whole series made me laugh much more than moved me as the novel had.
First of all, the music (and songs) seems totally out of place in a period drama (sounds as if it's been written for a contemporary horror film)and like another commentator, I was particularly annoyed by the way the cameras spun and spun round the actors. I've seen some scenes filmed that way in "North and South" and it seemed all right there but in The Tenant, it's definitely overdone and simply annoying. Camera movements cannot make wooden acting lively.
Most of the second roles were difficult to distinguish at first and the script lacked clarity. None of the characters were properly introduced at first. The little boy gave a very good performance, he's very cute and the best feature of the film.
SPOILERS Tara Fitzgerald's characterisation of Helen Graham made her appear cold and harsh, letting no emotion pass through. She doesn't seem to be able to cry at all in a realistic way. I just couldn't believe Markham could have fell for her and I'm not mentioning the awful hairdo she was given. I could not help feeling some sympathy with her husband! Fancy being married to such a virago... Besides, he was the only main actor that sounded right to me. Toby Stephens I found just OK, Helen Graham's brother not very good.
Maybe it's difficult to adapt a novel that deals with such bleak subjects as alcoholism and cruelty. Besides, what is only hinted at and left to the reader's imagination in the book is dwelt upon with complaisance in the TV adaptation: making some scenes both gross and comic, (like when Huntingdon's eye starts bleeding) and others far too sexed up for a period drama! I mean, don't we get enough of those bed scenes in contemporary dramas?


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


user
Brilliant book with wonderful characterizations and insights into human nature, particularly the nature of addiction, which still resonate strongly today.
As for the movie... eh. Nothing special. The cameraman clearly had an unfortunate addiction to circling and circling and CIRCLING around everything, making the viewer quite nauseous. Why the director didn't put a stop to this is beyond me--but maybe he was too busy trying, and somehow failing, to draw good performances from these normally excellent but inappropriately-cast actors. All in all, a weak adaptation. Your three hours would be better spent reading (or re-reading) the book.


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


user
Before I go on I have to admit to being a huge Bon Jovi fan. In fact thats what attracted me to the DVD case in the first place. I probably would have bought it anyway being such a big horror fan and having enjoyed the first Vampires title so much.
But this isn't half as good. Not even Jon could save this film for me. My main problem would be that it simply isn't scary. Apart from Jon's character Derek Bliss none of the other characters make an impression and you couldn't care less whether they die or not, especially the annoying vampire / drug addict woman. The female vampire simply isn't scary or sexy. Rather she looks like an anorexic 14 year girl, no wonder she is so desperate for blood then. Another huge problem is that everything is just "too bright". There is no atmosphere or sense of dread. I know the first Vampires being set in New Mexico wasn't exactly the twilight zone in terms of creepiness but yet it still managed to be dark and foreboding when it needed to be. This film has no tension like that.
The story is basically the same as before. Vampire wants Berzier's cross to be able to walk in daylight. However the story has less cool bits this time. There is no wow factor in knowing this is the master of all master - the original vampire, as in the first film. You really don't care who or what this one is. There is no army of masters. Instead she hides out in some old ruin which looks more like a Disneyland attraction then a creepy temple.
So there you have it really. Lack of scares, lack of atmosphere, lack of interesting story. A real let down for me personally.


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


user
Really bad movie, the story is too simple and predictable and poor acting as a complement.
This vampire's hunter story is the worst that i have seen so far, Derek Bliss (Jon Bon Jovi), travels to Mexico in search for some blood suckers!, he use some interesting weapons (but nothing compared to Blade), and is part of some Van Helsig vampire's hunters net?, OK, but he work alone. He's assigned to the pursuit of a powerful vampire queen that is searching some black crucifix to perform a ritual which will enable her to be invulnerable to sunlight (is almost a sequel of Vampires (1998) directed by John Carpenter and starred by James Woods), Derek start his quest in the search of the queen with some new friends: Sancho (Diego Luna, really bad acting also) a teenager without experience, Father Rodrigo (Cristian De la Fuente) a catholic priest, Zoey (Natasha Wagner) a particular vampire and Ray Collins (Darius McCrary) another expert vampire hunter. So obviously in this adventure he isn't alone.
You can start feeling how this movie would be just looking at his lead actor (Jon Bon Jovi); is a huge difference in the acting quality compared to James Woods, and then, if you watch the film (i don't recommend this part), you will get involved in one of the more simplest stories, totally predictable, with terrible acting performances, really bad special effects and incoherent events!.
I deeply recommend not to see this film!, rent another movie, see another channel, go out with your friends, etc.
3/10


