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\nI do not like Himesh Reshamiya. I do not like his singing too. But his songs are a craze in India, especially among commoners. Now when he ventured to become an actor  that was a big joke! What guts he has to reap as much as he can in his prime time. I did never want to see this movie. But one thing changed it. The movie becoming a super-duper hit! After 2 weeks, Aap Ka Saroor has raked box office collection of 14 crores  compared to Apne that has collected 7 crores in the same 2 weeks. If I can sit through Apne and Rajnikant's absurd Sivaji  I should give this movie also a try to understand what stuff this movie has got that made it such a big hit? The story is about the real life singer Himesh Reshamiya (HR) who has gone to Germany for a concert and falls in love with Riya (Hansika Motwani). A German lawyer Ruby (Mallika Sherawat) loves Himesh. Now Himesh is arrested for a murder. The mission of Himesh (in last 40 minutes) after he runs away from jail is to prove himself innocent and find the real murderer.
Let me say that Himesh has nothing in him to become a hero. He tries hard but fails miserably. He is pathetic. I was thinking what could have made the movie click so much? Let me find something positive.
First, the saving grace of the movie is the script till the point Himesh runs away from the jail. (But after that the movie nose dives into unbearable stupid limits) Second, the songs of the movie are good, catchy, crowd puller numbers. Third, Mallika Sherawat  she looks gorgeous and acts well too, as the second lady. I can imagine fans of Mallika coming to see the movie just for her. Fourth, the cinematography of the movie is pleasing  especially the German locales, are a treat to watch for the eye. Fifth, the major portion of the story is a love story between Himesh and Riya  with clichéd dialogues that would probably connect to young crowd. Sixth, the Director Prashant Chadha has done a decent job in covering the pathetic acting skills of Himesh as much as possible with shots that don't need Himesh to act much.
The heroine Hansika Motwani looks like a small budget film heroine. Raj Babbar is wasted in a small role. Overall the movie is a below average.
I was thinking throughout the movie  what if the same movie script was done with Salmaan as the main lead. I think it would have had been a much better affair. May be then I would have given the movie 6 out of 10. But now (Stars 4.5 out of 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\nThe pace of this movie is quite slow. It takes about 70 minutes to get Katie to China (which we know that she will) and leaves 30 minutes to wrap things up. The storyline is so predictable that you know everything after about 5 minutes. Nothing surprises you. I guess that the movie is a coming of age movie but the movie is full of stereotypes that are quite over the top:
Katie - A beauty that realizes that looks, boys and shopping isn't everything. She realizes that she can \"feel\" and \"see the real world\". Touching.
The mother - high strung, nervous, screaming mother (wow very innovative) that need taking care of by a strong man.
The father - patient and always understanding and takes care of the incapable woman.
The boyfriend that only wants to get into her pants.
The comedian clown Chinese guy that doesn't know how to speak English properly and made a laughing stock. Thought Hollywood dropped those characters in the mid fifties.
The nurse that at times knows everything how to get around in China that in the next moment is a carbon copy of The mother i.e. a woman who cant handle the situation or knows anything.
The deformed Chinese girl that with the help of us westerns get help and become a beautiful girl. Because in China (a third world country according to the film) don't have anything and hence needs our charity. Gah, wake up and smell what you are shoveling.
Sure that there are some poverty in China but the portrayal of the aid from western countries (read USA) is so shallow and happy ending-ish that it is sad and revolting. Shanghai (where the movie is set) is the most expanding and evolving city in the world at the moment.
The Chinese father that is so nice and goodhearted that in the end has one wish ... to be a cowboy with a white hat ...
The teacher (Sean Astin) that has this really heart ripping story (not) that he tells without feel. Why Sean? WHY!?
Etc etc. It is difficult to actually finding a \"real\" person in the entire movie.
This is nothing but a feel good movie for Americans below age 15. If you want to learn anything about the world watch e.g. Hotel Rwanda instead. For a better life story or coming of age movie I suggest you watch the Italian \"Cinema Paradiso\" that won the best foreign film academy reward some years back.
The only nice thing in the movie were the small town sceneries that truly capture some (not all) of the beautiful Chinese country side. I have been there and seen some of 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\nTwo redeeming qualities of this film were the cinemaphotography and a storyline that was hard to resist. However, the script, the direction, and some scenes, were just awful. I kept asking myself why such a good cast would have produced such a bad movie. My only conclusion was that these actors must believe in the charity which underlies the plot of the movie, but knew the movie was filled with flaws.
