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\nIt's proof that movie makers and their financiers treating their audience with contempt isn't a new phenomena as it was done as early as the 1940s and HOUSE OF Dracula is a great example . You'd think having a film with Dracula , the wolf man and Frankenstein's monster the producer would dictate to the screenwriter to have all three appear in a scene . They had a chance with HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN then when they had a second bite of the cherry they blew it again with HOUSE OF Dracula . To lose one chance is a misfortune , to lose two smacks of cynical money making
It's obvious the producers are beyond caring . Larry Talbot turns up again even though he was shown to die in the previous film which sums up the cynicism of the franchise . It also shows what a poor screenplay it is and we're mistreated to some awful plot turns like Talbot's condition being cured by a special type of plant which will soften his skull . I'm thinking screenwriter Edward T Lowe might have had his skull softened if this is the type of stuff he comes up with
Director Erie C Kenton can't improve on the script and throws in a few spanners of his own . For example Talbot is startled to see Dr Edelmann snatch a lift on a cart but nonchalantly watches Edelmann climb a wall and jump in to the château courtyard . One can't help thinking Talbot's reaction shots were mistakenly switched round at the editing stage
Lon Chaney Jnr is famous for his roles in horror movies but didn't have much of a career outside them . Perhaps that's down to the fact he's not a good actor and here he commits the worst type of acting - being very wooden . It's not entirely his fault though because all the characters spout rather awful dialogue and are all rather wooden due in part to Kenton's lackluster directing
HOUSE OF Dracula feels a million miles away from James Whale 1931 film and its sequel from 1935 and would have been a very sad note to end on . But ironically Universal decided to make one more movie to wrap up their franchise with a horror comedy starring Abbot and Costello
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI watched this film when I was a kid, and I thought it was terrible then. Now that I'm older, I found it just as terrible. Universal could have done better than this. They merely decided to make the most money they could out of using all their monsters at once. To me, that was a cheap shot. These characters were capable of holding their own in their own movies, and the choice of actors was deplorable. Dracula needed to be Bela Lugosi, Frankenstein's, monster needed to be Karloff.
In my mind, it was the Disney squalid sequel sequence done decades ago, and it was not appreciated. Umiversal started out with something great and original, and then thought they could pander to the masses with the schlock which is extremely evident in this 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\nOkay -- the title \"House of Frankenstein\", was a reference to a line from the original Frankenstein movie. When they follow it up with a movie entitled \"House of Dracula\", which makes no real sense, you know that it's just beginning to turn into a franchise.
Without explanation, Dracula is back, and he's calling himself Baron Latos. He infiltrates the home of a Doctor Edelmann, with the claim that he is seeking a cure for his vampirism. Edelmann has a hunchback nurse who assists him (what is it with hunchback assistants in these movies?), but what Dracula is really interested in is his other, more beautiful assistant. At this point, Larry \"Wolf Man\" Talbot returns (again, no explanation given) and just happens to be seeking the same doctor for a cure to his lycanthropy. And then he just happens to fall into a cave in which plants can be grown to help him, which also just so happens to contain the Frankenstein monster. Dear God, when will it end ... sure, the other Universal monster sequels were silly, but this is just ridiculous.
First the good stuff. There are some great settings, and the vampire bat effects are slightly better than usual. Some of the other effects are pretty neat too. John Carradine isn't bad as Dracula once you get used to him, but still nothing like as brilliant as Lugosi was. In my opinion, Onslow Stevens plays a much better vampire in this movie, although he has exactly the opposite problem to Carradine -- all of the creepiness and none of the class. None of the performances are that great, but it's more due to the atrocious script than anything else -- the female parts are particularly badly written. But stupid as it is, it remains reasonably entertaining for the most part. The best thing about it is it's short length.
Now the bad stuff ... it's not creepy, it's poorly written and it doesn't work. I was hoping the three monsters would begin some kind of a supernatural struggle for power, but it doesn't happen. The focus is almost entirely on Dracula, who isn't particularly well portrayed. On the other hand, this is the only movie in which Dracula infects another man, but it is done via a blood transfusion rather than a bite as Universal were always uncomfortable with the possible homosexual subtext. Larry Talbot is decent as always as the Wolf Man, but he plays a comparatively small part. Once again the part of Frankenstein's monster is reduced to the anti-climatic closing moments. For God's sake, Glenn Strange was fantastic as the creature! Why not give him more screen time? It's unfortunate that the series had to end on this note (not counting the classic comedy \"Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein\"). In the end it just fizzled in the sunlight and died, much like Dracula himself.
