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\nBecause they all just watch there MST3K with their artificial friends who make (mostly) not that funny and obvious comments about movies. And that's the only way these people watch them and then they comment and down-vote them on the IMDb based just on that, they don't even try to watch the film on it's own.
I watched this film on it's own, I didn't read the reviews first, I didn't have some people telling what to laugh at, I just got the DVD (bought for the flip side Morons From Outer Space, an old fave) and watched it.
Of cause I knew kind of what I was in for when it's a Golan Globus, Albert Pyun film, but usually they can be quite entertaining.
The film is a non too stressing on the brain Alice down the Rabbit-hole story done so many times, and kind of similar in basic structure (but completely different in content) to Warlords of Atlantis, another entertaining B-Movie.
The voice, was annoying, but then that's the idea, which they even poke at with a few lines in the movie.
The hero character had one of the worst over-the top voices/accents in English language film history, but you grow to accept it and enjoy it.
It's not a good film, but it's not a really bad film, it's just a bit of an average B-Movie DTV kind of film, nothing too new nothing too outstanding, and probably would be enjoyed more by a younger age bracket (say 7-14 year olds) than I. It's a bit of light-hearted Fantasy.
Will I see it again, probably not maybe about 10 years ago I would have.
Don't be so harsh on a movie because a couple of puppets told you too, this film isn't taking itself seriously and it's certainly no Troll 2 or Space Mutiny.
\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\nAs a native Chinese, I can not accept this kind of idea that some people must die for a 'better world'. I said 'better world' because it is a lie that Chinese people have been indoctrinated for thousand years!
I guess most western audience may don't know Qin Shihuang(means the first emperor), the king in this film is the most notorious tyrant in ancient China. The Tianxia(Chinese word was spoken by the king, means 'the land and the people') spoken from his mouth is totally lie. From then on, one after another, all the king in ancient china spoke the same thing but very few of them did as what they said.
Another fact is, Qin Shihuang's empire only lasted about twenty years before it was destroyed by people.
Well, I do like the beautiful scenes of this movie, but it can not make me accept the idea that people should die for a tyrant.
\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 message of Hero is quite clear: the idea of Greater China is more important than the death and the suffering of millions. At a time when China is dangling its war toys over Taiwan, it is unacceptable for Western viewers to endorse this piece of over-produced, government-sponsored, dogmatic trash.
Particularly surprising is the promotion of this film by the liberal media. Roger Ebert of Chicago Tribune, David Edelstein of Slate, Charles Taylor of Salon, and many others have wholeheartedly endorsed Hero. In so doing, they have implicitly legitimated its reactionary political message. The only critic (that I know of) who saw through the film's glossy facade was J. Hoberman of The Village Voice, who wrote of the film's \"sanctimonious traditionalism\" and its \"glorification of ruthless leadership and self-sacrifice on the altar of national greatness.\" I, for one, sign my name under Hoberman's final pronouncement: Hero is nothing more than \"fascinating fascism.\"
\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\nImpressive vision indeed, and some hot chicks with swords flying around, oh and those hypnotic Chinese violins too... Let me think, \"Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon\"?
I kinda liked CTHD, with its down-to-earth simplicity and well developed characters, that still left enough room for you to enjoy the vision without having to think about the DEEEPAA Meaning of it.
\"Hero\" on the other hand is painfully pretentious and demanding both visually and conceptually. The larger-than-life moral was horrible. I mean, sacrifice your life, sacrifice your beliefs, sacrifice your love so that your mighty nation can succeed???? WTF??
No, thanks.
But, hay, Mao and G.W.B. would be proud!
Viva
\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\nSalesman Lenny Brown (Woods) is fast losing his knack of selling the proverbial ice cream to Eskimos. Given a chance to shine in California by a philanthropic entrepreneur, Brown and his wife Linda (Young) live the high life off tax shelter investments; a fortune they lose when the federal government changes the tax laws.
Seven hundred thousand dollars in the red, and in need of a 'boost', the yuppies without portfolio begin to hoover vast quantities of Colombian marching powder up their hooters, until they find themselves with rather hungry monkeys on their back. After briefly cleaning up, Linda's coke-induced miscarriage sees Lenny once more careering like a pinball between uppers and downers. Living purgatory follows.