This film could have been so much better, and reached a larger audience accordingly. What makes me think this is that with all of the problems of the film, some scenes being painfully bad to watch, I still wanted to see how the obvious conclusion would resolve itself.
\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...without anything to walk away with. This movie starts with scenes in China with the finding of a newborn. While this is not a new concept, I wasn't going to give up right there. Then there is a flash forward to adolescence. The man's wife and biological child are fed up with the father who has neglected them. While this did not seem culturally accurate, and the movie made no move to develop these characters or the purpose for the adopted father's devotion, I pressed on.
Next, we're in Malibu where we are bombarded by poorly constructed classroom interaction and terribly low-budget (fill in the blank: acting/camera work/lighting).
I won't give away any more of the plot, because I suppose the synopsis is accurate: the movie is meant to show how a Malibu girl who (though she seems to innately have the compassion and interest to help others when she immediately asks her teacher about the trip to China) is spoiled and inconsiderate, finds herself as being a healer and helper of both body and spirit.
Lame. LAME, LAME, LAME.
Now I, admittedly, am a harsh critic, so maybe take one of those LAME's away and you'll be on the mark.
\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 story line of a man's love for an innocent baby he finds with a malformed face and on the opposite side of the world a shallow self centered \"valley girl\" who shares a birth date with her and ends up making a big difference in both of there lives. What a great and worthy story line. But in this telling the screen writing and/or directing and/or editing is so poor as to take most of the joy out of the story. Linda Hamilton's character goes from understanding mom to wicked witch and back faster than a speeding bullet, and for what purpose? Conflict, conflict, conflict, at the drop of a hat. Katie (The California Girl) and her boyfriend, Katie's Mom and everybody, including the poor lady at the airport check-in counter, Lin's adopted father, who is the nicest, most considerate man alive, and his wife and biological son, all in constant conflict. I really wanted to enjoy a heartwarming story, but the only thing that made me SMILE was when all the hate and fighting were over. There were too many unexplained or illogical events, many of which don't add to the story. My wife and I kept looking at each other and asking ourselves how such a good cast and what should be a great story, could be crapped up so badly.
\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 characterization in this movie is among the worst I've ever encountered. The dialogue is trite and cliché to the point of extreme distraction. None of the issues the characters face are developed at all--they're merely surface details intended to get a point across without having to actually come up with believable dialogue to support said point. Also, the depiction of the Chinese characters leaves a bit to be desired--I find it hard to believe that the Chinese father learns flawless English from a book(or so it is implied in one scene) so he can teach it to his daughter. Etc.
The Smile Train is a great organization and it's a nice idea, to make a heartstring-tugging film about the impact a program like this can have on kids' lives, but overall, I found this movie to be more frustrating than anything.
\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 terrible, it was so difficult to believe that Katie became a heartfelt teenager with the power to save the pity Chinese people, the movie didn't show any convincing argument to prove that. And the rest of the plot didn't make any effort to show us more than a cheap common sense...
The plot is ridiculous and the only thing we can extract from it is that it demonstrate how arrogant a human can be. Katie must have inherited her arrogance from her mother, the most annoying character I have seen for a long time.
The acting and scenery were OK, but the plot ruins everything, full of cheap clichés and hypocritical scenes, I expect not to see this movie again in my life. Skip this one!
\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 to be confused with Michael Ritchie's nasty 1975 beauty pageant spoof, this \"Smile\" is a down-turned example of those good intentions paving the road to hell.
The film parallels two stories: an impoverished Chinese father sacrifices his wife and son to raise a facially-deformed orphan named Ling (Yi Ding), and a TV-spawned Malibu family act out \"Gidget Get Birth Control.\" Katie (Mika Booram, the third Olsen twin) plays a spoiled, self-absorbed high schooler distanced from reality. Her teacher (Sean Astin) paves the way for a school trip to China aimed at showing students how to work with deformed children.
The film uses deformity as a means of suspense by treating Ling like the Frankenstein monster. Kramer continually masks her deformity through hats, hoods and camera placement. This approach exploits the freak show quality inherent in the material. She may be uncomfortable with the way society views her and Kramer's answer is to cover her up until the big reveal. Why disturb your audience with such unpleasantness? We see her face briefly at the end and only minutes before closing-credit snapshots of her after surgery disclose a swan beneath the harelip. It is not good enough to give the girl a reason to live; what is imperative is Ling being equally as hot and popular as Katie.
Funding for the film came from a trust established by the late Roy Rogers and Dale Evans. They envisioned a heritage of quality family films. Give me \"Son of Paleface\" any day.
