empathielabs/imdb_v0 huggingface dataset:
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nFrom the point of budget 2.5m CAD isn't very much when you look at the animatronics, puppetry in this film, that alone being the reason for the 9 week shoot. I was really keen to see this film and had hoped to catch it when it came out, instead got it on DVD recently. My main problem is it's just not funny at all, it's better than Tenacious D which hasn't got a funny bone in it's body. But this was a truly disappointing film.
Trevor Matthews is a very strong physically performer, but his acting sucks! Rachel Skarsten gives what is possibly one of the most irritating and none funny performances I have ever seen. The only really BIG star in this is David Scott who's artwork for the monsters is fab! His special effects work is the main reason this film is worth watching, loved the Cyclops and Troll and and the Prof Monster was straight out of the Henson library.
If you watch this it won't be the biggest waste of time, but if you are looking to see this for a great Horror Comedy Romp... Don't bother.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI've seen many horror, splatter, monster movies in my life. And of course also a lot of monster movies from the 50's and 60's. When I first stumbled over this one I thought this is from the 60's until I recognized it's from 2007.
In fact the character of Jack Brook is interesting and the acting all in all is for a splatter movie quite good, but.... I expected a splatter movie and not a drama story about a aggressive plummer. The movie runs 80 Mminutes and I think the first kill is after 65 minutes. Although it takes hours to explain the story the reason where are the monsters come from takes at least 3 minutes... the we have another 20 minutes boring dialogue and finally a, in my opinion, not that well managed splatter sequence. Although we have Robert Englund starring here I only recommend this one to real hardcore horror fans.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nJack Brooks (Trevor Matthews) is a college student with some severe anger issues. His family was brutally murdered when he was a child by a monster, and now he takes out his anger on everything and everyone.
So when his professor (Robert Englund) begins to show signs of monsterism, he learns he has to control his rage and use it for good instead of evil, and fight the creatures that have been haunting his nightmares ever since that fateful night.
Truly earns its B-rated rating, but what was cool about it was that it didn't focus on crappy B-rated CGI graphics. In fact, 0% of the film was CGI. The monsters were actually decently put together, and although the storyline was lacking, it was somewhat watchable...if for only one time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nit's embarrassing I had like 3 minutes on my way to a job to stop at the video store and it was 2 for 1 night and I was really intrigued by the half nekkid pic of the 'star'.
I guess this film shows what the new york film school and sir daddy's fortune - judging by the bio of this clown in the lead - can do for you and you and you cause that's about what we have here and in addition a photoshopped pic of the lead \"actor\" with someone else's body in a still image that doesn't happen anywhere in the movie. it's weird cause in so many ways it had money thrown at it obviously low budget money buckets but from the outset when all the extras are laughing in their scene of terror it doesn't bode well would have maybe had some charm if it had been done for 2 cents! in short order I skipped scenes and fast forwarded to see the image on the box that was all I really cared about. strange, why don't I just rent a porno or something? but wow there is bad acting that's funny I guess and bad acting that's just bad. robert englund is pretty pathetic in this along with everyone else. it does make you appreciate the more not so straight to video horror that's out there. . . blah most of which I wouldn't bother with. shoulda watched uh hellraiser 3 if I wanted to see an 8 pack! I would imagine horny old gay guys with 2 minutes in the video store are going to be the principle renters of this and they ought to start a class action suit!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf there's one thing I've learnt from watching George Romero's Creepshow, it's that if you stumble upon an mysterious old crate that someone has obviously gone to a lot of effort to hide, just leave well alone: there's probably something nasty inside.
Obviously, Professor Gordon Crowley, Robert Englund's character in 'Jack Brooks, Monster Slayer' isn't a Romero fan, 'cos he busts open the old wooden box he finds buried in his yard, only to discoversurprise, surprisean ancient demon that possesses his body (initially causing him to eat and vomit rather a lot).
When the demon eventually erupts from Crowley's body during chemistry class and begins to transform the students into hellish, flesh-tearing beasts, it's up to plumber Jack Brooks (Trevor Matthews) to try and stop the foul creatures, armed only with a length of pipe and fuelled by a lifelong hatred of all things monstrous!.
The DVD packaging for Jon Knautz's low-budget monster flick promises one hell of a fun ride, offering cheesy thrills and spills of the kind one might expect from your average 80s creature feature (toothy critters, rubber monster suits, gruesome gore, and absolutely no CGI!)and for the last 15 minutes, that's exactly what viewers get: non-stop splattery effects; a silly, tentacled Jabba-style demon thingy; and mucho macho monster mashing!