A contemporary take on Reefer Madness, with perverse echoes of Albert Brooks' Lost In America, The Boost was overshadowed on release by tabloid revelations concerning an alleged affair between Woods and Young, and their tumultuous falling out. Woods, then engaged to horse trainer Sarah Owen (now his ex-wife), reputedly slapped a $2 million lawsuit on his spurned co-star for \"emotional harassment\" during filming, citing Fatal Attraction-style late-night phone calls to his fiancée and, in one noteworthy incident, reputedly leaving a mutilated baby doll on his and Owen's doorstep.
Ironically, the lack of chemistry between the supposedly loving leads is one of the more depressing aspects of this latter-day exploitation flick - the only real passion Woods demonstrates towards Young is when he's kicking her around the room. The script too is hilariously dreadful, perhaps mitigating Young's near-comatose performance when given howlers like \"stay with me - 'til I fall off the Earth\" to emote. Further, given Woods' edgy dramatic personae, his jittery descent loses all credibility when actually he looked that way to begin with.
Ultimately, The Boost must be seen in context: in the 21st Century cocaine use is ubiquitous. However, in 1988, with America still embroiled in an unwinnable \"war on drugs\", the very fibre of the nation looked to be in peril - hence one of the most hellish - and for that read hysterical - depictions of drug-abuse.
\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\nMy gosh, this movie was nothing more than filmmaking by numbers. Struggling salesman can't make a go of it in New York, mentor with a heart of gold takes him under his wing, struggling salesman moves to California and makes it big, then loses it big, then bounces back with the simple life, then hits rock bottom trying to get back to the top. I don't think I can remember any part of the plot that took more than five seconds to develop. Case in point (spoiler?): When the John Kapelos character calls to say he and his girlfriend were coming to Santa Cruz to visit, and James Woods says there's practically no chance he would come, you knew with 100% certainty they were coming in the next scene or two.
On the other hand, Sean Young sure looked good.
\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 saw this film in the theater when it first came out, I'm sorry to say, and it was one of only a few films I have ever wanted to walk out of early. I didn't have a problem with the drug content and I could see how this cautionary tale could have been powerful. The problem was, the film-maker, working with James Woods and Sean Young, drew two of the least lovable characters I have ever seen on film. I hated this pair and couldn't have cared less if they sunk straight to the inevitable bottom. Their was not one surprise in this film. Every turn of events was so painfully obvious that I felt I could have written the script myself; although I like to think I would have done a better job. I subsequently heard nightmarish stories about the incidents on the set between Sean Young and James Woods along the lines of some sort of stalking events. It made me wonder if the terrible acting arose out of some bad feelings and dysfunction. Anyway, I refer to The Boost as the worst film I've ever paid money to see.
\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 film is right up there with The Oscar and Moment by Moment as one of unintentionally funny films of all time.
It is worth the rental for a some wildly great laugh's.
The story is absolutely ludicrous.nothing in life would happen like this.it's so completely unbelievable. the way James Woods tries and hustle heavy hitters, than they give this supposed two-bit hustler a job 3000 miles away in LA what a joke
I love the old beat VW bug to signify how low they've gotten in life because of all the `tootski's'.
Sean Young is as unbelievably bad as the, \"I'll love you forever, no matter what, wife\" you'll ever see.if it wasn't so funny you would throw up at how sugary sweet Young tries to project herself.and as bad acting as you'll ever see.
James Wood overacts throughout the whole movie and he's so extremely funny and is way, way over the top, it's just not to be believed, Woods seems like a parody of a cocaine fiend off Saturday Night Live.but watching Woods on `ludes' is worth the price of the rental.
I love it when Woods tells the guy who wants to give him some more `ludes' that he doesn't do that stuff anymore, right before that, Woods just did three giant lines of coke.
This is some very funny stuff.
The ending is so comical but right on par with the rest of the movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIts almost embarrassing to say I even saw this movie. I mean it doesn't take much to make a good zombie movie besides good special effects, lots of blood and gore, some scary moments and a decent plot. Does House of the Dead 2 do any of these things right? No, not one. Of course, its not as bad as its predecessor, from Uwe Bowle and thats the only thing about this movie that scares me.
The dialog in this movie is notorious, with such lines as \"What do you do for a living?\" in response \"I kill zombies\" and \"I was never a disk jockey, I was a soldier.\" The special effects are embarrassing even for a made for TV movie, I mean seriously, the zombies all look like they have bloody lips are hyped up on crack. The army base in this movie, is a parking garage, with a desk and a open gated room. This movie is so low budget that they couldn't even get co-ed locker rooms. In fact it seems like this entire movie was filmed in a middle school.
