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\nThis groundbreaking film is truly a work of art. I went into the screening at the convention in Indiana with very low expectations, having already viewed 2 other film with \"gamer\" in the title (both of which were so bad that by the end of the second one I had plucked out one of my own eyes with my drinking straw and a twisted paper clip I found between the seat cushions). But from the opening credits \"Dorkness\" had me. The temperate Northwest setting made a beautiful backdrop for the drama surrounding the frustrated game master, Lodge(powerfully portrayed by Nathan Rice) and his misfit band of friends who set aside the real-life dramas they face everyday to face fantastical dramas in the setting Lodge provides for them. After the first scene(set in the fantasy world they inhabit) They are violently thrust back into the world they so desperately try to escape. This drew so many comparisons to my own life that I was moved to tears. Rice's acting is of such amazing caliber that I truly believed within the first 20 minutes of the film that he really was a twenty-something male suffering from frustration, male pattern baldness and an annoying group of \"friends\" that can't seem to grasp concepts like right and wrong. Lodge's friends are of some note here: Leo, the oldest and heaviest of the trio seems to be the only other character with a job, aside from lodge. Yet he seems to gravitate socially towards Gary, the youngest of the group. This seems only slightly odd at first until you realize that Gary is, in fact, a sexually confused sociopath with very few prospects outside his \"fantasy\" world. This dichotomy serves, not to confuse, but to inform and uplift the audience about the importance of diversity in our society. My only complaint about this is that the actors who portray Leo (Scott C. Brown) and Gary (christian Doyle) seem to play the characters for laughs at times, as though they were informed they were acting in a comedy instead of a hard-hitting action/drama. Speaking of action, Brian Lewis makes his film debut as Cass, the third and most influential member of Lodge's motley crew. the tension is always high when he is on screen, both when he is arguing passionately about his beliefs to Lodge or when displaying his fantastic Martial Arts skills as \"Silence\" his fantasy character. Or even when he turns around suddenly to face the audience and you reflexively duck in the audience so as not to get smacked by his fantastic chin. Lewis Lights up the screen no matter what he's doing and I hope to see more of him in the future. Once the action begins in this movie, it just doesn't quit. the drama and the action blend so seamlessly at times that you can's tell whether your in the middle of a frenetic action sequence or a touching dramatic moment. Truly a thrill ride of Epic proportions, I would recommend \"The Gamers: Dorkness Rising\" as required viewing for anyone who loves film. It was almost worth losing an eye over.
~Chip Deedlenick
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film is so wonderful it captures the gaming life. I laughed so hard while watching this. The movie is about a gaming group that have a hard time with a campaign that their dungeon master came up with. The movie switches from the real world and the gaming world as they play the campaign it shows them in the gaming world as their character, and then switches back to the real world when they are not playing. The campaign is the basis for a module that the dungeon master, Lodge, is writing. The problem is Lodge can't finish his module because the characters can't finish the campaign. They are more for killing and looting instead of role playing. Lodge wants them to role play through the campaign something they have never done before. They decide to bring in some extra help so they bring a,wait for it, girl in to play. Lodge also makes a npc, a non player character, a paladin,who can not witness or do wrong, to play. The film is how they do all this and more I don't want to spoil any of the film so I won't say any more. This movie may not be a big budget film the acting may not be Oscar worthy but if you are into gaming or into dungeons and dragons then definitely watch it. They had a lot of fun making this film and it shows I am not going to bash on it for any movie problems such as continuity or any thing it was a low budget film that is just fun. There is some slap stick comedy which I enjoy and some damn good writing in my opinion. So if you want a fun film try it .
\n
assistant\n1
\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 laughing so hard most of the time I had people glaring at me because they couldn't hear over my laughter. I literally fell out of my seat at a specific point.
I'm a Bartender and Bouncer for a living in the Real world (note my use of the term Real world, sadly it always has to come first), and whenever I tell someone I play RPG's, it's usually followed by one of two questions: 1. What, like D&D? I played that back in Junior High.
2. Really? I've been looking or a group forever! Have room for another? Very rarely do people not know what D&D and Gaming are.
That having been said almost every person who watches this movie can get something out of it. Even if you aren't a Gamer, chances are there is something in your life you \"Geek Out\" about that can be made fun of in a light hearted way, and that alone means you can relate to the hijinx in this flick. It's just light hearted happiness in an hour and a half.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere are few films that have had me waiting and waiting for release more than this one. This is the latest film from The Dead Gentlemen group responsible for the original Gamers film and the Demon Hunters films. This group has not been terribly active over the last few years but this film is a definite reason to try and keep things up in following their progress.