It's a shame, then, that the rest of the film's running timea massive 70 minutes or sois mostly spent following Jack as he goes about his boring, everyday business: plumbing, visiting his shrink, going to chemistry class, and upsetting his girlfriend. If you think you might enjoy a film that focuses primarily on coping with childhood trauma and anger management, buying spare boiler valves from a hardware shop, and the chemical properties of Sodium, then this is the film for you; but if it's a massive dose of monster mayhem you're after, then I'd advise looking elsewhere!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThough a fan of shock and gore, I found this movie disappointing to say the very least. The effects and puppet work were impressive, yes, and the humor was well-timed, but... something was missing. See, the first act of the film is spent establishing nuances of Jack Brooks' character, despite the fact that everything we need to know about his aggression is delivered within minutes of the first title cards. As for the narration and many of the flashbacks: needless.
The pacing during the second act was tedious. Most of it is focused on Freddy Krueger eating, then vomiting, then eating some more, then flailing his arms and saying something snappy or rude. All the while, the schlock is punctuated with brief scenes of Jack discussing his rage problems with a therapist. (Definitely the entertaining scenes in the film -- excellent dialog worth plenty of laughs.) Then, without warning, Jack decides to kill a few monsters. And then it's over.
All in all, as a throwback to 1980s horror movies, Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer has loads of potential but is purposeless and plods on without conflict or adequate resolution.
Hopefully, these issues will be addressed before Jack Brooks VII: Jack Goes to Hell or Jack vs. Ash go into production.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nJack Brooks' quirks are, at first, somewhat charming and lend to the deliberately campy feel of the beginning of this movie.
I found myself getting angrier and angrier as I was duped into seeing this one through to the end, in hopes that the payoff would be worth the super-tedious wait.
The climax can't begin to make up for all the setup time.
Normally one might expect shallow characters from this genre. But the fact that the wait-time-before-action index is so high, should mean that the meantime would be devoted to some interesting character development.
Not so.
While not without its initial charms, this movie ultimately infuriates, and disappoints.
Wish I could get all that setup time back, to reinvest it into something that pays off.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI fail to understand why you would give this film anything over 4... Fair enough it does take me back to the 80s and to the 'good old days of horror comedy' but that genre has not got any better since then - it is still so 'LAME Low budget - low tech - bad acting - bad story line - not at all scary and not funny enough... in fact there is not much good I could say about it. The so called monsters are just hideously bad! I mean we have gone back in time to when they used to make the monsters out of plasticine and shoot the scenes fame by frame... I really fail to understand why someone would invest any money in order to make this script to a film - but I guess it might have been almost OK if it had been a bigger budget film.
Recommendation would be - please do not make the mistake of wasting your time on this unless if you wish to get tips for a bad Halloween make up! Personally I enjoy independent films and anything outside the box but this just did not do it for me in the least.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI don't know why this has gotten any decent reviews as it could be the weakest horror comedy I've ever seen. Englund is just in it for a cameo and his performance is as unnecessary as most of the lame attempts at jokes (and scares). The direction is terrible and the acting is worse. It seems like every year producers are trying to make another Evil Dead but these weak unoriginal attempts are just stepping on the memory of a true horror classic.
Whether its filmmakers saying,\"this isn't a remake but its an 80s throwback (which is just as unoriginal in my opinion - Hatchet) or people trying to plug this with other horror classics, Its still misleading and wont make up for the lack of scares, horror, comedy, or even a decent movie for that matter.