\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\nAlthough inevitably linked to the 70's decade, the concept of \"exploitation-cinema\" is actually nearly as old as cinema itself. Moreover, Universal Studios practically invented the term with their long running monster cycles Dracula, Frankenstein, The Wolf Man and The Mummy. Every original classic spawned a couple of sequels, at least, and after a while they even thought up the idea of making genuine monster stewing! \"House of Frankenstein\", released one year earlier and also directed by Erle C. Kenton, was quite a successful effort with interesting ideas and enthusiast performances, but \"House of Dracula\" is a little too loony for me to recommend it. The plot suffers too much from extremely irritating 'coincidental' situations, forced twists & dialogs and  most of all  a far too short running time to elaborate the monsters' personalities like they deserve. Onslow Stevens doesn't receive top billing but plays the most fundamental role as miracle a doctor who's challenged to cure Count Dracula (Carradine) from his incontrollable thirst for blood and fix Lawrence Talbot's illness of mutating into a hairy Wolf Man whenever the moon is full. During a nightly walk in some caves, they also pick up the remainders of Frankenstein's monster and the good doctor himself eventually undergoes a Jekyll/Hyde metamorphosis due to a bad blood transfusion. The last invitation to the messy party is a female hunchback (though not of the Notre Dame). Something is very wrong when you're watching a movie that is literally stuffed with horror icons, yet the only character in the whole movie that is able to freak you out is an ordinary villager going by the name Siegfried. The actual monsters are dull and their once-fabulous backgrounds are fully drained. Count Dracula is a whining romanticist, Talbot is a pitiable and also whining old martyr and the Frankenstein creation  well, his share in the plot isn't even worth mentioning. There's a serious lack of atmospheric settings and nifty photography in this Universal film, especially compared to all their other efforts, and the abrupt climax is a disaster.
\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\nOne True Thing may have seemed like a horror movie to the yuppies of the 80's, but it doesn't ring true today... unless you happen to be part of a pampered, upper-middle class family which is so insulated from the world that it has never tasted suffering.
Avoid this shallow flop.
\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 appear to be in the minority on this one, but I found One True Thing to be schmaltzy, contrived and generally unpleasant. Not that the acting was all that bad, but the characters seemed little more than archetypes (the bad father, oh, but wait, maybe he's not unredeemably bad; maybe there can be a resolution at the end . . .). Admittedly, the woman I was with loved the movie, so maybe you'll like it. But I didn't.
\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\nUnlike Terms of Endearment and Steel Magnolia's, I left the movie theater feeling VERY disappointed. I started to get into the characters and their complex mother/daughter and father/daughter relationships at the beginning. I even cried. But I had no sympathy for the characters with the ending. The final act did not seem in line with the mother's character at all. So, although the acting was pretty good, I thought the movie on a whole was disappointing.
\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\nWhat really amazed me about this film was that it ringed so false. First of all, who in the late 80's (when the film takes place)lived like this family? A college professor wouldn't make enough money to support the lifestyle I saw on the film. Hence, he and his stay home wife would be plagued by financial woes, especially when she gets cancer. Second, Streep is my age, and most women, particularly in her class (educated, white, well off) experienced the feminist movement. Yet this woman seems oblivious to her anachronistic behavior. I actually felt that she was a very controlling woman who kept her husband an emotional child by taking care of his every need.
The fact that so many people were moved by the film is amazing. I have admired Carl Franklin's films in the past, and I actually like Meryl Streep, but gad, what a manipulative and lying film this is.
\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\nApart from the DA (James Eckhouse), and a brief appearing woman who is convincingly sympathetic to Ellen Gulden's (Renee Zellweger)plight, Ellen herself is the only convincing character--and likable character in the movie. She is the one, not her dying mother, who should be and is--the one true thing. it's not only in the role, in Zellweger's acting, but also in the plot itself.... Until, the plot turns against itself--and makes the mother the \"one true thing\" in the eyes of her weak willed, shallow husband who can do nothing right for his wife or daughter. The daughter perceives what the viewer perceives, but such intelligent perceptions must give way to the shallow sentiment of the husband who is blanked out on both the realities of his wife and daughter.
To boot, the one powerful scene in this whole movie, when Ellen confronts her father's cruelty, is given the lie at the end. Ellen is just another young strong woman who must be tamed into conformity by a crybaby father. A very flawed movie--so flawed as to be called a bore and not worth the time.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nCronica de un desayuno combines the worst defects of mexican cinema, a rare feat nowadays.