This film follows a group of gamers who are trying to finish a campaign run by a GM frustrated by his group's disregard for his story. With the help of some new blood they attempt the campaign again with hopes of finishing this time.
This movie is a breath of fresh air in the movie community and a great improvement over the original. The movie shows respect for the game much like the original movie did but on top of that this movie shows a dramatic improvement on special effects launching it above the simplicity of college films. The acting is fairly decent and the jokes are quite funny.
Unfortunately many of the jokes are in jokes so if you are not a gamer you may not find the film as funny as others. So this is why I give the movie an 8 instead of the 9 that I initially thought of. Any case if you are a gamer or know about gaming check this one out you will enjoy it.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nBest fan boy movie I've ever watched save \"Free Enterprise.\"
In some ways it reminded me of an early Kevin Smith film.
If you do any kind of role playing, this movie will likely have you laughing often at its insatiable fun. Don't expect a big budget here, the acting is also questionable at times, but it really adds to the fun of the atmosphere they create. The script is truly humorous with a lot of witty moments worth experiencing.
The bard that always gets killed had me rolling. The sexually confused player also had me smiling a bit too. But in the end... It was just a great movie showcasing some better moments in the lives of a few geeks having a great time with role playing.
If you are bored, and ever got into role playing, this will do nicely for a distraction. A real unexpected treat.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI saw the original rough screen showing 4 times at Gencon a couple years ago. I was delighted to have done so, my daughter is in the movie.
I stood in the back of the room with her watching the much younger fans sit on the edge of there seats, dead quiet no wanting to miss a line. The standing ovation afterward's was like watching the fans when the USA Hockey Team beat the Russians at the Olympic Games in Montreal.
I love excellent comedy and sight gags. Taxi, Barney Miller, Cheers, Frasier and Married with Chilren are my all time favorite comedy shows. Lesser shows I will not even watch.
This movie will do for Gamers what Animal House did for College Frat days, what Dodge Ball did for weird sports. Forget the lack of a mega budget backing the production. This is pure art, it's that good.
I could not be happier for the entire cast and production company.
\n
assistant\n1
\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 brilliantly captures the atmosphere of a D&D group. While watching, I could not help but notice how vividly characters reminded me of myself and my gaming friends to the point where they acted literally the same as we do. Including the bickering, the fighting, the internal jokes, driving the DM crazy. EVERYTHING.
It has it all. Jokes that made me cry, action scenes which, even filmed in low-budget, I found uncannily awesome. The story is pretty straightforward and unsurprising, but that doesn't really matter, since the best part of the movie is to see the characters react and interact with each other and the NPCs.
Seriously, if you're playing D&D or any similar RPG, I cannot stress this enough, WATCH THIS MOVIE, it captured beautifully the spirit of D&D.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nGamers: DR is not a fancy made movie, it's more like amateur video. Horrible magic effect, really fake fireball, terribly made dungeon, castle, village...... sword, axe, shield, robe, plate..... okok... everything. You will need about 10 minutes to adjust your expecting on visual, then you will get 105 minutes of fun.
I'm from Hongkong and it's really hard to find RPers, none of my friends play RPG and I always fancy to be one of the character in the world of D&D. Watching Gamers: DR just show me what would it be like to be a gamer. You see rule books, dices, game set, etc etc etc; You hear terms like \"fighter\", \"wizard\", \"hit point\", \"level\", \"character\", \"flaming hand\", \"Chaotic Evil\".
What RPG fancy me is that it let you do anything u want to, not bonded by software RPG. Gamers: DR provide the same element, you wont know what happen next and it probably just make you laugh to dead. The movie goes both gamers's real life as well as in the D&D world. You will hear the gamer cast the dice when the character in game take action, which make you feel you really participle in the game.
I don't want to spoil anything, but in short, Gamers: DR is a must watch movie for RPG lovers. For people never play RPG game, I'm sure you still get many fun from it.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThere are few films that deal with things that I would consider myself an expert on, this one is.
After some years of Fantasy Role Playing we split, me not leaving without a sense of shame of what I had become: a dork.
You see, these things are really canonical, it happens to everybody.
First you create a character fairly and it dies after the first attack.
Then you help a little with the constitution, and while you're at it, why not help with strength, intelligence, intuition, charisma and dexterity too? This in turn frustrates the game master who doesn't know how to deal with this invincible gang. And after a while it bores the players too, so they start to create ever more exotic race-profession combinations, no matter how ludicrous it is.
I created a Druedain warrior monk, yeah, not that far from the film.