AVOID AT ALL COSTS!!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was just watching a Forensic Files marathon on Court TV. The episode was identical to the plot of this movie, right down to the incest secret and the affair-with-the-sister subplot. I don't recall any Based on a True Story disclaimer, but the case does have MOW written all over it. Apparently it chronicles the real homicide of Ruby Morris by her husband Earl, sentenced to 25 years to life for her murder. Just goes to show you, truth can be stranger than fiction, because I thought the Lifetime plot was contrived and a more than \"a stretch\" insofar as believability goes. I'm with the other posters who said the acting was bad. I didn't notice it with all of the players, though. It was really the lead character, the daughter, whose performance was bad.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is a terrible film. Angie Dickenson is a class act and always does well, but she does not get many roles any more and she must have needed some money to do this film. By the way, she is on screen less than 10 minutes. Oooh, wait, there is one redeeming feature in this film: Meg Foster has a small part in this film. Now, Meg has been on the screen for 35 years and is not particularly great but she has the scariest eyes of any actress I have ever seen. By name, you probably don't know her, but one look at her eyes and you will recognize her. To summarize: the acting is horrid, the story bad, and even the filmography is dreadful. A screen going to black every time the director wants to change scenes is pretty moronic. Watch any thing else but this, even Mr Ed reruns!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis was intolerable. (SPOILER #1) Protagonists avoid the pointless disclosure of agonizing truths to their loved ones, lest they surrender said status and assume the roles of Antagonists. (SPOILER #2) The writers would have us believe that the exposure of multiple transgressions, by the transgressor, presents a threat to, and provokes a retaliatory response by, the primary victim of the transgressions. (SPOILER #3) Until the final 15 minutes, I was anticipating a score of 6 to 8 out of 10; instead, it was kind of like discovering that Lieutenant Columbo's dog is the REAL murderer. The story just wasn't credible, and I don't think the world's best director could have saved it without massive editing.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI know this is a made for TV movie, and the acting in made for TV movies is usually sub-par, but it's absolutely horrendous in this film. Sometimes acting gets so bad it's laughable, but in this case, it's so bad it's sickening.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm watching this film as I write this. It's about 45 minutes into the film and there's been so much back and forth and empty drama, I don't quite see where it's going. No facts, just enough to leave you making assumptions. The acting of main daughter is painful. How did this ever get made??? Not the best of Lifetime films.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nCome on? FANTASTIC DRAMA ON SCREEN? Are you joking folks? I wouldn't put horrible Molly Gross to play even in school play! Where did these people learn acting? Borrowing some papers from their neighbors actor? Terrible plot, awful acting. Heh ... why do you take us for an imbeciles? What can I say more. I understand this is an TV production and the acting is not supposed to be the one from Citizen Kane. But nevertheless they should try it harder in order to earn their money. And apart from that what can be said IN 10 LINES for a simple movie like this? U wanna article in the morning paper? To say what? Worse film in the decade? OK, you want it - you got it!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm very disappointed. First of all, the German synchronization is bad. Maybe in the original version (with subtitles) it would have been better, but the whole movie looks like if the director saw Luna Papa and Black Cat White Cat and tried to produce something in this style, too. But failed in every aspect. It's an incongruent mixture of a weird unbelievable story and very childish gags. No atmosphere, no life. Extremely primitive sex-humor. I voted 2, because 1 is the worst, and the other point for 'Sybilla', she's really cute. Sorry - I like 'eastern' movies, but this one is really superfluous.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn order for a thriller to elicit fear, suspense or any emotion the story must be believable. There is nothing believable or realistic about this film. The protagonists have several opportunities to escape or turn the tables but manage to screw it up every time. The antagonists who supposedly plan this out and customized their shuttle specifically to trap people sure left a lot of improvisational weapons laying around. There is actually one scene where the \"smart\" girl has a gun to the head of the main bad guy and decides to scold him instead of pull the trigger. This was a thoroughly predictably, brainless \"thriller\". Every character was one dimensional. The \"victims\" were the usual gutless, brainless sheep that deserved to be slaughtered. Is there anyone on this planet capable of writing an intelligent thriller?
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDon't pick this one. ****Spoiler Alert***** The plot of this aggravatingly bad movie is four friends are talked into taking the shuttle from the airport by a very zealous driver. On the shuttle with them is a rather milquetoast looking business type.
Shortly into their trip the driver of the shuttle takes an off-ramp and some lunatic driver tries to run them off the road. The end result is they get a flat tire. The driver gets one of the people on the shuttle to help change the tire and the jack slips and the guys fingers are crushed between the tire and the shuttle. It's at this point that the driver reveals himself to be a kidnapper and he has taken all the people hostage.
Now the movie gets extremely slow and tedious, as the characters do one lame thing after another. One of the men is killed trying to escape -- even that lacks any suspense. Finally it is revealed that the milquetoast business guy is in cahoots with the driver when milquetoast guy kills the other male friend by slitting his throat.
There are a couple of attempts to escape by the women. Milquetoast is beaten over the head with a tire iron -- yet he survives.
The driver is also beaten and somehow survived a head on collision with a fence at high speed while kneeling next to the steering wheel. Somehow he didn't go through the window or even get seriously injured with a collision with windshield. Yet the woman driving the shuttle is knocked unconscious -- yet she had a steering wheel to protect her and he had nothing between him and the windshield.