It's pretentious: it wants us to believe that it is deep, only because some scene is out-of-focus, another is pseudo-surreal, yet another plays with the Eisenstein-Infante-Caifanes tradition of laughing-crying faces, the edition is fragmented, and it is all so solemn.
It has a weak script: the main story hardly develops, so it has other three smaller, needless stories, stuck into it. They are only good to make the film last longer.
Most of the acting is bad. A true feat, baring in mind that many of the best known mexican actors were cast.
There is an abuse of unnecesary foul language. To the point that the character of Paloma, who symbolizes the dreams of freedom of a child, uses it throughly.
It is homophobic. The character played by Eduardo Palomo is the sorriest, and most punished, representation of a transexual I have ever seen.
It is very boring. I ended up envying the people that left the theater before the end of the film.
Whatever it tries, it has been done better, in Mexico and elsewhere.
In other words: \"Para partirte la madre, nada como una mala película\"
\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 have seen tons of trash, in every language, about every topic and of every trend of film-making. From every period, every director and any kind of budget available. That said I really have to declare:
This is one of the three worst movies I have EVER seen.
It's painfully bad. It's pompous. It's grim. It's incomprehensible. It's annoying. It's a really bad mess. It is a piece of you-know-what.
And, what's more important: it lacks a point. And even if it had one, the characters are so unreal and annoying that it's impossible to overlook the lack of cohesion of the whole thing.
It's just weird for the sake of being weird.
I actually felt sick watching this trash. The theater where I saw it (Lincoln Center in New York) was full when it started. By the end of it, half of the audience had walked out. There was a Q&A programmed at the end but nobody stayed. With the exception of about two sickos everybody else ran for the door, myself included.
Save 2 hours of your life. It's probably one of the worst ever done.
If there is a movie theater in Hell, this movie will be playing 24/7, for eternity...
\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 live in Mexico City, so I have to suffer throug the trailers for every piece of trash that comes out from all these stupid Mexican filmmakers. You want to admire a Mexican guy for making great films? Take a look at something by Guillermo del Toro (specially The Devil's Backbone), or maybe Alfonso Cuarón (though I really don't like his films, but I respect them).
Mexican filmmakers often produce some of the most terrible utter trash ever (Por la Libre, El Segundo Aire, American Visa), but this is one of the lowest points in Mexican films ever. If you respect your brain, please avoid this piece of **** at all costs. It would be more intelligent to watch some video of a wedding or to watch Britney's reality show. That's got more IQ than everyone in this '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\nThis might be for those who have been to summer camps, but it sure isn't an entertaining camp. I went to one before, but it didn't make me scream up and down for joy. Instead, it made my head hurt.
The first thing you notice is that Bill Murray actually had some hair in the 70s. Yeah, and he also didn't mind running some. But to get him to run a lot, you would need to give him a woman to chase after.
Its not that some of the stunts can't be funny. For example the running joke with one of the councilors who is always waking up somewhere else due to the movement of his bed. Instead, its that the jokes and stunts were poorly setup and executed. It just failed to be funny.
To somebody who loves comedy, this is a pain. Others are glued to it for life. I wish it was more like Leonard Part 6, but it doesn't come close. \"F\"
\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\nStripes, an army training camp comedy starring Bill Murray and directed by Ivan Reitman, is a favourite of mine. Meatballs, a summer camp 'romp' starring Bill Murray and directed by Ivan Reitman, is a complete waste of time. It takes a considerable effort for four screenwriters to produce a movie (the word 'comedy' infers a work with mirth aforethought) as witless, anaemic and boring as this.
Murray evidently reached the same conclusion during filming, but his usually reliable powers of improvisation escape him and his flailing attempts to inject life into proceedings just add to the embarrassment - the \"It really doesn't matter\" chanting scene is excruciating. It doesn't help that the supporting cast is bereft of talent - the funniest thing about them is their hair, but then Meatballs was made in 1979. (\"And introducing Chris Makepeace as Rudy\" announce the opening credits. No, not THE Chris Makepeace?!).
Mercifully, Reitman rectified his mistake two years later for Stripes. Murray's shtick is so much funnier when he's larking around with the likes of John Candy, Warren Oates and John Larroquette. Ditch this and watch that.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nYou know, as you get older, you somehow think the movies you did not like when you were younger, might have been because of your youth and inexperience. Case in point, when I saw The Godfather at age 14, I thought it was boring. 20 years later, its an incredible movie to me. In other words, I grew up and began to appreciate great movies.
So I rented Dirty Dancing with my girlfriend last night on her request, as she loved it at age 14 and I hated it at the same age. But I hoped, because I was young and stupid at age 14, perhaps this would be a new experience for me. So I sat down with her to watch, hoping to be enlightened.