And that's not all to be said about the destructiveness of the inherent dynamic of this devilish game (think the hunt for experience points), but just watch the film, it shows it all - and of course the stupidity of its most basic premisses.
For this end, in turn, there is no better profession than the bard. I don't exactly understand why the bard became a character in the first place, after all, the blacksmith is none. But once it became one, it had to be mapped into the game flow, that is: it had to be made lethal, at least indirectly. The poking of fun out of this never comes to an end and rightfully so.
Sure, it's not exactly a professional production, but I haven't seen a better satire in ages.
\n
assistant\n1
\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 so impressed, really. I expected cheesy gamer humor and nothing else.
OK, there's a ton of pretty geeky humor. But the movie is so well done. The acting is quite good.
The dialog, while gamer cheesy at times, I guess to cater to the gamer crowd, is not bad at all. At times it's even, dare I say, great.
When the female gamer, who built this non traditional fighter type character rather then the usual (min/max) type gets all these additional attacks (seem right, I did not check the rules,) it was cool.
The sets are amazing for what must be a fairly low production movie.
The story moves right along. The transitions from game world to real world are well done. A male playing a female character would sometimes be played by a female, and sometimes by himself. Pretty clever, I thought.
The guy who decided to play a female, but kept forgetting he was female was good for a lot of laughs. He even said tag at one point, and the female walked on to play the role ( sorry, I did not look her name up, she did great though.) The guy always trying to \"get some\", got a bit tedious, but I guess that was more gamer humor.
There was just so much to like about the movie. Lighthearted. Fun! Very well done and I am saying that as a movie fan, not a gamer (and I am not a D&D player.) As I said I expected SO much less.
Movies often don't hold my attention, I end up listening to them while working on my computer. This one held my attention. I can't give a movie much higher praise.
\n
assistant\n1
\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 play video games at all but my children do.
I got a big kick out of this. Would like to see more of this type of film. \"very cool\" as my youngest would say.
Interesting characters and the overall story line was interesting. Like I said I don't play video games but I think that my children would enjoyed this. It was not full of bad language and that is a pleasant change. This visual concept was different which caught my eye. Plus the sound track was pretty good. I might even try out some of the games my sons plays to see because of this film. Who knows maybe I'll be a gamer someday.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nMy sister, dad, and I are really into D&D and one night we were browsing Netflix looking for a movie to watch when this one came up. We thought we would try it out and I ended up almost dying from laughter. The writing and acting in this movie is so amazing! Witty characters, great interaction, and hilarious moments kept us in stitches the entire time. I love this movie! It might not make that much sense for those who don't know about Dungeons & Dragons, but nevertheless, it is a good movie. This only goes to show that movies don't need an astronomical budget and big name actors/actresses to be a success. Check it out if you want a good, clean comedy.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHouse of Dracula works from the same basic premise as House of Frankenstein from the year before; namely that Universal's three most famous monsters; Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster and The Wolf Man are appearing in the movie together. Naturally, the film is rather messy therefore, but the fact that all three monsters are there is usually enough to ensure that the film's sixty seven minutes don't become boring. It's obvious that the idea of making another monster mash came into the writer's head before an actual plot did, as the yarn we're given isn't exactly without holes. The plot sees Count Dracula arrive at Dr. Edelman's home asking for a cure for his vampirism. Then, what can only be described as a coincidence, sees Lawrence Talbot, a.k.a. The Wolf Man turn up asking for a cure for his affliction! It turns out that Dracula is on the prowl for Edelman's daughter, but Talbot really is serious. When it turns out that he can't be stopped from turning into a wolf, The Wolf Man throws himself into the sea...where he ends up finding Frankenstein's Monster.