\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 just purchased this movie because I love to donate to Operation Smile, the charity on which the movie was based...but I found the writing of the movie to be very strange. It t does not really focus so much on Operation Smile or similar organizations like The Smile Train and their Herculean efforts to relieve the suffering of children born with facial deformities in third world countries. No, it concentrates on an American teenage volunteer, Katie, whose \"over-privileged\" life in Malibu, California, includes a mother who brings her to a doctor so that she'll have birth control pills in her before she sleeps with her boyfriend. What is this birth control nonsense supposed to do, titillate the audience? It's 2005. I'd be more surprised if in 2005 a Malibu teen wasn't on birth control, and even if she is, so what and who cares? Contrasting Katie is the character of Lin in China, a girl with a facial deformity who missed last year's chance to get an operation and this year does not want to have one. Neither character is written in such a way that the audience can really identify with, let alone understand the motivations of, either girl. On the other hand, the actors do an adequate job of trying to play the bad hand they were dealt by whoever wrote this ridiculous script. The best performance was by the gentleman playing Lin's father although much of his dialogue is in Chinese and subtitled. Operation Smile deserved to be honored by a much better movie than 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\nNever mind the serious logic gaps, never mind the achingly cliche character portrayals, never mind the haphazard writing, and you might like this movie. The main character Alyssa was supposed to be endearing, the heroine who you root for to be saved,(or in this case, save herself) But instead she merely grates, and makes one wonder, are all pro ballerinas really that stupid? Her busybody mother was obviously only necessary to further propagate the illusion that ballet companies are evil monsters ready to snatch your poor, innocent, young girl from your grasp, with an ever present, biting artistic director/villain. And the cliche's! Not only does she become anorexic, bulemic, an over the counter junkie, and a pathological liar, but all in the course of a few months. It's like the writer read every horror story he could dig up about ballet and decided to see how much he could cram into two hours, (with commercials).
Believe it or not, but I am a dancer. This \"uprising\" or \"resurgence\" of anorexia and bulemia that is happening is nonexistent at all of the dance schools I have attended. In fact, the teachers are so scared to even suggest that a girl might stand a better chance a few pounds lighter, most of the dancers in my classes would be actually considered minorly overweight. I'm not saying eating disorders never occur, but not to the extent as it was portrayed in the movie.
Another annoying problem this movie had was the means-to-an-end writing style. Her on again off again boyfriend probably had all of half an hour total screen time, all in the first half. The other supporting characters were merely props, decorations to further the story. Given the right dialogue, this would have been a very intricate mind study of a psycological problem. As it is, it turns into a one woman show, and Kimberly McCullough doesn't have the chutzpah to pull it off.
To a non dancer, this movie would be a supposed \"insight\" into what really goes one behind closed doors at a ballet company. To a dancer, this is a very insulting movie, which portrays ballerinas as stupid and parents as pushy and ill informed. Those adjectives more correctly describe the people who got this on the air in the first place. 3/10
\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\nRarely seen a movie that deviates so much from the original premise and still remains (more or less) acceptableBloodline is a rather short (which is a good thing in this case) escapade that focuses on the mysterious Hellraiser box. Who wanted it to be made and how it cast a spell on the entire bloodline of the man who eventually created it. We're introduced to 3 generations of the Merchant family (all played by Bruce Ramsey); one in 18th century Paris, one in the present day and the last one in a future galaxy far, far away Opinions on this storyline may differ a loteither you think it's very idiotic and far-fetched ororiginal and dared. The initial atmosphere and setting by Clive Barker has completely vanished, yet the morbid surrounding remains and several sequences are still very creepy and unsettling. Hellraiser: Bloodline contains quite a lot of exquisite slaughtering and the charismatic presence of Pinhead (Doug Bradley) still is an extra horror-value. Pinhead  accompanied by a pet puppy this time  still knows how to killtoo bad he talks too much and his vicious speeches tend to get boring quickly. Best aspects in this production are the newly introduced `cenobites' and the occult Parisian portrait. Giant turn-offs are the weak script, the absence of the typical macabre humor and the lack of references to Barker's initial masterpiece.
Although not highly memorable itself, Bloodline stands as the last watchable Hellraiser film. After this sequel, the series went downhill completely. So far, 2 more sequels came out (2 more are still in process) and neither of those is worth seeing. Hellraiser:Bloodline suffered from a lot of production difficulties and the director eventually preferred to be credited as Alan SmitheeMeaning he doesn't want to be remembered as the director of it. Who could blame him?