Well, the night after watching Dirty Dancing, I feel a violation. I feel like someone reached into my soul and robbed me of 2 hours of my life from watching this cheese fest.
First, Patrick Swayze plays a 20 year old, but he looks like he is 35. And the premise of the movie is him seducing some underage teenager, wooing her with his dance moves. Really Creepy.
Anyway, the movie is the cliché plot where the \"wrong side of the tracks\" guy and the \"rich smart girl\" accidentally fall in love with each other. Of course, their romance is fueled by the fact the \"rich girl\" can't dance a lick, so the \"poor hero\" teaches her in a week to become an expert dancer for the big end of vacation show, or something like that.
But you guessed it: The disapproving father soon enters and forbids the two to see each other, and the movie progresses to secret meetings of dance lessons and love making. This all culminates into the final scene where the entire resort rallies around the two young lovers while the once antagonistic father accepts the 35 year old dancer as his teen daughter's new man.
Even my girlfriend whimpered at the end of the movie as she admitted it was not anything like she remembered. I didn't press her, but I did smirk a little, and put the Godfather part II in the DVD player.
\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 not a good film by an standards. It is very poorly written and the acting is just a little above par (some performances are well below par, but Swayze and Grey do a very good job with little to work with).
What was good:
The dance sequences were choreographed very well and, as stated above, Swayze and Grey were high points.
What was bad:
The script. The \"bad\" guys were simply too evil to be believable. The best villains are the ones who aren't so obviously evil. These guys (the owner's nephew, the waiter who impregnates the girl) do and say NOTHING that would leave me to believe they could be real people (perhaps there are guys like them, but I sure don't want to see a movie about it).
Another scene, the first where Grey and Swayze meet when the employees at the resort are \"dancing\". Swayze and Grey dance together and seem to enjoy themselves. The next time they meet, Swayze is hostile towards her. Why? What happened in between to make him dislike her so when they danced well together?
And some of those lines, I mean COME ON (I cringed at the end when Swayze muttered the line \"Nobody puts baby in the corner\". How did he EVER do that with a straight face.)
Another thing wrong, the setting of the 1960's. Everyone looked and dressed like the 1980's! Who was in charge of the costumes and hairstyles?
The music (original music for the film) was laughable (with the exception of \"I Had the Time of My Life\" which was a good song).
Not the worst film I've ever seen, but DEFINITELY the most over-rated
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nJust caught \"The Rain People\" on Turner Classic Movies late one night. The film was released in 1969. Shirley Knight stars as Natalie, a Long Island housewife who -- exact reasons unknown -- leaves her husband and embarks on a road trip, not knowing exactly where she is going. Natalie is also newly pregnant, which complicates things. Along the way, she picks up a brain-damaged ex-football player \"Jimmy\" (James Caan), who has been kicked out of his college and is hitchhiking. There are many twists and turns along the way between these two, as Natalie struggles to take care of Jimmy and she begins to realize he is mentally limited and cannot take care of himself. She is going through her own struggles, needless to say, and in no position to care for him. Natalie appears to be a woman on the edge of a nervous breakdown at times; she makes some odd phone calls to her husband, who begs her to come home. Natalie tries to dump Jimmy several times, only to have him re-enter her life through circumstances. A young Robert Duvall plays a strange and troubled cop who befriends Natalie. You get the sense all along that this film is going to end badly, and it does. This film is certainly uneven at times, and the script is somewhat lacking. Francis Ford Coppola directed this, and of course he would soon become immensely famous in the next few years for directing \"The Godfather.\" The actors are good ones, needless to say, as they all would have futures ahead of them in film. Shirley Knight is the least known of the three, although she is also underrated as an actor. James Caan is especially effective here and he seems to just inhabit this character. This film remains little more than a curiosity now, no doubt because it is an early movie of Coppola's, and I confess I had never heard of it. So God bless Turner Classic Movies for bringing it to a new audience.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie is really stupid and very boring most of the time. There are almost no \"ghoulies\" in it at all. There is nothing good about this movie on any level. Just more bad actors pathetically attempting to make a movie so they can get enough money to eat. Avoid at all costs.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI don't know why IMDb lists all the Ghoulies films as theatrical releases.. They were all straight to video films. Same with the Puppet Master series. Why hasn't anyone noticed this yet? Right, somehow you've stumbled across Ghoulies IV, probably raiding through an old abandoned video rental store from 1993. You looked in the discount section and found this...Look at the back and front covers. What do you expect, The Shawshank Redemption? There is no need to review this film so critically. It is the fourth GHOULIES film! I bought it on DVD for 6.50 because... it was 6.50.. I knew it wasn't Kubrick material. And I was right. An unremastered DVD with no extras, not even a trailer, boasts an uncared-for film.