Overall, this film isn't as good as the earlier House of Frankenstein. The 1944 film put its plot together better than this entry in the series does, as the plot here doesn't give equal time to each Universal monster. Dracula's plot is the biggest at first, but soon fizzles out only to resurface at the end. The Wolf Man is the star of the show, but his story never really develops, and is essentially just another version of the plot he always finds himself in. Frankenstein's Monster is given the coldest hand, as he appears in the movie merely as an afterthought, and an obvious excuse to ensure that all three monsters appear in the movie. The story of the doctor who binds all three together is the most interesting, but this is a little disappointing as he isn't the reason why people will see this film. The acting is good enough, with John Carradine showing his sinister side and Lon Chaney Jr once again making sure that his character is bathed in tragedy. Glenn Strange is given nothing to do, and Onslow Stevens proves the real highlight as Dr Edelman. Overall, this film won't do much for anyone that isn't a fan of Universal horror; but as silly monster movies go, House of Dracula is worth seeing.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis moody, creepy horror flick begins on a castle atop a cliff overlooking the sea, a great setting, as a vampire bat flies in and creeps toward a sleeping doctor (Onslow Stevens). The bat changes into a man known as Baron Latos, in reality Count Dracula (John Carradine). He seeks Dr. Edelmann's help to cure him of his vampirism. Eventually the good doctor also wants to help his hunchbacked nurse-assistant (Jane Adams), the Wolf Man (Lon Chaney), and Frankenstein's monster (Glenn Strange). But Dracula's trickery contaminates the doctor's blood, and he becomes a Jekyll/Hyde vampire himself. This is somewhat better than the prior year's \"House of Frankenstein\", being less episodic and more exciting visually. There's a haunting scene where Dracula tries to lure the second nurse (Martha O'Driscoll) into his world, where she is initially playing \"Moonlight Sonata\" on the piano, which soon gives way to terrifying music. Director Erle Kenton uses expressionistic shadows and eerie music to frame many sequences, including a wonderful montage sequence that the studio frequently used in their horror features. Two performers are of note: Stevens, with his wonderful voice, is at first sympathetic, then convincingly menacing. Adams, her beautiful face in alarming contrast to her twisted body, exhibits great pathos and sympathy. It all ends in a slam-bang climax, typical of 1940s Universal horror, a little abrupt, with footage borrowed from \"The Ghost of Frankenstein\" (1942). I hope Universal releases it soon on DVD (it was left out of their Double-Feature releases).
\n
assistant\n1
\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 another Universal fun filled fright fest.Many people want to compare it to House Of Frankenstein.Even though it has similar cast and the same director it can stand on its own.(It does appear that Erle C Kenton directed most of the Universal horror films of the 40's).
The plot recap:Baron Latos appears at the home of Dr Eidlemann seeking a \"cure\" for his vampirism.Larry Talbot (who somehow survived House OF Frankenstein) also shows up at the good doctors door seeking a cure for his affliction.After a failed suicide attempt Talbot and the doctor find the Frankenstein monster. To complicate matters just before he bites the dust, Dracula infects the good doctor with his blood.The doctor becomes a bloodthirsty maniac at certain times.Where this leads to is something you'll have to see for your self.
Carradine actually gives a very good performance as Dracula. He isn't chewing up the scenery as he will in later roles. It is hard to repress giggles when he appears in a top hat though.The cape/cloak is traditional but the hat has to go. Where does the hat go when he changes into a bat...?
Onslow Stevens gives an excellent portrayal of the doctor. He's torn between his basic kindness and the increasing blood lust he is now prone to. This is a very underrated performance.Chaney brings even more life to the Wolf Man in his 4th appearance in that role.
The monster isn't given much to do this time.Just lay on the table until the end(some stock footage from the Ghost Of Frankenstein is used).At least in House Of Frankenstein he was up and around a bit.
Yes this does stick to the basic Universal pattern complete with the angry village mob running amok with torches.But it isn't a bad way to spend an hour and ten minutes.It gets a low 8.
\n
assistant\n1
\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 quite an entertaining B-flick in the Universal Horror series featuring Dracula, the Wolfman, and Frankenstein's Monster. The plot revolves around Dracula (John Carradine) and Larry Talbot, the wolfman (Lon Chaney Jr.), separately visiting a revolutionary doctor. They both ask him if they can be cured, and the doctor attempts to devise a way for each. Beneath the doctor's castle, they find Frankenstein's Monster buried in mud (this is apparently a reference to the previous movie in the Frankenstein series).
Of course, if things had went as planned, the movie would have turned out incredibly boring. Instead, Dracula can't suppress his appetite, and the doctor is eventually infected, by a blood transfusion, with vampirism. As a semi-vampire, the doctor goes insane and awakens Frankenstein's Monster. As with all of the Universal Horror series, the ending is completely unsatisfactory. A beautiful woman with a hunchback, one of the doctor's two assistants, has a particularly gruesome end. Plus, you just have to feel sorry for Frankenstein's Monster in this film - he's awake for around two minutes, kills one police officer, and then yet another building (what's this, the fifth now?) collapses on top of him and is consumed by flames. It is also unfortunate that the great character created in The Wolf Man (1941), Larry Talbot, is really reduced here. People underrate that film and Chaney's performance in it. Here, he would be justifiably criticized as wooden. All in all, though, it's a pretty fun movie at just 68 minutes. A nice waste of time. 7/10.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nComing at the end of the cycle of the Universal Monsters horror films, and before the Golden Age of sci-fi films, House of Dracula is more science fiction than horror and incorporates some of the more cheesy {read:enjoyable} elements which would come to typify the sci-fi films of the coming era. Lon Chaney Jr. plays the Wolf Man, and John Carradine, Dracula and Glenn Strange, the Frankenstein monster.