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


user
Listening to the director's commentary confirmed what I had suspected whilst watching the film: this is a movie made by a guy who wants to play at making a movie. The plot is the kind of thing that deluded teenagers churn out when they're going through that "I could write a book/screenplay/award winning sitcom" phase. There's a germ of an interesting idea buried in there (probably because its a sequel to some-one else's movie), but it is totally buried under an underwritten, badly executed and laughably un-thought-out script.
The lines are dire, and the performances are un-engaging, though again, I'm inclined to blame the director. He does not appear to have consulted the actors at all about what is required, rather plonked the script in their hands, pointed the camera at them and told them to get on with it. Who knows, with a little coaching, these actors could have acquitted themselves better (say what you like about musicians in movies, Jon Bon Jovi was excellent in Row Your Boat and more than acceptable in The Leading Man).
As it stands, the cast have no chemistry whatsoever. A beautiful opportunity to use the classic sex and vampirism parallel is passed up when, in order to infect Bon Jovi's character with vampire blood from his ailing co-hunter, he is given a transfusion. She should have bitten him. Mind you, they should have looked vaguely interested in each other throughout the rest of the film too. The only real moment of sexual tension, between the two female leads, is by the directors own admittance accidental. He had originally intended to use this silent sequence as an excuse for more pointless plot exposition - so, I suppose the finished product could have conceivably been worse. But not a lot.
Frankly, as movies go, this is badly plotted, silly and forgettable. Even as trashy movies go it's not sexy enough or gory enough to be entertaining. It could have been a fun and bloody little romp, but the director has left with more of a comedy, for all the wrong reasons.


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 not a good film. The acting is remarkably stiff and unconvincing.The film doesn't seem to know whether it is going for a real horror approach or to go down the camp and kitsch route. I never saw the first film but this one doesn't stand up on its own merits, there are several unconvincing plot twists and the viewer is never made aware of the importance of the lead female vampire. Not worth the effort of watching


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


user
First of all, Jon Bon Jovi doesn't seem to be in place in a vampire movie. Together with the other not so interesting characters and the poor storyline the whole movie becomes predictable. If you keep that in mind and you're a total vampire movie fan, you can have some fun with a few of the scenes. Don't expect any Tarantino-style chapters here and neither an Anne Rice storyline. (I expect to have have forgotten the whole movie by tomorrow ;)


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


user
Hi folks
Forget about that movie. John C. should be ashamed that he appears as executive producer in the credits. bon jovi has never been and will never be an actor and the FX are a joke.
The first vampires was good ... and it was the only vampires. This thing here just wears the same name.
Just a waste of time thinks ...
JAKE Scorpio


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 isn't very good. It's boring, and not much blood for a horror film. The plot just trods along with not much happening. And I think the female vampire was so stupid. She had many chances to kill the vampire hunters since it shows her having lighting like reflexes. But, whenever she has one of them pinned, she just takes her time and something always happens where she doesn't bite them. No wonder this went straight to cable.
FINAL VERDICT: Not anywhere near as good as the first Vampire movie. You're a SUCKER if you waste your time on 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 was messed up. A sequel to "John Carpenter's Vampires", this didn't add up right. I'm not sure that I enjoyed this much. It was a little strange. Stick to the first "Vampires", it's a good movie. "Vampires: Los Muetos" wasn't a good attempt of a sequel.
4/10


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


user
The last reviewer was very generous. I quiet like the first movie, but can't say I enjoy this one very much. The beginning is bearable, but it goes downhill pretty quickly. I just don't see Jon Bon Jovi as a "bad-ass vampire hunter" and the vampire princess is neither sexy nor scary. A lot of the scenes just do not make sense. I mean any normal person would suspect something is up when a strange woman suddenly appearing out of nowhere to seduce you, let alone an experienced hunter. Why Una is able to communicate with Jovi? Nothing was ever explain in this movie, you wouldn't mind if it was entertaining, but that was too much to ask. This has to be one of worst vampire movie I have seen.