It actually contains the star of the first Ghoulies film, Peter Liapis... who really didn't get many 'big' roles apart from those two films. And I don't see why... He's not too bad an actor and is pretty fun. But I guess if you're gonna take a lead role in the Ghoulies films, Scorsese and Tarantino will lose interest. Also present is his idiot sidekick Bobby Di Cocco, who despite having a very small resemblance to Al Pacino (very small), retains none of his acting ability... A complete idiot who's just awkward to watch. Then there's Stacie Randall - obviously a porn star, I don't need to look that up. She does look quite sexy, though her costume, her character and everything she does drags down the films credibility, which is no easy task for such a film.
Then there is the Ghoulies themselves! Who also manage to let us down. Ghoulies III made them start talking, mistake no. 1, but Ghoulies IV takes it a step further. Instead of being puppets, this time the Ghoulies are in fact KIDS in COSTUMES!!!! The filmmakers decided to run that extra mile to insult the films viewers. Also, there's only TWO of them, and they're not the main highlight of the film, as they don't appear in a lot of it. However, at times they are MILDLY amusing... And they're not evil this time either.
This really is hilariously bad stuff, it's amazing that I was actually able to enjoy it. I dunno why... Some of the black humour is actually funny, though the script is mostly effortless. Imagine Satan's only threat to you being that he will \"kill you, slowly...painfully...\".
But at least Full Moon had no involvement this time. Did they? Yeah, a very bad and cheaply made film with 0 production value, but not so bad as to be in the ranks of Puppet Master 1/2, Lawnmower Man 2, Surviving Christmas or even Ghoulies III.
\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\nBusty beauty Stacie Randall plays PVC clad, bad-ass bitch Alexandra, the faithful acolyte of Faust, an evil entity trapped in hell. Determined to free her master, the malevolent minx breaks into a warehouse to steal a magical gem vital to her success; but whilst conducting a satanic ritual to summon Faust, the silly mare accidentally enters the pentagram she has drawn on the floor, which results in the loss of the gem and the release of two diminutive, troll-like creatures called Lite and Dark.
Now Alexandra must find a replacement gem, which isn't going to be easy: the only other stone that will do the trick is worn around the neck of her ex-lover, police detective Jonathan Graves (Peter Liapis), who is investigating the warehouse robbery and who knows only too well what evil Alexandra is capable of. Meanwhile, wise-cracking inter-dimensional half-pints Lite and Dark get into all sorts of zany trouble as they try to find a way back home.
In the warped movie world of Jim Wynorski, all females are big-breasted babes with the fashion sense of a cheap hooker. Ghoulies IV is no exception: every woman in this filmwhether she be a police captain, a curator of antiquities, or a mental patient in an asylumis hot, hot, hot and wears not a lot, and it's this fact that makes this otherwise totally unwatchable piece of STV crap just about bearable.
But be warned, even though the presence of semi-naked, quality crumpet makes the going slightly easier, there is still plenty about this film to warrant it being labelled as an ordeal: the acting is wooden and the dialogue is painful; the black humour (as the DVD blurb describes it) is about as funny as a knee to the knackers, with the comedic banter of Lite and Dark being particularly cringe-worthy; and the special effects are bargain basement, consisting of rubbery creatures and visual effects that would have looked dated ten years earlier.
3/10 solely for the high bimbo quotient.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nSome things just won't stay dead. They just have to keep coming back for more whether we like it or not. I guess some people like to beat a dead horse. The first 'Ghoulies' was a surprise hit and it's first sequel was an even better film. The third film took a more comical approach and by this point the little buggers were starting to overstay their welcome. I guess someone out there in Hollywood thought it was a bright idea to resurrect the franchise, but the outcome will likely disappoint fans of the previous entries.
Pros: The acting is actually pretty good for a movie like this. A silly, but fun score. Moves at an alright pace. Some cheese for those who love it. Some pretty good action-packed sequences. Has a bit more plot than the others and unlike II & III at least attempts to link itself with the original.
Cons: Not nearly as much fun as it's predecessors. Though it has more plot than before, it's a pretty ridiculous one. Poor effects. The original Ghoulies only appear in flashbacks and here they're replaced with two trolls who serve no purpose other than to be comic reliefs. Speaking of comedy, all attempts at humor are lame. Is a direct sequel to the first film, but there are so many loose ends. For example, I thought Jonathan was done with black magic after what happened in the original? Not that it was spectacular in the others, but this film's direction is especially bland.