\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 Joe Cool Review - Hellraiser: Bloodline
Starring: Bruce Ramsay as Phillip L'Merchant/John Merchant/Dr. Paul Merchant, Valentina Vargas as Angelique and Doug Bradley as Pinhead
Plot: This follows a timeline of the lineage of the Merchant bloodline, which started with Phillip L'Merchant, who created the box that opens the doorway to Hell. Starting with the 18th century to present time when Pinhead first meets Merchant and tries to sever the bloodline..(he's the only one who can stop Pinhead, you see) and finally in the future, in space, where Paul Merchant has finally figured out how to send Pinhead to hell for good.
Openers: This is a movie hated so much by the people who made it, they declared fictional director Alan Smithee would be the credited director. They only pull Smithee out of the woodwork when they really think they've made a terrible movie, such as classics as The Birds II: Land's End or Bloodsucking Pharaohs in Pittsburgh. No I didn't make that up. How did I like it? You're reading this so I'm sure that's what you want to know.
The Good: This movie isn't as bad as you've been led to believe. Oh I'm not going to sugar-coat it. This movie was filled with so much potential and ended up being a disaster, but it does have some positives. Cooler cenobites this time around for starters, such as the twins and the demon Angelique. Pinhead is still in a main role, and still has good lines(\"Pain has a face, allow me to show it to you\") and it's somewhat entertaining throughout. Gorehounds will love the movie because of it's endless supply. There is also some continuity with the rest of the series, although you'll have to look hard to see it. The Chatterer Dog is awesome.
The Bad: But for a story about Hell vs the cursed Merchant bloodline that could close the gateway forever, it was really complicated and held together with duct tape. Nothing was really explored to it's full potential and there were some really stupid things included. Pinhead kidnaps a kid and holds him for ransom! Random deaths just to feature more blood(not always a bad thing, but not for the sake of the story). Pinhead is at his worst here, he rants and rants and rants even when he's about to die! For the very smart demon that he used to be, he's been reduced to nothing more than a Bond villain, at best. If Hellraiser fans ever needed a reason why he was moved back into a cameo like role, this is it. Bloodline ruined it for us all.
The Ugly: Gore is always mentioned here. This one has skin ripping, drilling, hook impaling, beheadings, and more goodies. The Chatterer Dog, while awesome, reeks of bad special effects during the chase scenes.
Final Verdict: This movie had the potential for something great, even Hellbound levels of greatness. But all of that was wasted. Who knows exactly what went down to produce this crap, but we can only blame Alan Smithee.
Compared to the rest: This movie is the worst of the Hellraiser series. For completists only.
Rating: 1/2* of *****
\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\nAfter the failure of \"Hellraiser III: Hell On Earth,\" the chapter that served as a kind of 'death blow' to the franchise, another embarrassing cheapo cash-in did not come as a surprise. An abysmal attempt to explain every single mystery of Pinhead and the puzzle box, covering literally centuries of history, in a film that runs UNDER 90 minutes... On display is sub-par to wretched acting, sup-par to wretched B-movie special effects, and a ludicrous and insulting attempt at dark humour, while STILL attempting to keep the whole project completely serious. I'm wondering, how many freaking directors did this thing have? Poor Pinhead has SO MUCH screen time, that every bit of mystery and menace that this iconic character possessed, is completely lost. After an hour of hearing long-winded speeches and dramatic posturing, we simply want to tell the guy to shut up! mildly entertaining in spots, especially in the first segment, this mess begins to look and feel like a cheap, ugly made for TV splatter flick after a while, and ends in the most ridiculous way imaginable: Pinhead, along with his pet Cenobite dog, killing a bunch of idiots... in outer space! I'm sorry, but any true fan of the first two films in the series, that gave this abortion of a film more than 3 stars, should be ashamed. On a side note, the film that follows; \"Hellraiser: Inferno\" is actually a surprisingly intelligent, and stylishly-made film-noir piece, that brilliantly reinstates 'Pinhead' as a master of illusion and cruelty, and brings back the concept of the inherent evil in human kind, that was the centerpiece of the original film, and the whole point of the story. For any serious horror fan, see Hellraiser I & II, skip the lousy III & this one, and continue with 'Inferno.' You won't miss a thing by skipping this garbage...
\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\nBy the time the Hellraiser franchise was reaching it's forth film the premise was wearing a bit thin. Dr. Paul Merchant (Bruce Ramsey) is a scientist in the future, whom while prisoner regales his captor of the story of how his ancestors (all played by Ramsey) had first built the evil Lament Configuration puzzle-box that sets evil upon the world and how his bloodline had subsequent dealing with said box. The film is a awash with lack of continuity in regards to the other films and lack of coherency in this one. Yes, this could be due to a combination of rewrites, massive cuts in the original version of the film, or what have you. But I'm reviewing the film as is, and not what it was or could have been. And as it is now it's a mess. Sure the franchise will go on indefinitely with direct to DVD sequels, but this one was pretty much a death-nail to it's chances of getting a new one released theatrically ever again.