Also, why is it that the all the female soldiers in this movie are models? And for that matter why is everyone in this movie so clueless at to what is going on that they simply just stand around letting the zombies kill them. Heck one guy even trys to give food to the zombie.
Overall, this movie makes even the worst of Scifi Channel movies looks fantastic.
\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 haven't had a chance to view the previous film, but from what I've read on other posts it was supposedly worse than this one, although I doubt that is possible. I'm a huge fan of the \"Zombie\" genre, and I am fascinated by the psychological aspects of viewing creatures, that for all intents and purposes are human, as an atrocity that is only worth shooting in the head. That said, HOTD 2 takes the \"Zombie\" movie to an all new low.
Without giving any big spoilers (which I really should do just so you won't bother wasting your time actually watching this movie) I would like to express my utter contempt for the way the writers of this film portray our countries Special Forces. Gomer Pile could have probably survived longer than the \"Spec Ops\" soldiers in this film. For crying out loud they should have called them the Special Education Forces instead. If you are going to write a script where you send in an elite team to deal with an outbreak of zombies, at least have the soldiers be smarter than the walking corpses. I understand that you have to kill off some or most of the team, but you can find better ways to do it than having them set down their machine guns and walk over to lay a tender hand on the shoulder of the drooling crazy person rocking back and forth in the corner of the dark creepy basement.
The writers actually try to take the whole zombie thing to a more high-tech level by making it a virus that they are searching for a vaccine for, and the idea has merit, if it wasn't stuck in the middle of such a ridiculous display of wayward film making. I mean come on, zombie films aren't exactly \"high art\", and the viewer expects some tongue-in-cheek cheesiness along with the gore and thrills, but HOTD 2 is the type of cheese that makes you turn the channel in disgust and awe of the sheer stupidity of the characters. If you are a zombie movie fan like me, please do yourself a favor and stay away from 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\nGranted, HOTD 2 is better than the Uwe Boll crapfest that was the first one, but thats like saying drowning is better than being chopped alive. OK OK, I'm being a little bit harsh with this one, its just that Video Game adaptations of Zombie movies always leave a bad taste in my mouth. Resident Evil was alright, but its sequels are pure rubbish. The first HOTD was entertaining crap more than anything else; Uwe Boll saw to that. And HOTD 2 was...better? The entertainment value was there, the hot chicks were there, the gore was there, but... this is it? The script, even though subpar, was better than the first one. But in the script dwells horribly written characters, stupid action sequences, clichés, and an ending that drags on and on reaching a level of ridiculousness which would make the Bollmeister very, very proud. But, it could've been worse right?
HOTD 2 stars Sig Haig (Yes, Sid Haig) as an insane doctor looking for a cure to death. As you may guess, it all goes to sh*t. A nearby College Campus seems to be the center for the Zombie (or Hypersapien?) epidemic, and as you may expect, a group of Commandos and two Zombie scientists try to save the world by going there and neutralizing the problem. Their main goal? No, it ain't blowing sh*t up. Instead, they have to get a sample of zombie blood, so they can create a cure to the deadly virus. Between this and that lays bland character interactions, an insufferable amount of clichés (but hey, at least the black guy isn't the first one to get killed), and decent looking Zombies.
The acting is passable. Who would've thought that Sticky Fingaz was a passable actor? Not me. Emmanuelle Vaugier and Ed Quinn shine somewhat as the leads. And the supporting cast was passable too. It was all passable.
The make up effects on the Zombies were alright, it could've been worse like in the first HOTD: just guys running around in dusty mummy suits. The gore was alright too. Cheap scares and even cheaper tension are almost non-existent in this movie, which is a good thing. The action sequences were stupid as f*ck, but at least there wasn't any sword fighting zombies or that ridiculous slow motion bullet effect.
Overall, this movie will appeal only to Zombie enthusiasts, fans of the arcade games and for someone who wants to rent a cheap Horror movie for the weekend. Apparently there's going to be a third one as hinted by the ending, but I wouldn't count on it. Unless Uwe decides to do it. A 4.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI was on a mission to watch Uwe Boll movies to see if they were really as bad as all that. The first one I saw, BloodRayne, was not a complete loss. I liked it more than most people, and actually rated it a 4 out of 10. Next up was the first House of the Dead movie. Now THAT was horrifically bad. I could stand watching ten minutes of it, and fast-forwarding a bit, and that was it. I could see where it was going and I didn't need to see any more of it in order to rate it a just 1 out of 10.