A mad scientist sets out to \"cure\" both monsters of their \"sicknesses\" by means of modern {read:mad} science. When the scientist's beautiful nurse-assistant is revealed to be a hunchback early in the film, the viewer is thereby alerted to the fact this film is not going to be typical Universal fare; this film foreshadows the kind of sleazy exploitation we would come to take for granted in 1950's sci-fi.
If you don't mind the slower pacing of the older films and black & white does not throw you off, this film is recommended viewing. Afaik, this one is not currently available on DVD, but AMC airs it occasionally, so keep a lookout, or you could always wishlist it on your TiVo!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nAll-Monster congregation in the final film in Universal's renowned cycle of classic horror stories. Count Dracula (an intense, dapper John Carradine), calling himself Baron Latos, comes to Dr. Edelmann (Onslow Stevens) asking to be cured of his affliction. Naturally, this is just a ruse. Then, coincidentally, Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney), a.k.a. \"The Wolf Man\", shows up and of course he *really* wants to be cured.
As others have noted, the monsters don't get equal screen time. The Frankenstein Monster (Glenn Strange) gets thrown in at the end just for the purpose of including all of the Universal Monsters. Stock footage and library music are re-used here as well. The film spends maybe a little too much time with the Dracula part of the story, although Carradine gives an impressive, non-hammy performance in the role of the Count. The film is mainly a showcase for Stevens, who goes through a tragic character arc of his own, and does an excellent job. The women are gorgeous, and I have to say that I loved Jane Adams as the luminous nurse - who happens to be hunchbacked.
Of course, it wouldn't be complete without the inclusion of angry villagers.
Competently, professionally made chiller is, just for my tastes, not really scary at all, but entertaining regardless. It's a respectable series entry overall.
7/10
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis has one of the more unusual plots I've seen in a horror film, but it's based on good, solid Universal Studios fare: Lots of monsters, pretty heroine, torch-bearing villagers. But my favorite part is Larry Talbot (The Wolf Man) searching for the cure for his lycanthropy. After dying in the original \"Wolf Man,\" he is resurrected and wanders through \"Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man\" and \"House of Frankenstein\" searching for a way to end his affliction. I think first-time viewers will find his search in this particular movie very interesting.

\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\n\"House of Dracula\" is a good sequel to \"House of Frankenstein\". There isn't as much action but the acting is just as good. Onslow Stevens is the benevolent Doctor who turns bad after receiving blood from Dracula via a transfusion(Dracula was actually receiving the transfusion to overcome his \"affliction\" but he puts a spell on a hunchback nurse and then transfuses his blood into the Doctor.). It turns out that Dracula really didn't come to seek a cure but instead drain blood from a beautiful nurse. Dracula is destroyed and the Wolf Man is next in line for a cure(which is successful). In the meantime, Frankenstein's monster is discovered and revived briefly before burning to death(don't worry, the same trio came back in \"Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein\"). John Carradine again plays a sinister Dracula(Baron Latos is his alias at the start of the film and in \"House of Frankenstein\"). Lon Chaney is the sympathetic Wolf Man and Glenn Strange returns as the Frankenstein monster. Lionel Atwill again plays an inspector, which he often does in the Universal Studios monster films. A keeper for your collection.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDracula (John Carradine) visits Dr. Edelman (Onslow Stevens) who believes everything can be cured by science. He wants Edelamn to cure his vampirism--Edelman agrees. Then Lawrence Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) pops up looking for a cure for his turning into a werewolf. Thr Frankenstein monster is discovered too but doesn't really do anything.
Very ambitious plot for a Universal horror film from the 1940s. Trying to cure the monsters by science is actually an interesting idea. Also this movie has beautiful sets (LOVE the castle to doctor lives in), tons of atmosphere, is very well-directed (great use of shadows) and has pretty good special effects.
The acting is all good except for Carradine--he tries but I could never accept him as Dracula. Also Lionel Atwill pops in playing (as always) the chief of police. This is pretty much forgotten and derided as a stupid film but I think it's very good. It's also to last time the Universal monsters were done seriously--the next film was in 1948 in \"Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein\". It's a great film but the accent is more on comedy.