Final thoughts: The first three 'Ghoulies' movies are a bad movie lovers' dream. This fourth, and so far final sequel (Let's hope), is a bit of a letdown. Sure there's some fun to be had, but it just isn't the same. The others are low budget too, but the people involved put a lot more into them. See if you're a completeist or you wanna see beautiful women in skimpy outfits. Otherwise just stick with the other three.
My rating: 2/5
\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\nAll movies that contain \"goofy sound effects\" should be shot. If there is one thing I HATE, it's gotta be the use of a \"whoop whoop whoo\" when somebody gets hit one the head. The only movies I have seen to do this is Ghoulies IV and Hobgoblins when they are in the bar, and Pixie is hitting the guy in the red suit with a beer bottle... or rather, fanning him with a beer bottle, because she never really hits him with it. Yes Ghoulies IV does suck. But I have to wonder, did they MEAN to not make the so called \"Ghoulies\" mouths move when they supposedly talked? Their faces are almost as static as the masks used in Trolls 2. Hell, I can make a better mask out of construction paper, some rubber cement and a handful of glitter. This sucked.
\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 only good thing about this film is they managed to tie it with Part one! But other than that it was one of the worst films ever! The only time you see the Ghoulies is in a flashback (and the flashback is just clips from Part one)! A must NOT see! On a One to Ten, \"Ghoulies 4\" gets a One!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is quite a bad movie but oh well, this movie is at least not as lame as the third Ghoulies movie.
Yes, this is a bad movie in terms of its writing, directing, acting and basically everything in between. It has such a weak, simple and ridicules story, that besides has little to do with the previous Ghoulies movie entries. It tries to connect the movie with the first movie \"Ghoulies\", from 1985 but then on the other hand, if they really wanted to connect this movie with its predecessors, then were are the Ghoulies in this movie? Instead now we are having some small people, played by Tony Cox and Arturo Gil, dressed up as demons. Not that the Ghoulies from the previous movies were any classic characters but they were nevertheless the heart and soul of the movie and also provided the movies with a certain amount of fun. It's like having a Gremlins movie without the Gremlins.
The movie is not really interesting to watch because it lacks any tension, good humor, intriguing characters and basically everything else you can think off because it got put together by persons who obviously aren't the most talented ones within their business. Just like at director's Jim Wynorski resume, with movies such as \"The Witches of Breastwick\" and its sequel, \"Alabama Jones and the Busty Crusade\", \"House on Hooter Hill\", \"Scream Queen Hot Tub Party\", \"The Bare Wench Project\" and the sequels \"The Bare Wench Project 2: Scared Topless\" and \"The Bare Wench Project 3: Nymphs of Mystery Mountain\" and \"The Da Vinci Coed\" on it.
Yeah the movie is quite silly and campy but this is not really enough to boost this movie and gives it some more entertainment value. You know, it's the kind of cheap looking movie with some lame special effects, costumes, make-up and actors nobody has heard of ever since.
Still it isn't the worst movie out of the series because of the reason that \"Ghoulies III: Ghoulies Go to College\" is by far a more worse movie, since that one had some horrible lame attempts at humor. This movie at least still does some attempts to be serious and professional one, even though the end result is far from perfect.
Bad movie making and perhaps only watchable for those who have seen the previous Ghoulies entries.
3/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis is one of the worst movies EVER made. I can't believe how bad it was. I was shocked at the awfulness of the \"ghoulies\" masks. They are OBVIOUSLY Halloween masks! The mouths don't even move when they talk!!!!! Why did they feel the need to make the ghoulies comical and goofy? Whenever they do anything there seems to be this circus-like music and overused BONK and BOING noises when they hit people. The bondage dominatrix lady is one of the worst actresses I have ever seen. This movie is just bad. The plot is nonexistent. The mom from ONE TREE HILL is in this though and she has obviously had a nose job since this was made. Why did the main character from the first movie return to make this garbage? BAD BAD BAD movie.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThis movie was so horrible...I want to beat the hell out of who ever made this movie...I was a original fan of all the ghoulies movies...but when i seen this i just began to cry I could not handle it..There are not even ne ghoulies in it...like the original creative monsters...this is so friggen cheap...I meen come on a witch...thats bull crap no one wants to see the witch...they wanted to see what the movie is about...\"GHOULIES\" i meen jeesh am i right or what? Thats y we watched the other ones..now we have to actually put up with this horrible storyline...This makes me want to eat my own poop after Spaghetti Monday!!!