He is eventually able to subdue the women and get them to an underground garage that is a front for human trafficking. One of the women is killed. The other one stabs the driver in the leg with a good sized piece of broken mirror and shoots/grazes him in the head, yet he is able (in what should be a severely weakened state -- severe blood loss, two head injuries and a large leg gash) to drag her out of the shuttle, drag her to a large crate, throw her in and get it locked, all the while with her fiercely fighting him.
Now some people admire the message of the movie about human trafficking and how it is going on today. This is a serious problem. But, making an extremely boring movie about the topic does not entitle it to a higher rating.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI found 'Shuttle' an incredibly frustrating film to watch. It starts quite well and moves along briskly until the first 'injury' (which is a doozy). After that it becomes very lazy and underwritten as a story. It was the case of the plot driving the characters and not the characters driving the plot. If you hate film where you can't understand why characters do what they do, you will loathe 'Shuttle'. Particularly, the last act is odd and seems to occur in a world without common sense. Also at the end one of the characters confessed a past misdemeanor to her friend, rather than generating sympathy from the audience, most people started to giggle. This was probably because the 'heroines' of the story was a complete idiots. Finally there is an ending which just seems tacked on to be 'shocking' and comes from the horror cop-out school of 'people are bad, audience, so just accept it without any explanation'.
'Shuttle' is neither good or bad, but mediocre. And annoying.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHi, today i looked this film because of the medium (5,6) IMDb rating. I thought it would worth viewing. Also the comments here were quiet good but after start watching this movie i quick realize that this movie isn't anyway near a 5,6 ! Its just boring. You can describe the movie with some words also its just the standard horror movie story with all the standard horror movie scenes. I don't know why people still like those films or why they vote such films better then a 1-3 in IMDb. Just some examples
Bunch of people arriving from somewhere or going / driving to anywhere. They meet somehow on their journey strange people but hey maybe they are just nice so hang out with them. Then a very important scene for every horror movie \"Oh my cell phone isn't working oh oh mine too .. is that strange but we don't need them so enjoy our ride ...\" uhhhhhh our strange person is a strange psychopath better we all sit back and scream a while till he starts cutting parts from us or killing some of us. After a while the bunch of victims get a weapon or chance to escape ofcorse they never think about running away or even kill the psychopath if they got the chance they just talk about what to do until the psychopath got his weapon back with any of the handful of standard tricks they got in those films and all running back as usual ... screaming ... some more to kill ... oh and in the end it gets really exiting sometimes the bad guy wins sometimes some of the victim can escape wow great movies. ... OK if i never ever saw a movie of that kind i would say it is a movie which can be watched but if anyone ever saw any movie of its kind it should be just a boring waste of time because nearly everything in the movie you know before you even watched it because it every time runs like the standard horror movie shematic. .... mmm maybe there is a windows program out there? Horrormoviemaker 2.0 ? You can just pull some adjustment buttons and get the new Shuttle, Saw45674, Jeepers Creepers kind of movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOK this will contain spoilers. Now I have never seen such a large pile of poop since the laxative/feed mix up at the elephant enclosure in the zoo! It has more plot holes than moth eaten lace and as for the 'realistic' plot line. Well sexual slavery is a dreadful and very real world wide problem and this pile of bilge utilises this plague as a plot device to titillate and tease, shame on everyone involved for that piece of questionable judgement. But back to the film, if you were going to kidnap people from an airport, some of the most secure and camera happy places in the modern world by the way, then why plant a stoolie on the inside of the van who does bugger all until the plot needs a twist. Just wait until you are out of the airport, pull the gun, handcuff the passengers, drive calmly to the warehouse and kill the guys, job done. On the passengers side, on at least three occasions the good guys have the bad guys incapacitated and are armed, WASTE THEM! Once in a movie it can just be acceptable not to put a bullet in the bad guys skull, but COME ON three times! And after he's killed most of you. Also the guy is willing to put down the gun to stop a scarred cheek but kills a girl for a yeast infection that could be cleared up with $20 dollars worth of drugs. I could go on and on about the amount of holes in this but I won't waste any more of my time. Suffice to say that I have rarely been so insulted by such a dreadful piece of drivel and as for the real problem of sexual slavery, girls go voluntarily to new 'jobs' in distant lands and are abused, raped, and often killed by the gang master who meets them off the boat/plane and takes their passports and freedom. This s**t is an insult to anyone whose life has been affected by this! Do not waste your time!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"Shuttle\" is an indie thriller about four young adults who get a ride late one night on a shuttle bus from the airport to find out that the driver is a sadistic psychopath.