The only real flaw here is there's a LOT of plot for 67 minutes and some gaps in logic: Why does Dracula try to bite lovely Miliza (Martha O'Driscoll) when he's being cured? And why (and how) does the doctor get Frankenstin into his castle? Still these are small complaints. Recommended.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe last of the sequels,not counting Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein which was more or less a spoof.this time count Dracula (John Carridine)takes center stage seeking a cure for his vampirism from a kindly doc(Onslow Stevens).well good ole Larry Talbot(Lon Chaney Jr)shows up also seeking a cure.the good doc succeeds in curing Larry's werewolfism,but Dracula tricks the doc and ends up contaminating his blood and makes the good doc a crazed lunatic.oh and all this time big Franky(Glenn strange)lies on a table awaiting his electricity fix so he can wreak some havoc.this was kind of a short movie,around 70 minutes and some change,but the action is there,and the great actors are there as well.Lionel atwill turns up as a police inspector,heres some trivia,Lionel atwill appeared in son of Frankenstein,ghost of Frankenstein,Frankenstein meets the wolf-man,and house of Frankenstein. and then this one.if there was another in the series they May have added the creature from the black lagoon to the line up,I'm giving house of Dracula 8 out of 10.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe \"House of Dracula\" really has nothing new to offer in the way of chills or thrills or new twists on an already tired storyline. This film was made as a hasty sequel to the fairly better made \"House of Frankenstein\" from a year earlier. In \"House of Dracula\" you can see the factory like production values of 1945 taking their toll on an otherwise potentially scary movie. Stock footage from previous films in the series and then the ending from \"Ghost of Frankenstein\" used as the ending here just makes for an \"el cheepo\" flick. Therein lies the shame of the studio and the producer considering that they had top notch talent and merely wasted everybody's time and effort on a quick money return scheme. But that seems to have been the trend all throughout Hollywood at the end of WWII. This is what brought on some of those mindless SciFi pics of the 1950's with all their closeups of harmless lizards in order to make them appear as dinosaurs. The days of James Whale and Val Lewton, to mention two, were over as far as creating real mood and atmosphere in this genre. Keep in mind also that the makeup genius, Jack Pierce, who actually did medical research in order to create all of our favorites, was summarily fired right after this particular film was released. A lesser capable makeup man by the name of Bud Westmore was then hired as the head of this department at Universal, soon to be Universal-International. Not to denigrate Mr. Westmore's ability but horror films were just not his forte. OK, to watch or not to watch. Watch this film but only as part of the chronological order of the Frankenstein series and you'll see how this all ended up as comic fodder for Abbott & Costello.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nHouse of Dracula was made towards the end of Universal's horror cycle of the 1940's and I've seen this a couple of times.
A mad Doctor, Edelman is breeding plants for a serum that cures people. Count Dracula arrives for a cure for his vampirism and Lawrence Talbot then comes to see if he can cure him from turning into a werewolf at full moon. Frankenstein's monster is then discovered and Edelman brings him back to life just as the villagers descend on the castle and set it on fire. Talbot, now cured and one of Edelman's female assistants are safe though.
Like a lot of movies of its kind, we have a hunchback assistant and thunderstorm to keep it moving.
The cast includes Universal horror regulars Lon Chaney Jr (The Wolf Man), John Carradine (House of Frankenstein) and Glenn Strange as Frankenstein's monster. Also starring Onslow Stevens (Them!), Lionel Atwill (The Vampire Bat) and Martha O'Driscoll .
House of Dracula is a must see for all old horror fans out there. Great fun.
Rating: 3 stars out of 5.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI liked House of Dracula much more than house of Frankenstein. Carradine is much more passable & his acting isn't as ridiculous & overboard as in HOF. The actors deliver solid enough performances. The subplots (eg the monster, the village mobsters, the village idiot, the hunchback nurse etc ) are mixed in well, so that none becomes an odd splinter as in HOF. Better run than the stitched-together HOF. The hunchback nurse is as likable as the hunchback in HOF. The doctor is very good. As well, Lon Chaney adds a classy touch with his wolfman. Worth watching twice. A classic universal horror with that typical 1940's, long lost flair. Especially good is the doctor's performance before/after his blood had been contaminated with Dracula's.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis film marked the end of the \"serious\" Universal Monsters era (Abbott and Costello meet up with the monsters later in \"Abbott and Costello Meet Frankentstein\"). It was a somewhat desparate, yet fun attempt to revive the classic monsters of the Wolf Man, Frankenstein's monster, and Dracula one \"last\" time.