My Grade: D-
\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 the XXII century an architect by the name of Merchant (Bruce Ramsay) commandeers a space station, which he personally designed. As can be predicted a special force is sent to retake the expensive station and put Merchant into custody. Upon arrival they find him partaking in a weird ritual with the use of a mysterious cubical. During interrogation he reveals that they must let him finish, what he has started or else the hell he has released will bathe in blood... In order to convince the officers holding him captive he reminisces about his heritage, about the toymaker who built the box and about the reasons as to why he is here in space...
The movie that is essentially the same to Hellraiser, that The Quickening was to Highlander. Something to be ignored and forgotten, as so it won't influence the lore of Hellraiser to much. By far the most trashy of the franchise with a much more low-grade feel to it than its predecessors (who let's face it were B or C class films).
Acting at times seems to be influenced by a mid-budget porn-flick with wooden unbelievable performances, that actually have you thinking: So when are they going to undress and start with the intercourse? Surprisingly not much sex in the movie, albeit the introduction of the seductress-demon Angelique (a totally superfluous character that unnecessarily messes with what we know of the world of Hellraiser) offers ample opportunities for the love-making.
Basically the movie consists of three abruptly pasted together separate short stories (one in the future, one in the present and one in the past) which lack focus and are rushed along in amateurish fashion. The end result is extremely poor, basically underlined by the fact you have no interest into what happens to any of the characters in the film.
Some decent gore in the flick, but apart from that an utter failure.
\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's lots of ketchup but not a whole lot of sense in the supposedly explanatory third sequel, which piles on the naff visuals to no effect. Good old Alan Smithee directed this one, in which various members of the same family (all played, poorly, by Bruce Ramsay) are terrorised by Pinhead (Doug Bradley, wheeled out of mothballs for the umpteenth time). Peter Atkins tries to imbue his script with poetic touches but doesn't seem to realise that his dialogue is as deep and meaningful as a plate of sick. The incoherent plot fails to adequately fill the movie's meagre running time, although this may have more to do with studio interference than anything the filmmakers intended.
\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\nSome sort of accolades must be given to `Hellraiser: Bloodline'. It's actually out Full-Mooned Full Moon. It bears all the marks of, say, your `Demonic Toys' or `Puppet Master' series, without their dopey, uh, charm? Full Moon can get away with silly product because they know it's silly. These Hellraiser things, man, do they ever take themselves seriously. This increasingly stupid franchise (though not nearly as stupid as I am for having watched it) once made up for its low budgets by being stylish. Now it's just ish.
\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\nHellraiser: Bloodline is where the sequel mediocrity of the Hellraiser series well and truly sets in. Gone is the imagination and invention of the first two movies. Gone is the ethos of Pinhead and his minions. Gone are the sick desires of humans. In fact everything that once made Hellraiser so original has been trashed by this mess of a picture.
All that is left is that basic premise of Christian mythology that there is a Hell with evil Demons. What happened to the evil that men do? This watered down excuse for a Hellraiser movie is padded out with endless Psycho Babble, so that Pinhead becomes a nonsense spouting philosopher and not the harbinger of doom as he is meant to be.
The film uses the most basic of film formulas with characters separating and getting individually killed. Pinhead is not Alien. The link between the box and the 'demons' or 'Hell' is never established it just arrives at a sacrifice and sits on a sideboard.
The lead female Character is called 'Rimmer' and the producers obviously think it really funny because everyone keep saying her name. Really the film should have been retitled to give it that characters name.
Shame on you Kevin Yagher and Alan Smithee.
\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 true, no one really expects anything from sequels. But even by that low standard this is a terrible film.
Essentially an anthology movie, this fourth installment in the Hellraiser saga tries to be an origins story and a wind-up to the entire series at the same time. An ambitious idea. But none of the cast is given enough screen time to do anything with their characters and rookie director Yagher abandoned the film rather than give in to studio meddling. The result is a steaming pile of mediocrity that even fanboys have trouble defending. Unless you're an \"Alan Smithee\" fan, avoid this one.