\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\nThey do... Each sequel is worst. You, who think that Ghoulies 2 or 3 need a 1, please, watch this sequel... You'll be wondering with the first three parts. Then you'll give a 10 to the first, 8 to the second and 5 or 6 to the other. That's because Ghoulies 4 really gets the big 1 (from me it does).
\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\nWow! This movie is almost too bad for words. Obviously the writers wanted to somehow link this to the Ghoulies franchise, so they got Pete Liapis from the first one to reprise his role as Jonathan...only now, he's a cop and has no similar character traits as he did in the first one. The ghoulies in this one aren't the ghoulies from the last ones. The cheap looking puppets have been replaced with even cheaper looking costumed little people. Instead of being any main antagonist or being evil, they are more like the comic relief characters that appeared out of nowhere for no reason.
When watching this film for the first time, it felt like I'd seen it before. Why was this? Because everything in this was stolen from another movie. All the cheesy cop lines and action scenes were from Lethal Weapon. The ghoulies were pretty much like Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck, except they weren't amusing at all. Even scenes from the original Ghoulies film were sprinkled throughout this flick.
I think the target audience was supposed to be adults, but the mixture of black magic, cartoon slapstick, cop drama and bad acting doesn't work at all. I hope they don't make a Ghoulies V, because I don't want a movie studio to lose their money.
My rating: BOMB/****. 78 mins. R for violence.
\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 group of teens have their car break down in the middle of nowhere. They seek shelter in a farmhouse. But three murderous convicts are there killing the owner of said farmhouse and his family. One of them accidentally brings zombies around by knocking over a scarecrow. Cue blood, gore, carnage, bad acting. Better than the first but only by default. I still wouldn't wish it on my arch-enemy, bob. In the end the filmmaker wants it to be a parable about how we us Americans are killing ourself and our forests (huh? OK, whatever buddy) Dude I'd rather chop down forests then have my braincells diminish and my Grey matter leak out of my ears. In other words become a simple-minded idiot Liberal.
My Grade: D-
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nJerry Angell, owner of zombie-horror's finest mullet, returns for more undead action in the sequel to director Todd Sheets' atrocious home-made gore-fest Zombie Bloodbath. This time around, Jerry plays a sleazy low-life thug who, along with his equally despicable partner-in-crime, some escaped convicts, several teenagers, and a bunch of screaming girls, comes face-to-face with a horde of shambling, flesh-eating corpses.
Obviously having learnt zilch about improving his craft in the two years since Zombie Bloodbath, Sheets delivers another shoddy mess of a film that somehow manages to be even worse than the originala feat that I thought was almost impossible to achieve. The acting is uniformly lousy, the effects amateurish and cheap (most of the gore appears to be nothing more than a selection of offcuts, offal and blood from the local butcher's shop), the story incomprehensible (as far as I could fathom, the zombies rise from the dead because a scarecrow commands them to!!!), and the direction frustratingly laden with cheap looking video effects and completely meaningless cuts to black-and-white.
And as if that wasn't enough to convince you of this film's complete lack of redeeming features, the simply mind-bogglingly moronic ending should do the trick: the few remaining survivors stumble upon an abandoned truck that conveniently happens to have a stash of flesh-eating bacteria laying on its passenger seatjust the thing for dissolving the undead (but, strangely enough, not at all detrimental to the living).
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWhen I say worse, I mean less entertaining. Todd Sheets seems to have learned some stupid camera tricks since the last Zombie Bloodbath, which makes the movie even less tolerable. In the last movie there were no special camera effects, where in this one, we are treated to shaky cam, and constant switching to black and white. Also, this is called Zombie Bloodbath, despite the fact that the zombies are barely in this one. The movie starts in 1945, where some satanists kill a violent burglar and put him up as a scarecrow. Back in modern time, some kids have a car problem and go to a house, the same house in which the satanist murder happened. Some mean people try to rape the kids (or something), and they bring the scarecrow burglar back to life, who comes back with some zombies and now talks like Darth Vader. Mr. Sheets amped up the language and lessened the violence. If you want to see what a bad movie is, check this out!
My rating: BOMB/****. 96 mins. Not rated, contains violence and language.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIn following Dylan Moran's star from the charming misanthrope bookstore owner in the surrealist sitcom Black Books, I could see his comic potential begging to be utilised in theater or larger cinematic avenues. This first big screen outing in a starring role (he had a cameo as Rufus the thief in Notting Hill) had oodles of promise, but like the strained Steve Coogan vehicle, The Parole Officer, has too many creases which should have been ironed out in preproduction.