I say desparate, because in the previous film, \"House of Frankenstein,\" both Dracula and the Wolf Man are killed according to how the vampire and werewolf legends say they should be (Dracula by the sunlight, and the wolf man by a silver bullet). Yet somehow they return in House of Dracula with no explanation. This movie could have played as a kind of prequel to House of Frankenstein if the Frankenstein monster plot wouldn't be continuing chronologically into House of Dracula from House of Frankenstein, and if the wolf man didn't get cured. Then there'd be no plot holes. But since this is not the case, the plots of Dracula and the Wolf Man make no sense.
However, ignoring these plot holes, House of Dracula is a classic atmospheric horror film that's fun to watch. It has many high points. Especially seeing the wolf man get cured. I know I just said that this shouldn't have been included, but it was nice to actually see him get cured after all this time. And the scene with the lady playing \"Moonlight Senada,\" on the piano then all of a sudden playing a haunting melody when under Dracula's spell was very eerie. Dr. Edleman's transformation into the \"Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde\" type character was also done very well.
And it's great to see Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Wolf Man together, one \"last\" time.
*** out of ****
\n
assistant\n1
\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 has the look and feel of having been put together in a matter of days-kind of like Plan 9 From Outer Space. In spite of this, it's still a classic-ranking among my favorite Creature Features. *****POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD******* Count Dracula and Larry Talbot; aka Wolfman, arrive at the laboratory of Dr. Edelman seeking a cure for their nocturnal anti-social behavior, such as killing people. In the meantime, kindly Dr. Edelman discovers the body of the Frankenstein Monster. Becoming obsessed with bringing it back to life( a common character trait among scientists, mad or otherwise), he goes against his better judgement, resulting in monster mayhem and madness. One of the final Universal classics of it's time (Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein followed 3 years later), it rates a 10 with this reviewer. Onslow Steven steals the show as good doctor gone bad after being infected by the blood of Dracula and becoming a half- werewolf/vampire creature, coming to a tragic end. At 1 hour 7 min. it packs quite a punch. A worthy addition to my video collection.
Rating: ***** out of *****
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nDespite all of the comparisons to House of Frankenstein, this movie outshines its predecessor and is one of the funnest monster movies in the Universal Monsters series, and sadly, the last. O.k. so it doesn't exactly stack up to something like the Bride of Frankenstein as one a classic to revered by fans of all movies, but with a cast of Dracula, The Wolf Man and Frankenstein's monster (What? no mummy?) you can't help but enjoy this schlock fest! And unlike House of Frankenstein, the monsters in this movie interact a lot more. But this movie also offers some unique story lines for both Dracula and the Wolf Man who both go to Dr. Adleman for cures of their afflictions. While the Wolf Man actually does find a cure, Dracula injects his blood into the doctor and that's when the real fun begins! I highly recommend this movie to fans of classic horror movies. But remember, I never said it was good, just fun.
\n
assistant\n1
\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 was a very good Universal Monster movie. It once again stars Lon Chaney as The Wolfman and Glenn Strange as Frankenstein's Monster. Oh yeah, that jerk John Carradine is back again as Dracula. I like every actor in this movie. I especially liked Onslow Stevens as Dr. Edelmann. (It's spelled with 2 n's) I thought it was a good idea to have the goodhearted doctor himself doomed like Talbot was. One scene that I think is very good is the scene when Dr. Edelmann is in deep thought as he changes. Everything that is troubling him flashes before your eyes. The good Doctor is saying no while his evil side is saying yes. That's the only reason why I didn't want the Dracula character eliminated completely from this movie. I thought Dracula had no business in House of Frankenstein. If his character was taken out you wouldn't miss him. In this film the doctor's blood is contaminated with Dracula's, giving him his Jekyll and Hyde curse. I hate John Carradine and I don't think he should have ever played Dracula. I didn't mind other actors playing the Frankenstein Monster after the great Karloff because they all did good jobs. But when they get another actor to play Dracula it stops right there. John Carradine thought he was so high and mighty. They offered him the role of the Frankenstein Monster once and he turned it down because he thought he was too highly trained. I could just picture Carradine if he did play The Monster arguing with the director on the set, \"I don't have to take this from you, I've done Shakespeare.\" John Carradine wasn't Dracula and he never will be. Sorry John, Bela Lugosi is the one and only Dracula. Thank God they got Bela to come back as Dracula for Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein.
Don't miss this movie. It doesn't disappoint you and you will enjoy it as you did the other. This is a very good addition to the monster movies. If you're a collector, be sure not to leave this one out.