\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 fourth installment of the series is the last to get a theatrical release,though it feels like a direct to video movie.it's OK,i guess,but nothing special.the acting is the worst of seen in the series up to this point.and like the third movie,there isn't much in the way of imagination.also,the sentence \"directed by Alan Smithee\" is never a good thing.Smithee is the pseudonym directors use when they want nothing to do with the movie.anyway,its an acceptable movie in the Hellraiser series,but not much more than that.it's a slight drop in quality from number three,and a huge drop from the first two.for me,Hellraiser IV:Bloodline is a 4.5/10
\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\nthis movie is so bad and Hellraiser part 1 to 3 are so great. Nothing is good Bloodline... a lot of gore but without meaning and the majority of time without originality. the movie is about the past, the present (1996) and the future of the puzzle box. The creator of the box and his offspring fight against some demon but nothing link up seriously the 3 stories. Pinhead is in the movie...but it isn't Pinhead, he is just a boring bad guy who kidnap kids and kill bird, and the worse...he talk too much. A thing that I really didn't understand is why the dog from hell????? He can't be a cenobites because he had nothing human. Why the dog can be killed by the pressure if the other creature from hell can receive bullets without problems????? Bloodline is incoherent with the movie series in many ways. For example Pinhead and Angelique are old friend in this movie but it's impossible that Pinhead met Angelique because Pinhead is just a soldier from the First World War and Angelique is an old demon and she live in Paris since sometimes like 200 years.
\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\nWhen I first saw this movie in the theater I was so angry. It completely blew in my opinion. I didn't see it for a decade then decided what the hell, let's see. I'm watching all hellraiser movies now to see where it went wrong. My guess is it was with sequel 5 that was the first to implement the whole \"i am in a dream omg i see weird stuff, oh noes what is happening, oh its a dream, oh its not a dream, oh wait i see something spooky, oh never mind\"-sucky storyline. Those sequels don't even require the box to be opened, or stick to the rules from the first 4 movies that if you saw pinhead you are pretty much screwed and dead. The first 3 hellraisers sticked to this storyline which made it so scary in the first place. Nothing fantasy, nothing weird, the box got opened boom they came. Kirstey was the only one that could bargain her way out of it, first because of uncle Frank. Then because she had information about the cenobites. This movie at least attempts to stick to all that, even though it was a bad story it was still somewhat hellraiser. No I'm pretty sure part 5 was the first part to completely and utterly destroy the hellraiser series. Now they are remaking 1, and I don't even think I will watch it. Oh who am I kidding I probably will and probably will be disappointed.... again.
\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 just saw this on TCM tonight and was shocked at the over-acting by Jean Arthur. Her bugging her eyes out in surprise and just generally over-doing everything was not in the same style as Dietrich and Art Lund. Dietrich was marvelous in her restraint and comic timing. She being the best thing in this movie. The Wilder gags were flat and frankly more like something a freshman in college would write trying to \"get away\" w/being wicked,witty and dirty, but just sounded boring and not funny at all. It seemed the humor was being pushed too hard to be funny. The ending was totally contrived.
SPOILER AHEAD: Never for a moment did I believe that Art Lund suddenly fell outta love w/Dietrich and then was suddenly madly in love w/Arthur. Oh, Billy. Get real! 3 out of 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\nHow could a film dealing with illegal Mexican immigrants being robbed and beaten over the border be dull? Well, \"Border Incident\" is.
No wonder that song and dance man George Murphy's career ended not long after this terrible film came out. Politics was certainly a way out for this future senator who dies a horrible death in this slowly paced film. The film stereotypes the typical Mexican migrant farmer worker as dimwitted and awfully dull.
The film only picks up in intensity once the identities of Murphy and Ricardo Montalban have been discovered as federal agents for the U.S. and Mexico respectively.
Disappointing at best, we see similar problems in our very own society today.
\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\nGreat subject matter, director, and cast somehow adds up to a truly abysmal film, told in that flat, semi-documentary style that was so popular around the time this film was made. (And hello, this is NOT a film-noir!) The lackluster, overly complicated, over-populated story has no arc, no focus point, little excitement, and staggers from one scene to the next with no discernible purpose, other than as a valentine to the supposed and highly doubtful cooperation between the American and Mexican governments on the issue of illegal immigration.
The scene that made me HATE this film is when Montalban and Mitchell make a daring escape from their captors, race to presumably save Montalban's injured partner from being murdered by a goon with a gun driving a piece of farm machinery, Montalban says something like, \"quick - we must try to save him,\" but instead of doing so they lie on their stomachs and watch in agony for about 5 (!) minutes of screen time as the machine bears down on Murphy and FINALLY runs him over (or so we assume - the machine simply stops, another goon detects the presence of the two \"rescuers\" and shoots at them as they run off again.) Scene over. The whole thing is so horribly filmed and utterly anticlimatic. There's nothing worse than a protagonist (ostensibly, Montalban, though he's off screen for over half the film) who doesn't even try. Jeez, Ricardo, do SOMETHING!