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


user
Ugh, what can I say other than, ugh. I rented this film because it was labeled as a sequel to the original Vampires. This movie could not have been any lamer. Lacking not only in plot, but the acting is atrocious. Combined with some obvious plot holes makes this movie a very hard one to watch. Many times I questioned my own sanity at continuing to watch the film long after the plot had jumped the shark. Here's a sampling of the lamer aspects...
***SPOILERS***
Professional "Slayer" insists on sleeping outdoors by himself at night. He wakes up to a woman crying, sitting no more than 3 feet from him in the middle of nowhere. He immediately goes to comfort her without questioning her sudden appearance. She goes from crying to seducing him, and he lets it happen with obvious results...
One of the main characters is Zoe, was bitten by a Vampire, but as long as she takes these "experimental pills" she got in Mexico City, she's fine, although her body temperature is below room temperature...
Guard outside of monastery where hero is staying the night is killed by vampires, hero leaves the next day. He then returns a day later only to be surprised that the vampires attacked the monastery the night after he left...
...avoid 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
I only rented this because i loved the first movie. However, calling it John Carpenters Vampires: Los Muertos is just a con trick to get you to rent it. He is in fact executive producer and clearly had nothing to do with the making of this film (Jeepers Creepers Anyone?)
A tragic storyline, terrible special effects and Jon Bon Jovi as the least convincing Vampire Hunter of all time. It's not even comically bad.
What we end up with is a dull, uninvolving film with a terrible script and indefinsibly bad and clichéd acting. It just reeks of low budget.
Avoid like the Bubonic plague.


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


user
John Carpenter's career is over if this sad excuse for a movie is any indication. His excuse is that he only produced it. Jon Bon Jovi looks like a girl. In fact, Bon Jovi and the two Vampire girls, Natasha Wagner and Arly Jover probably all fit in the same clothes. In short, it was hard to tell which one was cuter in an anorexic ramp-model sort of way. Bon Jovi has the most charisma. At least he looks happy when he is smiling. The two Vampire Girls on the other hand are all cramps and complaints. At one point they are about to give each other a wet kiss, but stop. Amazing how each Vampire movie has some set of morays for the respective vampires. At one point, Arly Jover is providing fellatio to a very dumb Vampire Hunter and then she sucks his blood while doing the sex act. It would have been an erotic moment except that it was filmed like a total goof, and the male actor looked mildly amused as he watched Arly Jover move her head to mimic something that was very obviously not happening. As far as gore is concerned, a few heads are ripped off, and the blood spurts profusely. These scenes have so little suspense or build-up that when they happen it is almost funny, and there is no "horror" pay-off from the scene. All you get as a member of the audience is a feeling of "Wow, that sure was a lot of red paint splattering on the walls. I wonder who has to clean it up." Throughout the movie, these Vampire Hunters who are obviously trying to kill Arly Jover (the top vampire in the world??) keep reaching out to her. At one point, Bon Jovi goes into the abandoned Church and after he just shot her with an arrow (and has done so on other occasions), he says "I am not trying to hurt you. I just want to talk to you. I want to get to know you." HUH?? Of course, the dumb vampire Arly jumps out to say hello and Bon Jovi sticks her again with another impaling device. "Why Can't We Be Friends" the 1970s hit song by WAR should have been the theme song for this movie. Aside from all of the other silly moments, there is a transfusion sequence when Natasha Wagner has all her Vampire blood removed, and the town people all line up to donate blood for her transfusion. I guess Blood Type is not important? Anyhow, all her Vampire blood is removed. Bon Jovi then decides that if that blood is transfused into him, he can beat Arly by becoming a vampire also. Of course, as the vampire blood is transfused into him, none of his healthy blood is removed. So apparently Bon Jovi is walking around with twice as much blood as any human can have in his body. And just like the first VAMPIRES, this one also has the vampires-bursting-into-flames special effect.