But I had access to the sequel, too (which however is not by Uwe Boll, but, mysteriously, written by the same guys who so incompetently wrote the first one), and since it got a higher rating at IMDb than the original, I thought I'd give it a chance. And I actually managed to watch all of it. It started out with some funny references and cool lines (like how the president got his orders from the vice-president!), and acting-wise it is light-years better than the first. Here we have cool muchachas like the ultra-hot Emmanuelle Vaugier, whose coolness is in league with Carrie-Anne Moss, Claudia Black and Evangeline Lilly. Man, I hope some Matrix-style movie comes along for her sometime. And the always delectable, super-aerobicized Victoria Pratt. I love athletic women. And, there was also Nadine Velazquez (Catalina on \"My Name Is Earl\"), who performed quite well.
The story wasn't much, and the action wasn't great, either, and the ending was a disappointment, as they didn't succeed in their mission. Oh well, at least the two mains survived. Guess that's some small victory, too.
Good cast, but a pretty bad movie. The actors make it watchable, but there's no real substance there.
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\nI saw the first House of the Dead and expected a root canal to be more pleasant to attend, so when it wasn't as bad as that, I was delightfully surprised.
Unfortunately, I then got my hopes up that the second one might be okay as well...and I was wrong.
Apparently I'm one of the few people who saw this movie that thinks it was bad.
I don't know whether to watch it again and force myself to see whatever all the people who gave it good reviews saw, or wonder if I saw the wrong movie.
Ed Quinn as Ellis and Emmanuelle Vaugier as Alexandra 'Nightingale' Morgan did a great job in roles that were way beneath them. They deserve to be in better movies.
The special effects were okay and some of the characters likable/hate-able and that made for a tolerable watch, but for the most part, this movie was just a waste of time.
Oh and I have to ask this because I found myself asking it aloud ALL the way through the movie...did anyone not know how to close doors behind themselves so zombies wouldn't just wander into the rooms? Only once did it happen, (zombies wandering in) and I found that a little convenient...soldiers walk into a room, leave the door wide open, pay little to no attention to same said door so the zombies can just walk in if they feel like it (with the hapless \"livings\" being cornered with no way to escape) and yet only once did zombies follow them in.
Nitpicky? Maybe but honestly...if I was fighting for my life, the last thing I'd do would be to walk into a room and leave the door wide open so zombies could swarm in and eat me.
That is really the only thing *bothered* me throughout the movie, and just the movie for the most part was a bad sequel to a not totally abominable original.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI'm sorry, but they did leave the impression that these commandos fought zombies before. But they sure didn't act like they even seen a zombie before. Jumping and turning their backs on them like amateurs. Second, the characters are pretty badly written. The actors did the best they could with what was given, I blame bad writing and bad directing. Lastly and here is where the spoiler warnings are highest. They loose the sample twice and the girl Jennifer Holland doesn't know if she's been bit or not. How stupid is that? As much as it hurts to be bitten, one would think you would know, plus gallons of blood leaking from your body is a good clue. Dumb, the first movie had it's flaws but it has re-watchablity, unlike this disaster of a movie, which I could barely get through once. I give the HOUSE OF THE DEAD 2: NO GUTS, ALL STUPIDITY THE CRAP-O-LANTERN
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one of the most awful movies I've had the misfortune of picking up. Don't get me wrong, I love a good zombie flick, but this wasn't one of them.
...Might as well (from the opening scenes, at least) been called 'Titty Zombies from Outer Space'. It had absolutely nothing to do with the other movie or the video game (as far as I could tell.)
The best aspect of the film is how the two main characters can get covered with so much blood and remain so nonplussed. I would certainly suggest giving this one and miss and staying with a safer zombie pleaser like '28 Days Later' or 'Dawn of the Living Dead' (the remake, of course, unless you're into some serious campy action.)
\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\"House of the Dead 2: Dead Aim\" (2005) is the sequel, though you really don't need to see the first \"House of the Dead\" to get this film. That said, the production value is definitely here, with great zombie effects and it's edited quite nicely, with very effective sound design. However, that said, that's about all that's good here.