Although some of the sequences of scares and it's unconventionally interesting plot work, some aspects just don't. The bad dialogue and unlikeable characters gives a good reason to not care for them. But, often the suspense works and asks you the question of \"What would you do?\" and usually what you WOULD do isn't what these idiots on the shuttle do.
If you're expecting a mindless, bloody horror film, you'll be mistaken. This is a film that causes you to use your mind, but, unfortunately, not until the end.
Four out of ten.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nPERHAPS SPOILER !! well, i ve seen it at the film festival in cologne and i have to say it s ridiculous ... sorry author and writer and ...whatever but it is the worst try making a good movie i ve ever seen ... if u ve got 5000 times the possibility to get away from your enemy and u don't do it .... its getting boring ... there are szenes in the movie witch gives u the impression that they are forgotten e.g. a szene in front of a security cam, they are asking for help and a somebody sees it and calles the police ... than there is a cut and .... NOTHING ??!!! ... the killer gets a shot in his head and 50 secs later he is behaving like nothing happened ... no its no zombie movie ... and finally the final ... the BIG END which we were promised .... hmmmm, lets say take a little guy who always wanted to give the world one of the best endings in history so badly that everything goes wrong .... im not going to vote \"1\" because the actress is beautiful ... ;)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBrainless film about two girls and some guys they meet in an airport getting on the wrong late night shuttle bus and ending up in a whole world of trouble. Great twists and turns are totally, and I do mean totally wasted, in a film with a plot so incredibly stupid as to defy description. What is going on in a general sense is okay, I mean the idea of a guy kidnapping unattended girls for nefarious purposes is a good one. The problem is that the details are so beyond belief that I would be shocked if you don't turn off the film in utter disbelief. Gee, a guy who is suppose to be taking you home doesn't go any of the ways you know, and you stay on the bus? It get worse from there, think of every bad choice and this film has the characters make it, even to the point where they could just walk away, but never do. Whats annoying is that some of the twists and turns might have worked if there was something intelligent before it, but there is almost no intelligence anywhere in this film. Okay, maybe there is, the end, the end is clever. The end is the sort of thing that should freak you out. it should be the \"oh #$*@!!!!\" moment and become a classic of horror cinema. Instead it just lies there among the stupid ruins of a stupid movie. One of the most brainless films of the year.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI had a hard time sitting through this. Every single twist and turn is predictable. You're sitting there just waiting for it ... waiting for it ... and yes, there it is! Just as you predicted at the very beginning of the movie. Or 10 minutes out. Et cetera.
Smart writing? No.
Torture porn? No, there's no nudity. Other reviews calling this torture porn are most likely written by people on heavy drugs. Unfortunately there's no torture and no nudity (yes, no nudity).
There's no suspense at all in this \"thriller\". The only good part about this movie is the ending, but I'm not going to spoil that.
I'm giving it a 2/10. A 1/10 would be a horrible B-movie. This movie had better acting.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe beginning was decent; the ending was alright.
Sadly, this movie suffers from complete and utter shallowness of the characters, unrealistic confrontations/fight scenes, lack of anyone intelligent outside of the shuttle. This makes for an awful middle screenplay.
Stuff to look for: overly obvious foreshadowing, fast-healing cuts, overly smoky fires, fun seatbelts, delayed reactions.
I did give it a 4, not a 0, because the start of the movie had some nice elements of happiness and basic character development. The relationship between the main, dark-haired girl and her fiancée is touched upon briefly, and the placement of the blond friend's impact on that relationship is present, though awkwardly so. The business discovered at the end is becoming more mainstream and decently done, though, as another commenter pointed out, not unexpected.