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


user
Thanks for killing the franchise with this turkey, John Carpenter and Tommy Lee Wallace. This movie sucks on so many levels it's pathetic. The first VAMPIRES was fun, but this low budget retread makes me yawn.
Jon Bon Jovi (the poor man's Kevin Bacon) drives around Mexico with a surfboard housing a hidden compartment holding his vampire killing gear ala Antonio Banderas's guitar case in DESPERADO. He picks up some lame "hunters" along the way (including an annoyingly feminist infected girl who takes pills to keep from turning into a vampire), and they set out to stop some female master vampire who is given no backstory and so we could care less about her or her quest (to walk in the sunlight by stealing the Black Cross and performing a ritual to allow her to do so). If you've seen the first VAMPIRES, you've already seen this, and done much better.
John Carpenter has been responsible for a lot of bad movies lately. Frankly, I think he's past his prime and incapable of making another horror classic. The only decent film he's done since THEY LIVE (1987) is VAMPIRES. Everything else is complete crap, right up until the unbelievably cheap looking and retarded GHOSTS OF MARS... and now this waste of celluloid. Where are more greats like ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13, HALLOWEEN (1), ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK and THE THING?
Carpenter crony Wallace proves he can't write his way out of a paper bag with his paper-thin script packed with yawns, groans and recycled gags from the original. Did I mention I hated every character in the movie? There was not a single memorable character in the whole film. How does that happen? This film has nothing to recommend it. Not even the DVD presentation is good; the menu looks awful.
By comparison, JASON X: "FRIDAY THE 13th IN SPACE" was a masterpiece. Now that is how you make a sequel and (re)energize a franchise, ladies and germs, as well as create an exciting DVD menu.


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


user
This "Debuted" today on the SciFi channel and all I can say is "I am speechless" I taped it today so I could watch it tonight after work. I had high hopes, Now I am tearing apart the closets looking for a length of rope so I can hang myself. Possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. I wish I could say something nice like "It was fun to make fun of this movie" but this movie is giving me nothing to work with. I know you are not supposed to post spoilers here with out prior warning but I am going to anyway "This movie sucks" There I said it! They should show this flick to film students to show them what NOT to do! My nine year old niece could make a better film. The only decent thing about this film is the sound and/or sound track. OH! I just found a rusty C-clamp in my old tool box. I am going to put it on the thumb of my left hand and tighten it until the pain erases the memory of what my eyes have seen. I could just tape over this VHS but I think I will burn it in the fire pit instead. I could wash with soap but I fear I will never be clean again. Christmas is coming. Buy this movie and give it to people you hate. -Mike


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 one of the most awful movies ever made.How can Jon Bon Jovi play in a movie? He is a singer not an actor, What?Is he killing vampires with his guitar? And what about the dreadful plot? O my God this movie really sucks. In the end is the Queen of vampires played by the eternal vampire Arly Jover (Blade) surrounded by an army of vampires, but when the "fantastic" slayers arrive only 4 vampires are left!! What happened with the other 10-15 vampires? They run out in the sun??? And what about the "Grand Finally" when Bon Jovi blows her head with a shotgun??? That's really a "NOT" . In "Buffy the vampire Slayer" in 100 episodes not a single vampire is killed with A SHOTGUN??? This really is a lack of originality!


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 very very mediocre and very very gory. everyone left their acting lessons at home and totally forgot how to act I mean it was so bad and had no real plot and kindergarteners could have written a better story plot wait what story plot. not at all scary!


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


user
The same difficulty I have with the musical version of "Les Miserables" applies equally to "Oliver." Instead of the composers' writing in the stylistic period of the play settings, they merely wrote Broadway-type melodies, which were historically unidiomatic and stylistically skewed.
Too, the blatant brutality and unsavory activities of the dramaturgy do not mix well with some of the sunny ditties which permeate the score. It's a uncomfortable mixture that leaves a decidedly sour undertaste.
The casting of the boy Oliver doesn't help matters: tentative of timbre and vexingly precious, there's something less than solid here. Fagin performs his traditional routine adequately, though the tunes he's obliged to sing have little basis in period manner.
"As Long As He Needs Me" is given a strident rendition, throaty and strained. The two big production numbers, "Who Will Buy" and "Consider Yourself" seem over-produced, with everything but the kitchen sink thrown in. It's one thing to go all out, yet another to cross over the line into excess.
The gloom, despair and depravity of much of the novel does not seem to lend itself to such ditties and choreography. While the novel is considered a classic, I must confess I have trouble with Mr. Dickens' consciousness, in that his works tend to emit a negative vibration. This may be due to the extension of his joyless personal life, which was full of disappointment and regret.
Not all the combined talent of this production, either on- or behind camera, can overcome the unconstructive nature of the basic material. All this results in an uncomfortably downer experience for me.