The story and script are awful . . . there's blatant plot holes everywhere. It's also funny how the soldiers don't mind if they get blood on their faces (unlike in 28 Days Later where blood in any part of the body will infect you). Also realistic how there's little order with the soldiers here unlike the usual US Military discipline.
A 4 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 bad can you make a film. A good question which House of the Dead 2 succeeds in answering. I could not believe it was possible to get something worse than the first House of the Dead but amazingly the director has succeeded. The only feeling you get from the film is that its bad, just bad. What with overacting, bad FX and a stupid story. Its this kind of movie which gives a bad name to Z-Movies in general. Why could they not learn the lesson from the first House of the Dead movie? Anyway I guess you will have understood by now that you should not see this film. It is but a waste of time. Watch \"Bad Taste\" or \"Dawn of the Dead\" if you want to see some good zombies.
\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 can't get over how lazy the director is with this movie. Instead of setting up scenes in a creative way he relies on boring old zombie clichés.
Where the two unarmed leads have to get down the college steps into the van he surrounds them with zombies yet neither of the leads is bitten. He can't be bothered to direct a decent fight scene so we see the leads shove their way down the steps.
Sometimes the zombies limp about and at others they run like the wind. This is really convenient for the director because he can set up anything he likes without bothering with continuity in the behaviour of the zombies.
With careful planning and a lot more inspiration this movie could have been so much better.
\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\nTerrible, boring zombie sequel is only marginally better than Uwe's horrible first film. It consists of a group of soldiers going into a zombie plagued college campus to find a certain type of blood which could assist in finding a cure for the infection. These soldiers are your typical lambs to the slaughter and none of them are that drawn out(or at least aren't very interesting)so you don't feel a sadness at the pit of your stomach when they are disposed of. The film has the typical zombies biting humans and blood splatter. It even has the same munching on guts. It just doesn't do anything for the zombie genre to give it memory. And, the story's climax is rather anti-climactic and ridiculous. One wonders how two people can submerged in an army of zombies and not get bit(for they are the main stars who seem to always manage escapability)while others seem to get bit rather easily. The film sole motivation is to show people getting bit..nothing else. Just go watch a Romero film for lasting effect.
\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\nSo lame it isn't even funny. A zombie infection overtakes a small college campus and a government squad of secret operatives back up a couple of scientists sent to find the origin of the outbreak. Collecting zombie DNA damn sure is not easy. Once bitten you're one of \"them\". The entire university has been completely infected by the run amok undead.
This sequel does not even redeem the awful original HOUSE OF THE DEAD(2003). Senseless entertainment is accomplished though. A few glimpses of female nakedness added to a gaggle of gore and exploding heads should keep any zombie freak happy. Credited cast members: Emmanuelle Vaugier, Victoria Pratt, Ed Quinn, Sid Haig and Nadine Velazquez. The \"F\" word holds together an unimaginative script.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIf you haven't seen the first one you have to at least know someone who has and you have to know it was painful to sit through. There just wasn't anything good to say about it at all. So what's different with the second one? Why bother making a sequel for a movie that was wretched? This one doesn't take itself too seriously. It knows it was made for TV and doesn't try to impress with great or serious dialogue. There are moments where it tries to get 'serious' or 'intense' but these moments are so corny you have to laugh.
Thankfully gone are any elements of Uwe Boll and any hint that this originated from a video game (other than the title of course). Don't go into this movie expecting anything worth mentioning to your friends unless they're into camp, lame zombie movies, or are interested in making a drinking game out of this movie. Take two shots whenever Ed Quinn's character mentions his dead brother! Take one shot whenever a bullet would have been better place in the head of a zombie instead of pumping three in the chest! etc etc.
\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 used to work in a video store. I saw this title in the horror section and took it home as a free rental one night.
This movie was truly awful, there is no redeeming quality about it, because it actually takes a well respected sub genre of film and just goes about destroying it. If the first film wasn't low budget enough then this film truly takes the biscuit, being housed (mostly) indoors and at night...therefore avoiding the scenic cost setting of the first film In the first 5 minutes of this film a college lecturer comically runs over an attractive student. Rather than be mortified, the lecturer half heartedly apologises and the girl mentions that despite being thrown across the cars bonnet (he sped up as he approached her) that there is nothing to worry about...after which he attacks her with a crowbar and kills her! If this isn't strange enough, he wants to perform an experiment upon her, bringing her back from the dead....and so feels the need to remove her clothing to do so.