\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe reason I think this movie is fabulous is that it has so many layers of emotion. From the script and the fabulous acting you can tell that there is a history behind all of the feelings that there are. You understand why the characters take certain actions and why the do not make others. You can feel sympathy and joy and love and sorrow for them all at once. You see humanity at its best AND at it's worst. You can relate to the characters because although you may have never been in their exact situations before you see qualities and downfalls in them that you see in yourself. To a certain extent this movie kind of keeps you wondering but then at the end it explains itself and you feel a certain peace and understanding not only in you but for the characters. I will say that I have have never EVER cried so much in my life nor have gotten so much out of something. I implore you to watch this movie and take it's meaning to heart. That there is only one true thing and that is... love.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhat impressed me the most about \"One True Thing\" was how up-front it was when the daughter mentions her mother's cancer at the beginning of the movie. As depressing the subject matter was, it was a refreshing change of pace instead of being blindsided with the revelation about a character's fatal illness 2/3 into the movie (\"Love Story\" \"Terms of Endearment\", etc.).
Meryl Streep, Renee Zellweger and William Hurt give very strong performances that don't go over the edge. The characters they play seem human; they're not perfect people. (Arguably, one might not say that about the \"Martha Stewart\"-type character Streep plays but throughout the film, I found her character to be noble in a non-sappy way. She's dealing with her plight the best way she knows how.)
\"One True Thing\" is an observant, unsentimental family drama in which the tears at the end were well-earned.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOne True Thing rises above its potentially schlocky material to give us a view of a family of complex relationships and flawed, real people. It opens with Rene Zeleweger discussing her mother's death with the District Attorney; sparing us the cheap cinematic shots of a \"shocking\" illness and death. From there it proceeds into a look at a family system, in which everyone plays by a set of unexamined rules, and uses the mother's cancer to show what happens when all the rules change.
William Hurt as the self-important father, and Meryl Streep as the Suzy Homemaker mother are both superb; nuanced and not what they appear to be. Zeleweger is seething, angry and surprised with herself. Tom Everett Scott doesn't have much to do, but he does it well.
The story is predictable, and takes at least one badly soppy turn it needn't have taken, but the performances, and the view of family as a place where anger and love are equally mixed, make it worthwhile.
\n
assistant\n1
\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 not surprising that the majority of higher-rated votes were submitted by females aged 45+. This is the timeframe in women's lives when they become the caretakers of aged and ill parents. I lost my mother, from complications of cancer, in June, and went through most of the same emotions portrayed by Zellweger in this film. Yes, it made me cry, but the tears were real, the characters were real, and the plot development extremely accurate. Kudos to the entire cast and crew for a wonderful portrayal of life and death, and the promises of tomorrow.
\n
assistant\n1
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nKate Gulden, played by one of the most nominated actresses of the last decade of this century, and also one of the most talented actresses Meryl Streep(Out of Africa). She is wonderful is every part that she plays. The Yale graduate is the pride and joy of the American Cinema.
Kate's health is deteriorating and her husband, George, role well developed by brilliant actor and also Oscar winner, William Hurt (Smoke, Kiss of the Spider Woman) has a hard time with the deteriorating health of his one true thing, and seeks his daughter's help. The poor daughter, Ellen Gulden, Renée Zellweger (Jerry Maguire) has way too much expected of her. No breaks! The story takes a very realistic view on the illness of a parent. In this movie the only daughter has to put her life on hold to care for the needs of others. There is always one in every family who faces that kind of responsibility. Ellen is angry the beginning of the movie, but as time passes she ends up understanding her mothers' life time dedication to her family. She even asks her mom: How do you do his, every day, in and out and nobody notices it? That is what women do, a lot of what I call invisible work. Moreover we clean, we fix, we mend, we stretch, we celebrate, we are the best friends, we are confidants, the mistress, outreachers, disciplinarians, sensitive. Some of us, like both women in this movie, have the perfect education, are the psychological pillar for the entire family and also do all that invisible work! That is Kate Ellen, and many women in our society. Many of us have already gone through that stage of life when our parents age and died. I have been there. They just went too young. I have given my parents my thanks, but I never understood them as well as when I had to play their roles, and had to walk in their shoes. This movie mirrors the reality of life. Perhaps it is sad, but that is how life is, at times. George a Professor at Harvard is complicated person, who appears to think that his work is more important than everybody else, and has a very \"master/servant\" mentality toward the women in his life. He is not strong enough to cope. If you want to see good acting and the reality of life do not miss this movie. Favorite Scenes: The restaurant coming to Kate, violins and all. The making of a table out of broken china. That I so symbolic! We are all broken vessels! Favorite Quotes: George: \"It is only by going uphill, that you realize that you are really going downhill.\" George \"You have a Harvard education but where is your heart?\"

\n
assistant\n1
\n"