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


user
The producers made a big mistake casting Mark Lester, who couldn't act or sing, in the title role. Aside from his very bad "acting", all of Lester's singing had to be dubbed by a girl. I don't know why they cast him at all, since there would have been so many boys who could have played the part infinitely better and done their own singing as well. Shani Wallis was far too old to play Nancy, who was only supposed to be 16. The current West End version is so much better than the movie in every way. Ross McCormack is the best Artful Dodger of all time and he is certainly far better looking than Jack Wild ever was. It was clearly political to award this old-fashioned musical so many Oscars after the tumultuous events of 1968.


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


user
Must every good story be "improved" with added corny Broadway music? Apparently those who can't come up with their own plots think that classic literature is just there for the plundering. I confess that Oliver Twist and similar stories are not my favorites, as it is certainly true that Dickens often wrote things that leave you considerably bummed out, and this was a great example of just that... So of course, take this serious tale and add nauseating music and camp it up with every character from prancing orphan boys to mincing bobbies and suddenly it's uplifting? Argh. Fetch me a basin.
The four stars in my rating come from casting, which I could liken to that of My Fair Lady. Each of these films had a cast that a play version could be proud of, but then they must go and have them sing (see complaint above). Unlike My Fair Lady, those singing here could actually do so and they mercifully spared us the singing voice of Oliver Reed (pardon if I'm mistaken, it's been a while).
My biggest complaint I've stated. Why embarrass everyone except the truly shameless by putting silly songs into a perfectly good story? Seldom has this been done to good effect. Generally it ruins the story. It did with this one. Jury's still out on whether this story is worth saving, but with all that gadding about, it's impossible to tell.


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


user
I like musicals but as a Dickens fan I HATE this one. **MILD SPOILERS** Starving boys who have enough energy to sing and dance in the workhouse? The poor of London coming out to sing? Fagin and Dodger walking off into the sunset? Not exactly faithful to the novel. As I recall, Dodger was publicly hanged and Fagin went crazy in prison. **END OF SPOILERS**
Oliver Reed is very weak as Sykes, doing little more than growling to indicate his evil. Worst however, is Mark Lester as Oliver, who often comes across so awkward and passive you wonder if he's really the main character. His portrayal is in no way helped by the fact that the best they could do when he sings is dub in the voice of a girl. Guess they didn't realize that boy trebles can be found in almost every church in England.
Self-respecting Dickens fans: stick to David Lean's amazing 1948 film or the BBC 6-hour adaptation from the mid-80's. Avoid this bloated whitewash of a musical.


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


user
Well, I saw this movie yesterday and it's - unfortunately - worse than you could think. First of all the plot is idiotic, it has no sense at all. The screenplay is full of intentionally funny dialogues. The audience was laughing many times. And the suspense is very low. Actors play so-so, with an exception of Sharon Stone, who has some good moments but also some awfully bad acting moments. The saddest parts are when she tries to be aggressively sexy and says things like "I want to *beep* you " and it looks like, let's say it gently, a very very mature woman acting rude and not sexy at all. That erotic tension from BI1 is totally gone. From the technical point of Basic Instinct 2 is a mediocre movie - better than typical straight to DVD, but on a far lower lever than the original movie. For instance the scene of crazy joyride is done poorly. The director of Basic Instinct 2 is no Paul Verhoeven and it shows. The new composer is no Jerry Goldsmith and its shows. The script is done by people who are no match for Joe Eszterhas. There's no substitute for Michael Douglas in it. The film looks cheap and badly edited at times. I'm sorry but my first thought after I left the theater was: "Why heaven't they made this movie earlier and with original talents behind the success of the first movie?" All to all the original movie is like Citizen Kane compared to this. The first Basic Instinct is a classic and was a kind of break-thru in the popular cinema. It was provoking, sexy and controversial. It had the best Sharon Stone's performance in her career. It had this specific Paul Verhoeven's style. Unfortunately Basic Instinct 2 is a unintentionally funny movie, badly directed and a sure Razzie Award Winner in many categories. It's a pity that they made this film.