~viper~
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI hate guns and have never murdered anyone, but when even half of the events that take place in 'Shuttle' happen to you or close ones and you find a gun, YOU SHOOT YOUR ATTACKER. THREE TIMES. FIVE TIMES. Whatever makes the pulse stop on them and increase on you. I think even God would say, \"Good call.\" In a very 'Hostel'-type film, but more realistic  as this really could happen to anyone, well, if you're a pretty young woman, that is  'Shuttle' was a decent film, though on the long side. A few good shocks (always call AAA even just to change a tire), basically just one surprise but for the most part, you could see things coming. And aside from the typical \"tie him up\" instead of the previously mentioned shooting him, the most annoying part was the revelation towards the closing from one best friend to the other. Getting past those, it's enjoyable for what it is. Basically, we have two unsuspecting females traveling alone from Mexico home (wow, that's original) and one lost her luggage preventing them from leaving the airport until late. And after an obvious foreshadowed sign-language scene, they enter a \"too-good-to-be-true\" half-price shuttle ride. Clichéd jocks, previously introduced, con their way on the shuttle, to join what appears to be Alan Ruck's stunt double from 'Speed.' From here, it's obvious what happens (I did mention it was a 'Hostel' knock off) but still, I didn't find too much horrible, yet nothing spectacular. Though, it would've served the audience better with roughly 15-20 minutes deleted, I would recommend if you have almost 2 hours to kill and are into sick horror.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is stupid, made by stupid people. The plot I suppose works well enough for a Horror movie, but the actions these characters take is insanely STUPID! Like, incredibly non-sensical stupid to the Nth degree! Basically the whole movie consists of these 4 idiots being captured, repeatedly, despite having many, many easy ways and opportunities to overcome their captor. It does not make one lick of sense and is not entertaining whatsoever. Stabbing yourself in the eye is more is more rational, and probably more fun than watching this.
****SPOILERS**** The ending is hilarious!! The only good part of the movie! I nearly died laughing at the end! That whole stupid movie, and it ends with the dumb girl getting shipped off in a crate to white slavery in Asia!! Hilarious! I thought it was a totally awesome ending to a really sh!tty movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is about as stupid as it gets.
A classic case of two-dimensional characters who always act exactly contrary as to what a sane person would do in the same situation. It reminds me of a scene in \"Scary Movie\" where Carmen Electra flees from the killer. There are two signs, one marked \"to safety\", the other one \"to sure death\" (I am reciting from memory).
And just like in Scary Movie, the characters always run into the direction marked \"Sure Death\".
Why oh why did the girl start the fire in the teller booth AND HOLD THE DOOR SHUT ??? Did she prefer to die in the fire instead being killed by the guy? Why oh why, after cutting and overpowering the driver did they sit him in the seat and have him being watched by the wounded guy instead of plain shooting him or at the very least knocking him out? He was running over their friend and killing him a minute before, yet they have scruples ?? Why oh why a hundred things more ...
If this movie were a road, you could not drive a single yard because of the holes. Everything is so far-fetched, it's starting to physically hurt at times.
Add mercilessly overplaying \"actors\" and a small budget to that and here's what you get. Looking at the rating and the comments, I get the feeling those people have been watching an entirely different movie.
The one thing missing really, is the infamous red toolbox from \"While She was out\" - a movie that is about similar in unrealistic plot and stupid behavior of the characters.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"Shuttle\" is/was more than a boring movie that had an interesting start, but after half an hour it ended in the worst imaginable way I ever could imagine. This movie has lost its story, if you can call it a story? ... after half an hour. All the next scenes are totally out of proportion. The driver is some kind of superman because he survives every attack with gun - knife etc.. even after stabbed in his leg he was able to put her in the box. But what a coincidence that there was a box in that garage. I really felt sick and misled when the movie ended. It could have been such a great one if the story was far more better. In my opinion even a kid would make a better story. And why shipping the girl with water and food. I quit with counting the plot holes about halfway through. And when the movie reached its almost admirably sick over-the-top final twist, I had completely given up (better say \"throw-up). The worst thing about Shuttle is actually that it can not be even more worse that worse. Maybe writer/director Anderson will learn from this lesson and provide us with a decent thriller next time. Think the better he'll move to a different genre. I Keep my fingers crossed. But from now on I will read the comment on his future movies first before looking. A waste of time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nJust saw this film at the Fantasy Filmfest BERLIN. i am not impressed.
As far as the story goes. Too girlfriends return from their Mexico vacation. While waiting for their luggage they get to know a couple of boys, who then take the last and of course wrong shuttle bus to the city. On board is also one other older man, so weirdly portrayed that you instantly guess that he is one of the bad guys. The other one is the driver.
The shuttle takes them into industrial wasteland and then one after the other goes done, a little blood, some cut of extremities, some violence, mostly playing with the fear of the girls In the end after some ups and downs, heres and there's, some not too new scary moments, everyone is dead but the driver and the girls. the girls end up in some garage, where one of them is killed, after confessing that she had slept with the other girlfriends boyfriend. The other girl, which is the conclusion, is sold by the left-over kidnapper (yep, weirdo got killed) in some cargo box to asia (a freight harbor being the final picture.) First. Story. Tons of loopholes, questions you ask yourself, loose ends, and a conclusion that is not a good revelation, but a total disappointment. I can't see how such a unprofessional looser is supposed to have abducted dozens of women (as is indicated by a drawer full of drivers licences...aha) Second. Acting. Mediocre at its best.