The plot is so convoluted that I shan't bother repeating the finer details (the script has every character do that for us), and the laughs are sourced from show business in-jokes. Michael Caine is a pompous has-been running a production of Richard III - updated to Nazi occupation (one of the few genuine laughs, a satirical jab at Ian McKellen), in which everyone is forever doing the Hitler salute every time they take the stage. Convincing Dylan that acting should be a conceptual act unto itself, the two plot to steal money from some fairly harmless gangsters by way of their acting prowess. Confusion ensues (both on screen and in the audience), there's a romantic sub-plot between Dylan and the daughter of one of the gangsters blah blah blah and Dylan gets to dress in odd clothes and do funny accents. Michael Caine delivers some choice lines, and Dylan's comic timing is on the money, so why isn't it any good? It does have a certain charm that you would expect from Film 4, but it also has a precocious little girl acting as compass in a muddled and irrelevant plot - a no-no in screen writing 101. Exposition overshadows everything else. You just want to see Moran and Caine acting as comic foil to each other the way the were at the beginning, but when they're together toward the end, the the pairing has lost its charisma.
The Actors is an amusing, albeit underwhelming effort. Should it come on telly during a rainy Tuesday afternoon, then have at you. Otherwise you would be better off watching your old Black Books videos, or renting Withnail & I.
\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 real surprise of this effortlessly lightweight movie is how such a top notch cast got assembled for what is nothing more than a hammy uninspiring affair. Presumably it was a proverbial snowball rolling down a hill gathering pace and size and shape. One can imagine that by the time Miranda Richardson got contacted by her agent, the conversation went along the lines of: 'Do you want to shoot a movie in Dublin scripted by Neil Jordan? Michael Caine and Michael Gambon are already in!' This is a dull 'comedy' that sees Michael Caine and Dylan Moran try and pull off a well-planned hustle where Moran must imitate a London gangland boss (whose arrival is imminent) to collect a sizeable sum of cash from local kingpin Michael Gambon. The rest is simply a forgettable romp that is thankfully over quite quickly. Moran is mildly amusing in places but on this evidence is better suited to life on the small screen in hit comedies such as Black Books. Caine is unchallenged in his role and gives a steady performance without being overstretched. One can only imagine what made him sign up for this movie - it can't even have been a summer in Dublin given that many of the scenes look positively autumnal in the background. Gambon actually steals the show, and anyone who has caught some of his performances in the likes of Have I Got News For You will know that he is a wonderfully funny man. But overall the result is disappointing, and it seems a lifetime ago that Neil Jordan was making quality movies of the likes of Mona Lisa.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nIt is hard to imagine two actors of such class and experience as Michael Caine and Michael Gambon getting involved in such an embarrassingly inept film. The responsibility for this ill-judged production has to be down to the writer, Neil Jordan and director, Conor McPherson. I doubt I've seen such a bad film with such good credits in a long time. The comedian, Dylan Moran, who made his mark as the irritable and incompetent bookshop owner in the TV sitcom, Blackbooks, turns in much the same routine here, except with such excess and lack of comedic control as to leave one squirming. It is easy to see how the story could have been made to work, for the situation is an interesting one and loaded with comic potential. A classical actor (Caine) tries to rip off the mob (Gambon and co) with the aide of a bumbling wannabe colleague (Moran), with predictable results. It could have and should have been good. Sadly, it was not to be.
\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\nWe saw this in a bargain basket at the local Asda: £1.50 for the DVD. reading all the hype plastered all over the cover saying how \"hillarious\" it is, and it also had a really good, established cast, we thought this must a great film.
So we bought, took it home, shoved it in the DVD player, sat back and waited for the funnies to begin.......and waited.......and waited.....and waited a bit more.
Some 90 minutes later, although it felt more like 3 hours, the credits rolled, and that was the end of that.
What a letdown - even paying £1.50 seemed a con. God knows what Caine, Richardson and Gambon were thinking when they said 'yes' to this tosh. And as for Moran: well much as I enjoyed Black Books, Shaun of the dead, and his comedy tours, I felt he was out of his depth in this film. He tried too hard playing for laughs, probably thinking that if retaining the characteristics from his Black Books character, would work here.
Sadly it back-fired. The gags fell flat after awhile, and then he became just an irritation. Which is a shame because I believe given the right part he could be a very good film/character actor.
Anyway, to sum up: the actors in The Actors, failed to Act!!!
**/*****
\n
assistant\n0
\n"