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 like I have overwhelmingly fond memories of Verhoeven's original pants-down shocker - it always struck me as a glossy, well-made airport-novel-of-a-movie. Thrilling, sexy trash, but trash nonetheless. It was also a film that tapped into a certain sexual zeitgeist. After a decade of anti-sex AIDS-induced hysteria, a film about a wildly-sexual hotbod who thrill-kills to heighten her sexual pleasure was pretty enticing stuff. Basic Instinct 2 was always going to struggle to provide the same social relevance and immediacy, so the fact that it's desperate attempts at raunchiness are so lame can sort-of be overlooked. All it really had to provide was that thin veneer of titillation and a mildly engaging story and all would have been watchable. That it resoundingly fails on so many levels, and in such a way to be a career nadir for everyone involved, is really quite extraordinary to watch. Let's state the obvious for starters - Sharon Stone is too old for the part of sexual magnet Catherine Trammell. What was so photogenic thru Verhoeven's lens looks like mutton dressed as lamb in the hands of gun-for-hire Michael Caton-Jones, who's flat, drab colours and static camera render her undeniable beauty totally moot. I like Sharon Stone a lot, but if the first film launched her career, BI2 could kill it. She has no chemistry with stuffed-shirt David Morrissey - their only sex scene is embarrassing too watch. His dough-faced mamma's boy of a character made me yearn for the swaggering, orange-skin machismo of Michael Douglas. Supporting turns by David Thewlis and Charlotte Rampling waste these fine actors on talky exposition scenes and cliché-heavy posturing. And what of the much-touted sexual shenanigans? Poorly-lit, fleetingly-glimpsed, as utterly mainstream as an episode of Desperate Housewives - the European sensibilities that Verhoeven brought to the sexual content of the first film are sorely missed. Don't watch this film for carnal thrills - there are none and what there is is tragic. The film is, as a whole, convoluted to the point of utter confusion, boring and laughable. The last 40 minutes in particular, where you come to the realisation that the film is, in fact, not going to go anywhere of interest at all, are particularly gruelling and hilarious in equal measure. As a failed sequel, Basic Instinct 2 will come to occupy similar cinematic ground as Exorcist 2 The Heretic, Beyond The Poseidon Adventure and XXX2. As a vanity project, it rivals Battlefield Earth in its misconception. As a multi-million dollar piece of Hollywood film-making, it's a travesty that will be hard to top as the years worst.


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


user
I saw this film at the London Premiere, and I have to say - I didn't expect much, but I did expect something that was at least mildly entertaining.
The original "Basic Instinct" was no great film and is still something of a "smut classic" but it was entertaining. I can recall countless times flipping through channels on TV on a late Friday or Saturday night having come across the movie and finding myself beginning to actually pay attention to it.
However, this lame-brain, waaay-belated sequel has nothing. Is Sharon Stone still gorgeous? Well, let's put it this way -- for a 47-year-old, she's pretty hot. Is she as beautiful as she was in the original? No. She also has clearly had plastic surgery on her face, and her haircut in this movie is somewhat unappealing. She doesn't look as soft or genuine or innocent as she did in the original -- which is sort of the whole point of being an evil seductress, and whatnot.
The rest of the performances range from bad to terrible -- and Michael Caton-Jones (a typically safe director -- one who doesn't always do great work but manages to make worthwhile movies) has officially delivered his first true turkey; a movie so bad people were laughing at certain moments that were intended to be serious.
I hear the film went through multiple editing sessions, and it's very clear from the start. Nothing makes much sense. The whole plot is a cosmic mess and the ending -- oh my! Talk about stupid AND unbelievable. (Still predictable, though.) I saw "Gigli," I saw "Son of the Mask" -- and although I'm not looking to "smear" this film, I can say with my own authority (which you don't have to agree with at all, mind you) that I prefer both those films over this catastrophic failure.
By the way, Stone left five minutes before the movie began and people in the theater began throwing things at the screen during a particularly outrageous and insulting scene inside an orgy-type nightclub.
"Basic Instinct 2" -- basically, it stinks, too.


assistant
0