Third. Scare Factor. OK. but I AM BoRED by torture as a means to nothing but itself. Trade with humans could be a good reason for a horror flick, but it's not used as one, just as a background.
Fourth, Music and Sound. Some nice tries, but the sound possibilities of the industrial landscape, warehouse garage, and truck sounds have not been really explored. Music? Would have been worse without it, but apart from that. Some pseudo moving synth string theme for emotionality when the girls reach their final destination. OK, I guess.
Verdict: AVOID IT!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nwaste of 1h45 this nasty little film is one to avoid, its like a cheap badly plotted cross between saw and a few other recent films about kidnap, why the writer wrote this is obvious..he has no soul and did it to try and me some money. The twists were obvious, when those in peril could escape they did the obvious and didn't etc.. only good thing about it is I've discovered 1 new actress worth watching..peyton list, don't watch shuttle though, there are too many better nicer films to watch rather than this that will make you miserable and think less of the world. Spend your time more wisely watch good films, do some exercise, cook a nice meal..anything but waste your time on rubbish like this
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis show demonstrates the depths to which UK TV pre-watershed drama has sunk. With these dull scripts, mediocre acting, poor plots, awful dialog, one is forced to watch a DVD of any old ER episode to see excellent hospital drama.
None of the actors employed on this show seem to be able to actually act!
If you want low quality but easy to absorb soap opera style TV, this is the show for you. Personally I like something with more meat on the bone. Sadly as with all other UK licence payers, I'm funding this dross.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nCreakiness and atmosphere this film has, but so unfortunately does the print I just viewed. Raymond Massey provides a laid back Sherlock Holmes, almost comically so in early scenes in his bathrobe, which he trades in for a laborer's garb to investigate the creepy mansion of Dr. Rylott (Lyn Harding). What wasn't clear to me was why Rylott would have wanted his stepdaughters dead. If as in the case of Helen (Angela Baddeley), he didn't want her to run off to get married, he would have accomplished the same thing by having her dispatched.
Other curiosities abound as well. After setting an early wedding date with Helen, the fiancée is no longer heard from for the rest of the picture. The presence of a band of gypsies at the time of Violet Stoner's death provides merely a diversion, and what could have been an interesting murder tool, a poisonous snake, is diluted by the fact that it was not a cobra, the musical renderings of the Indian man servant notwithstanding.
Athole Stewart competently portrays Holmes' aide Dr. Watson, though he takes some getting used to if Nigel Bruce is more your cup of tea. As Rylott, Lyn Harding is sufficiently menacing, a trait that would be put to good use as Holmes' nemesis Professor Moriarty in two later films - 1935's \"The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes\" and 1937's \"Murder at the Baskervilles\".
With repeated choppiness and an unsteady camera, it's surprising that the story line isn't more disrupted than it is. It's integrity is generally maintained, even if one stretches a bit to fill in the gaps. I guess that would be my main complaint with the film, as mentally bridging some of the jump cuts in the picture proved to be a real pain in the asp.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMovies just don't get worse than this. Horrible plot, terribly timed, pathetic characters and effects and yes this is using \"B\" standards.
And for the guys: nothing, this movie is a terrible let down, couple scenes that could have been great but you get nothing but build up with no delivery.
This movie appeals to no one, horrible movie,it had bad; plot, acting, \"B\" flavor, special effects and everything else. Plus no nudity or erotics for guys or the girls.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere isn't enough space to explain the many ways this movie is a disappointing mess. Silly special effects and an incomprehensible plot are the least of this movie's problems. The film looks like it was conceived in the mid-eighties and just stewed until it could finally be made in the early nineties. The mullet-headed \"hero,\" (complete with fashionable \"Miami Vice\" three-days shadow beard), the ham-fisted slams at Ronald Reagan, it would be funny if it didn't take itself so seriously. As it is, the movie is just pathetic. I actually feel sorry for the poor actresses who wasted their fine nude scenes in this awful movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWell, at least this was the last sequel that I could find at Blockbuster, because this movie was just downright horrible. I mean, I can understand how hard it would be to get rid of an evil house. We're talking starting a horrible fire, bulldozing, flood, etc. But a mirror? How hard could it be can it be to get rid of a mirror?! This was the most horrible movie that could've put the title of Amityville into the picture!