Soft core female nudity (and pubic hair) is rampant throughout the film and is, to be honest,the only real thing to hold the average male viewers interest...like the swimming scene in the first film...but even having said that this film goes from bad to worse with its bad character acting, crappy dialogue and absurd plot turns....why introduce a pivotal character who has survived 29 days from zombie attack only to kill them within 10 minutes....its just a very very bad film
\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 one of the stars of a movie is named Sticky Fingaz, you should know enough to stay away. Stay away. HOUSE 2 is just more of the same, this time with zombies overrunning a college campus (man, how that must have saved on money). As usual, the \"zombies\" are given no direction so speak of, and provided very little makeup or costuming. They look like the zombies in one of those endless Italian zombie cheapies from years ago. Which is to say, they don't look like the kind of zombies we know and love from George Romero and Dan O'Bannon zombie flicks. The folks battling the zombies are all nonactors who get to shoot guns and do little else. Some who have written here feel the sequel is slightly more focused than the original. All I have to say is I'm glad the sequel's director did away with the 360-degree pan shots that helped to ruin the first movie. HOUSE 2 is still just more of the same, which means a lot of nothing happens for 80 or 90 minutes. There is one set piece, involving soldiers tussling with a zombie football team, that might at least have been funny. It's not.
\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 furious! It has been a while since the last zombie movie I've watched so I was really looking forward to watching a good ol' gory zombie movie. HoTD2 was a major disappointment. A reasonable story but awful acting, filming, dialogue, and nauseating clichés and punch lines. I didn't even see the first one which is supposedly worse than this one...now I am curious about how bad could that one have been! The film is full of mistakes and goofs. Who on earth analyses DNA using a blood sample!? Why are these \"special forces\" who \"have been to hell and back\" fight like spoiled 6 year old girls? We see ferocious zombies who would take a bite at any chance they get then hundreds of them that wave their arms at our two \"heroes\", take them down to the ground, then let them go without even a scratch. I could go on and on about this but life is too short and I have already wasted a couple of hours watching this pathetic movie which is an insult to the movie industry.
\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 will keep it to bullet points so here goes: 1. Very badly scripted. 2. Tries to be like Resident Evil. 3. Zombies slow and docile one minute the next minute Raging lunatics. 4. Never saw blood clean up so easily! 5. Special effects not as good as the original \"day of the living dead\". 6. Acting not as good as the \"Bold and the beautiful\". 7. It looks like it was written in 1 week and made the next week.
Basicaly Med team plus Special Forces go into a Zombie infested university to find the first Zombie and extract a serum to cure the plague. All die except the 2 main stars so predictable even though unarmed and swarmed with 100s of zombies they survived. However special forces (who were trained at kindergarten school scouts) only took 1 zombie to kill them even though they had weapons. Also the obligatory jerk on hand to fill any gaps. Overall load of rubbish.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\noh man, where to even begin.....
dropping your gun to get in hand to hand combat w/ a zombie, while holding a bitten soldier down debating to shoot him b4 he turns, then he turns and bites the person holding him down, turning your back on a \"fallen\" zombie, continuously shooting the chest and seeing it doesn't work, so they shoot the chest some more, having the idea that a kid slumped at a desk w/ blood coming out of his mouth is still alright, walking along a football field like nothing is wrong then all the sudden noticing the zombie football team doing whatever in the middle of the field like they couldn't have been seen up to that point....
i could go one for a few more hours, but you get the point.....childish writing and dialog, bad directing, horrid special effects, truly sad and undeveloped storyline (zombie infested campus, must get the viral host then lose it....twice), the only plus i can find is that this one doesn't include clips of the actual game during the \"action scenes\"....