I know it's Anthony Mann, but hell, not ALL of his films are classics, people. How bad does an old movie have to be around here to get anything lower than a 6 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 watched this film because I thought it would be a classic Amy Adams movie. Wow, this movie is so bad on so many levels it staggers the imagination. It is poorly constructed for one, also the script and the acting is just awful. But hey even Johnny Depp has a slew of bad films under his belt. The upside of this movie would be Amy singing, and even on that score I believe better songs could have been chosen. Amy is of course beautiful to see and if you are a die-hard fan of hers you will probably watch this title no matter what, just don't expect too much. I wish I could have found more to like but it was just painful to watch. I recommend Sunshine Cleaning or Doubt.
\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 would say this is a background movie. Play it the background as your tending to busy work (laundry, checking email, etc). I thought this was a film that was done before Amy Adams became successful after Enchanted. Wrong! It was done in 2009! The screenplay/script is pretty awful. I love musicals but the singing is just average and doesn't move the plot along. Ughh. It almost seems like it's a made for TV movie based on the cinematography. Am I watching a TV show?
Even the secretary breaks out into song. What the f@#$ is going on?! Actually she seemed to have the best voice. Amy Adams was so great in Enchanted. Lead actor is average. Disappointed for sure. This movie would have been good for lifetime, but that's about 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\nHaving endured this film last night, I turned off the DVD player with a sense of deserving a medal for having the stamina to see it through to the end. Throughout the film I felt that I was watching the storyline fillers that you get in a high budget porn movie. the acting was stiff and taut, camera work appalling, and the locations and sets were so poor it felt like they had borrowed them from the local High School \"Amateur Dramatic's Society\".
The only saving grace for this movie was that it had Amy Adams and Harriet Sansom Harris in its credits, other than that it was pure dribble.
\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 am a huge Amy Adams fan and have been for many years. I am also a big fan of musicals. With that said this is not a good movie on any level. It is quite dull and the acting overall is very very poor. Amy Adams is awkward to watch act with Scott G. Anderson due to the fact that she is in another league when it comes to acting. All the performances come off as very amateur. The music performances are pleasant, but nothing special.
Scott G. Anderson is just an bad actor! I assumed he was put in this movie because he has a great voice, but it's just not the case. He has an average voice and sings on key, but that's about it.
I guess I can see why Amy Adams did this movie with the singing element I just wish she had not. I could rant about other poor elements of this movie, but I'll leave it at that.
\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 rented this movie because it supposedly takes place in a jazz club -- you know, those hip, cool places you might stumble upon late on a Saturday night. Well, there's not one ounce of \"cool\" in this ridiculous movie. The score is goofy, the original songs are awful, both lead actors' singing is continually off-key (to be kind) and unprofessional at best, the plot is no more complex than \"boy meets girl,\" the acting is laughable, and the only decent cinematic moments are the stock footage scenes. The jazz club scenes feature sophomoric dialog smothered by overly-busy organ music. This Joey de Francesco should keep his day job (unless his day job is helping with movie scores). Is it possible to not only get my four dollars back, but have my therapy sessions paid for as well? This movie, interestingly enough, is so bad, you might want to watch it. Sort of like driving by a bad accident -- you just have to look at least once. Just get the ear plugs ready!
\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\nAbout the movie itself, there are ample comments.
I just wanted to say something about the German version, which I have seen recently on TV. It is heavily cut. From 103 to 76 minutes! It is usual that the most bloody scenes are cut for German TV. I understand the reasons for that, but this movie was something else. They did not only cut \"gore-shots\" - they have cut entire sequences, sparing only glimpses. Like: \"WE have to attack THEM\" - one 5 second shot of explosions in the camp - protagonist running away.
When the assault on the island begins, it isn't even possible anymore to follow the storyline. All the cuts create something that amounts to a string of erratic, disconnected scenes that don't make any sense anymore.
I could not stand to watch the end after spending 60 minutes on this nonsense.
I think I would have given the original 7/10 The German version is worth only 1/10
Get it on DVD (and check the runtime first) or forget about 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\nIn what attempts to be a positive story, Dolph Lundgren leads a group of mercenaries to take over a tropical island that looks a lot like paradise so that the men who hired his team can mine it for...bird droppings. Actually, the nitrogen gas that exudes from the muck on this island is what they are after.