Well, a group of friends who are pretty much from the start, are a bunch of freaks. One of them is a photographer of some kind and buys a haunted mirror from a homeless creepy guy, teaching me a valuable lesson, don't buy things from homeless creepy guy. Of course, the horrible deaths and chaos ensues this group, though I can't imagine anyone missing them.
Please, skip Amityville: A New Generation, I've already got a few complaints about my generation, so I think this was a premonition. Not to sound so crazy. :P But believe me, this is horribly acted, not well thought out, and not even scary! I feel so bad for the original writers of The Amityville Horror, they must be crying every time person witnesses this film.
1/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOh dear. This sequel has a mirror, this time, which houses the evil spirit of a psychopath which murdered an entire family with a shotgun in the Amityville home. The mirror captured the entire ugly incident of the horrified family who had no time to prepare for their uninvited guest. The mirror is given to a photographer, Keyes(Ross Partridge)by a bum(..who just so happens to be his lunatic father, and the man responsible for killing the family)and it's evil soon terrorizes those in a loft(..such as Keyes' painter pal Suki, portrayed by Julia Nickson-Soul)where he lives when they look into it. Soon Keyes is having nightmares, looking through the eyes of his father as he guns down the family in cold blood, worried that he might follow in his footsteps. Soon he sees other occurrences through his father's eyes like that terrible day pops bashed his mother's head against the floor of an institution or experiencing a moment inside the cell as doctor's administered a drug to immobilize him.
Pretty solid supporting cast who deserve better than being stuck in junk like this, such as David Naughton(American Werewolf in London)as the proprietor of the loft with which Keyes lives, Richard Roundtree as an eccentric sculptor/artist, Terry O'Quinn as a psychologist-detective, and especially Lin Shaye as a hilarious ditsy, rather strange secretary-nurse in the asylum(..the one which held Keyes' father) soon to be closed down.
Rounding out the film, the sexy, leggy Lala Sloatman as Keyes' supportive girlfriend, Barbara Howard(Friday the 13th:The Final Chapter)as Naughton's betrayed wife(..he was on the verge of starting an affair with Nickman-Soul), Jack Orend as the sadistic fiend who attempts to provoke his son into killing innocent people as he did, and Robert Rusler(A Nightmare on Elm Street 2:Freddy's Revenge)as a rejected lover(..of Nickson-Soul)who meets an unfortunate demise while ripping apart paintings as a revenge for his dismissal.
This film is a poor special effects movie merely using the Amityville title as a cash-in. The franchise has never been that great to begin with, but as each sequel was green-lit, it grew worse and worse. After the third film, furniture from the infamous house become \"possessed\" items tormenting folks. The cast try hard, though, but the material(..a mirror causing chaos and murder through supernatural means)is lacking in quality..and the rather mediocre special effects don't help matters. O'Quinn, as little as he has to work with, shows why he's such a great actor, he can even shine in excrement such as this. All's not lost, you get to see Sloatman always wearing super short skirts(..or her man's shirt in panties), showing off her legs throughout..hey, you have to find a silver lining somewhere. Believe it or not, AMITYVILLE:A NEW GENERATION was the seventh film in the franchise! Coolest part of the film were the portraits of demons painted by Nickson-Soul's artist, perhaps inspired by the evil mirror after looking into it.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAt the rate these movies are ploughing through the artifacts from the Amityville house it won't be long before we get down to the floorboards, but for now it's a mirror that's causing problems for more cardboard characters in this sixth entry in the series. A homeless man hands it over to artist hairdo Ross Partridge, who then has strange visions and discovers some unpleasant revelations about his past. This mundane horror trundles along at a dull pace, leaving us waiting for a build up that never comes as the various 'spooky' goings-on lead to a dumb finale. Bland and lifeless, with ropey acting and Partridge's huge hair not helping matters.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nNot a good one. -Not at all.
This installment revolves around a descent of the original murderer inside the Amityville home who must face his past to rid himself of the nightmarish terror of Amityville itself.
It's basically nothing. My bet is that this film was made for some extra fast-cash to buy a boat or something... because this one's just ridiculous... Thankfully, it doesn't kill or ruin the series, but it just has no effect on the series at all.
I'd have to say that just the fact that it is constantly referenced to the old, infamous house is probably the only thing that makes this one slightly more bearable than \"The Amityville Curse\".
\n
assistant\n0
\n"