id say don't waste your money, but id be more upset about the waste of time, i saw it on cable and wanted the 2 hours of my life back
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOK this movie was by far worse then the first one and the first one sucked! The zombie make up was extremely fake! The acting is very poor! And it doesn't really follow the first one! While watching this I kept thinking wow the first one is a masterpiece compared to this. I would say catch it on TV, Don't spend your money on it! Its not the worst movie i've ever seen but its on the list. I started watching it last night and fell asleep so i watched it today and almost fell asleep again! The plot was pointless, I mean i get the fact that a small military group are sent on a mission to get the blood of the lead zombie and bring it back so they can use it to save lives and stop zombies but they made it where you wanted everyone to die. They made plenty of bad guys who really were just annoying. If you ask me this was a rip off of resident evil and not a good rip off either. The plot could have made it if the acting was good and if they actually made you feel scared to see whats behind the corner. With these zombies my grandma could have went in that building and survived! out of a 1-10 i give it a 2.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nOK I have to admit that I quite enjoyed House of the Dead despite its well documented failings. This however was the worst film I have seen since Demons at the Door. Compared to DATD the effects are vastly superior. However the plot is weak, the acting reminiscent of everyone's favourite, the porn film, and the decisions and actions of the \"characters\" consistently verge on the moronic. I feel like trying out Uwe Boll's latest cinematic outings just to get some sense of perspective over HOTD2. I am not suggesting that he is really the cure, more a case of a different disease, but when your senses have been insulted in such an abhorrent manner the only way is up. OK there it is. I have managed the ten line minimum and shall waste no more of our time on the waste of celluloid that is House of the dead 2.
\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\nA college professor is working on creating zombies and, wouldn't you know it, things go horribly wrong. Next thing you know, the whole campus is overrun. Thank goodness there's a pair of uber-commandos trained for just such a situation. Too bad they must be accompanied by a group of moron-commandos, lead by a rapper (he doesn't even bother trying to play a military guy, he just responds to his superiors as if he were rappin' wit' da homies in da hood). The high point of this part of the movie is the locker room scene. The male and female moron-commandos share the same locker room, and apparently military regulations require all females to wear black bras and panties. Hey, if you can't make a good movie, at least you can have women in their underwear. My hat's off to the film makers.
So, after much discussion of how well prepared these moron-commandos are for the job (Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq), they all get killed off in fairly short order. Their biggest downfall seems to be that it never occurs to them to turn any lights on. A typical encounter has them walking into a room and seeing someone at the far end. Human or zombie? Can't tell. Flip on the lights? No, moron-commando protocol requires them to walk up to the person, making sure to hold their gun in such a way that it can be easily knocked out of their hand, and well, you know the drill. The demise of Sergeant Major Sticky Fingaz is especially fun - my favorite scene involving a rapper in any movie I've ever seen. Luckily (and again, hats off to the filmmakers), the hottest babe among the moron-commandos manages to survive. Her and the female uber-commando both wind up in tight T-shirts for the remainder of the movie. Now this is how a military operation should be performed! There's a bunch of running around, punctuated my humorous stuff like the uber-commandos being unable to get through a simple ventilator grating (it obviously is a thin piece of aluminum that you could easily put your fist through). This necessitates a plan to rub zombie guts all over themselves, and even though we've seen nothing in the movie to indicate that zombies locate their prey by smell, they're good enough to immediately begin sniffing the zombie guts and let our heroes go.
A few other funny bits - the Paris Hilton gag, the \"Can you hear me now?\" gag, and the fact that although the zombies immediately bite secondary characters, main characters are able to fight their way through dozens of them without being nibbled on. Another chuckle is provided by Mr. Fingaz, who can't seem to pronounce the word 'tourniquet' (toe-no-kit?).
Overall, it's somewhat amusing. Could have used some more interesting characters, but for a Sci-Fi Channel original, I was mildly impressed.
\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\nSo many of these types of movies out these days. This zombie flick falls into the major \"cheese\" category unlike the far more polished dawn of the dead, and day of the dead. In all fairness those 2 movies were major studio releases with big budgets behind them. But they were also good movies. A low budget movie can still be good if only they would stop accepting and using the worst scripts around. Whoever wrote this movie must have been drunk the whole time.
This movie had so so special effects and a very un-even plot line. The one major difference from other movies of its type is the time it takes for people to transform into zombies. In this one, it seems to take just seconds for them to die and then turn into a zombie. Yet with the ease this \"infection\" spreads you can have zombie blood all over you and not even seem to be at risk for infection, and believe me the people in this one get covered in blood.
The main problem I had is that our 2 main stars at times were walking around dozens of zombies and didn't get bit. When everybody else turns into zombies amazingly quickly these 2 were swarmed by zombies when they were even unarmed and were able to come out of it without a problem. Our hot chick star even survived a missile strike on the building she was in. I was laughing out load at that point. Unarmed, having like 10 zombies on her and a missile hits the building yet she manages to get out without a scratch? OK sure....
Also whoever advised these people on how special forces behaves obviously never spent any time in the military. They should have watched a movie like Blackhawk down first to get at least an idea of how they behave in combat situations.