There was only one good thing about this movie -- the island location in which it was filmed was beautiful. Otherwise, the story drowns itself leaving the actors with nothing to work with. Result: A lot of violence, a lot of language, lots of blood, and a few shots of women topless. If you want pointless violence (sorry, the storyline can't even give the violence a point, though it tries) then this is the movie for you.
Parents: be warned that this movie is full of violence and blood, driving the R 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\nBig spoiler right here: this film is B!A!D! But enjoy, it's good bad.
Bugged is the kind of film you can't believe exists, with dialog, plotting, and direction so ineptly handled that Uncle Ned's Carlsbad Cavern home video looks like an IMAX experience. Since it's a Troma flick, there's plenty of gross-out gore on tap, but its even sillier than usual.
Most of the production money seems to have gone into buying soda and sandwiches for cast and crew. The brilliant dialog is best summed up in the immortal, \"%@#$! What was that?\" which is second only to the oft screamed, \"Now what?\"
Any knowledge of how people act in a desperate situation is alien to Ronald Armstrong, the writer/director. When one of the friends is found being eaten alive by a grasshopper/termite/chiapet thing, Armstrong has the survivors immediately making time with cute, but dumb-as-a-doorknob, \"Divine.\" While she's being hit on, Divine is cooking up a big steaming pot of a rat-poison/oatmeal mixture on the stove, stirring, smiling, stirring, smiling, never falling over dead from the fumes!
The killer bugs are as frightening as piñatas, which they too closely resemble. The effects used to move them include dragging them across tile floors real fast with their legs dragging behind.
The highlight for the film would probably have been the house blowing up, but they were either out of cash or never had any, so instead of seeing even a miniature go up in flames, they simply let the screen go black (eat you heart out ILM).
The cast is virtually all black. How can the NAACP consistently censor something truly funny like Amos and Andy (which depicts characters certainly no less similiar than those on 99% of all white comedy shows), but says nary a peep about something like Bugged. Oh well, it's best they don't know about how demeaning this film is to all involved (as it would be if it were played by any single ethnic group, frankly). Before they put the kabosh on Bugged, get some friends together and get ready for the Plan 9 of Bug Exterminator movies.
\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 received this movie as a birthday gift because all of my friends know I'm a big fan of low budget Horror flicks. Kaufman Studios have always made the cheesy gory flicks that delivered. I loved to watch their films at home on rainy nights with my family...until I saw Bugged...WHAT HAPPENED?
This Movie started out with a pretty good concept about mutating bugs and even added some slick comedy but overall the writing is just bad and that was mistake number one. Ronald K. Armstrong should learn to first be a better writer before becoming a filmmaker. After reading the Credits we discover he gave himself the most important role in the film!?! two words Mr. Director \"Acting Lessons\" OK? Mr. Armstrong joins the ranks of other writer/directors who cast themselves in their own movies and that's mistake number two.
The only thing that I believed saved this film was the artistic camera work and the musical score, (let's hear it for the crew!) The cast of other actors who in the beginning of this production seemed a bit cold, really warmed up toward the middle and end of this production. Everyone pulled together and helped to pull this film off. Ronald Armstrong may lack the talent to ever become a decent Director or Actor but, I'll say this of him-He seems to know how to organize people to get them all to come together and pull his productions off.
This film, I have to say can be an inspiration to any young filmmaker who dreams of making their own movie because if Mr. Armstrong was able to pull this off, Any one else can too. If you get a chance to see this film, watch it for the sake of getting inspired to do \"Better\" in the future. Hollywood needs bigger and better Horror Flicks to keep this genre coming back from it's grave.
\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\nOkay, it's a movie for children, and it's not one of those movies that adults will enjoy as well. However, there are some unintentionally funny moments, most of them involving holes in the story. For example, the kid needs a computer part to bring his dad back to normal, and he doesn't have the money. So, does he ask his father for the dough? Nope, he STEALS IT and gets caught. Kids, if I'm ever turned invisible, I'll advance your allowance, ok? Also, while this kid is at the police station (no doubt about to be charged with criminally lame acting), his beautiful blond teacher comes in, announces who she is and where she works, then BUSTS THE CHILD OUT OF THE SLAM IN FRONT OF THE COPS! To make matters worse, instead of making a quick getaway, they then SIT IN THE PARKING LOT OF THE POLICE STATION AND LAUGH ABOUT THEIR ACHIEVEMENT. You know, I hate to pick, but the kid DID steal something and ought to face the consequences, but maybe being in this movie is punishment enough. Y'all avoid it!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"