One soldier was a fat overweight SPECIAL FORCES private. LOL that was a good one. Another kept going up to zombies thinking they were survivors, even putting his weapon down at one point. These guys are in there to fight zombies and they were acting like the soldiers from the movie Stripes. Special Forces, lol...
Then they get to the point at which they try to explain the zombie girl in the rubber room and the whole thing gets very confusing. The explanation is muddled and does not even follow the first movie. It made no sense at all.
The only thing I liked was the Anti Bush jokes. The military lady at the beginning told them that the order came down from the Vice President to the President and at the end it was the Vice President from an \"undisclosed location\" giving the orders. That was the best part of the movie for me.
\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 fake documentary is flawed on a lot of points, it's badly made, has uninteresting characters but the biggest problem I have with it is the basic premise.
This film uses the idea that H.P. Lovecraft has traveled to Italy and that some of his work is based on real supernatural events that he witnessed. I'm willing to go along with the notion that he traveled to Italy (only for suspension of disbelieve) but that some of his work is based on reality and that Insmouth exist is total nonsense.
First of all, Lovecraft didn't believe in the supernatural, in his letters he clearly states that he considered himself a mechanical materialist, his monsters where there to show that humans weren't so special after all. Another myth used in this film is that Lovecraft was an expert on the occult, he wasn't, all his knowledge on the subject came from the most basic sources.
So we end up with a film about people jelling at each other a lot and when we finally see the monster, it's so bad that you can't even laugh at it, you just feel a pain in your love for horror.
After seeing the film Frankenstein Lovecraft said that he felt sorry for Mary Shelley because he felt that her work was butchered. I feel sorry for Lovecraft.
\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 film plays like a demented episode of VH1's \"Where Are They Now\", or \"Behind The Music\". In the first half of the movie (that depict his \"glory days\") Abbie Hoffman is unintentionally portrayed as a sort of delusional rock star. You know the kind; the poseur lead singer, the pretty boy, who didn't write any of the music, doesn't have a clue, but gets all the glory for nothing and chicks for free. Consequently he takes his success for granted, abuses it, and ultimately destroys it along with himself. Indeed Hoffman's glory days ended abruptly when he was busted for dealing cocaine, skipped bail, and went into hiding.
The second part of the movie deals with that time in hiding. In it we see Hoffman as a pathetic crybaby endlessly blaming everyone, anyone, but himself for his downfall. Eventually the times pass him by completely; and he can never to come to grips with that. How sad. THE END. End credits roll and OH NO! We learn that Abbie Hoffman eventually committed suicide in 1989.
I'm sure this is not the image the filmmakers intended for Hoffman in making this movie. Given that Tom Hayden and Gerald Lefcourt were involved, I'm sure they intended this film as some kind of homage to the life of a man who was after all, an icon of the 60's and of the Left's anti-war movement. In this they have failed miserably. The film presents Abbie Hoffman as a mindless caricature. We are never told about what drives him. How did he arrive at his views? How did he manage to capture the imagination of a whole generation? How did he organize such a vast movement? Why at the height of his fame did he get involved in dealing cocaine? Why? Who knows, and since the filmmakers don't seem to, ultimately who cares?
\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\nLet me start out by saying that I am a huge fan of Abbie Hoffman and have read Steal this Book and Steal this Urine Test. Also am a even bigger Jerry Rubin fan. But his movie was a discusting pile of rubbish that made a very PG version of Abbie Hoffman. The director took no chances into making Abbie Hoffman interesting in this movie. They despicted Stew Albert as a F***ing cartoon chjaractor devoid of intellegence, the man was a proffesor at Berkley for christsakes. Ok they did a horrid casting job for Anita Hoffman, did a Horrible job casting for the Jerry Rubin character. I just guess the movie doesnt fit the news flashes that I have seen of Abbie or the books that he wrote. The movie just didnt fit and upset me. Oh yeah and theat is the absolute worst voice over I have ever heard of Richard Nixon. This is one of the few movies that I have ever rented that I could not sit all the way through because, I have a passion for Abbie Hoffman and his discruntled band of Yippies and this movie was just plain badly done. And it hurt me that now when people see a movie about the yippies they will see a terrible adaptation, and not get a true sense of reality. Instead they get a hollywoodized palanthra of crap.

\n
assistant\n0
\n"