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\nDocumentaries about fans are always mishmashes, and never worth seeing through, but I found this one, made by some of the fans themselves, more than usually unenlightening. As a veteran of the original Tolkien craze, forty years ago, I'd hoped for more than the obvious--which doesn't always equate to the true. If there's anyone living who doesn't already know the nature of a fandom, any fandom, from having been or known a fan, he won't discover it here. Between irrelevancies, platitudes (to which the actors from the films are particularly prone), and acting out (by fans making the most--if not the best--of their one shot at fame), I could glean little of the special appeal of LOTR, the special emotional responses it evokes, and the range of the special creative forms those responses can take. In addition, the film is rather lazy: it slights some facts that could have been got across with little effort, e.g. what the exact legal loophole was (the wording of a copyright notice) that permitted the books' unauthorized publication in the U.S. (Speaking of which: I take strong exception to the film's dismissal of the covers on that edition as \"irrelevant\" and \"psychedelic,\" which they were not. They were the work of Jack Gaughan, a very able sf illustrator of the period, and some fans, including me, found them more apt, and more attractive, than the covers on the rival set.)
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI just rented Blackwater Valley Exorcism because the cover and pictures looked terrifying, and I don't normally watch movies that are automatically released onto DVD, but this looked so interesting and scary! I was very much in the mood for a good scary film and to me, possession is one of the scariest subjects to watch or learn about. Just look at The Exorcist or The Exorcism of Emily Rose, both terrific movies that made break-throughs not only horror wise, but story as well.
Blackwater Valley Exorcism is about a girl, Isabelle, who from the get go is automatically possessed, so we can't even tell what kind of a person she was to begin with. But a former wife beater turned priest is on the case with a gardener...? I know... I know. Then they go into several other stories with the priest and Isabella's sister, and the priest hit the sister and messed around with Isabelle? I'm not sure, then we get into a story with Isabelle's dad and his questioning of his wife's faithfulness to him.
I mean, the story just goes into too many directions and wasn't well developed at all. Not to mention that the exorcism didn't seem authentic at all and more of a just scare your pants off type of a film, which I didn't like at all because I couldn't take it seriously. Whoever directed and wrote this clearly had no idea where to go or how to direct the story well, so I wouldn't really recommend this.
2/10
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe movie started very well..so far Isabelle's exorcism could be believed....but later, gosh!!! I didn't know if it was a horror movie, a drama one or a Must Not See one! The possessed creature attacking the sheriff had no connection at all with the movie....the make up!! well it looked pretty real at beginning, but at the end, last part of movie, the make up (especially teeth and eyes) was very exaggerated. If you want a good \"EXorcism\" movie watch \"The Exorcism of Emily Rose\".
Together with \"Hard Candy\" (Totally boring, pathetic plot and ending), these two movies are the worst I've seen from Lionsgate!! But well the movie company has given horror movie fans excellent films, but with this one, you will wish you never rent it!! Exorcism movie fans, just stay with two \"The Exorcist\" and \"Emily Rose's Exorcism\"
\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 not sure if this is a comedy or not, but I found it pretty comical. Isobel is possessed by the devil. Somehow a perverted priest and the gardener are gonna' fix that. Part exorcism and part soap opera, you'll at least get some laughs. There's the paranoid jealous dad, satanic sister, Valley of the Dolls mother, and then the cowboy boyfriend; all there to help the skirt chasing priest fight the demons from dear Isobel. It sometimes felt like a Jerry Springer episode, but I actually paid to see this. Instead of the cool head-twisting, sailor cursing, and crucifix humping that Regan did in The Exorcist; you get a lot of Isobel bouncing on her bed like it's a trampoline, hiding in her closet, and jumping from a hay-loft. Yeah, it's Chuck E. Cheese gone wild. So, if you want to watch a quote unquote horror film that is worth a few laughs while you wait for the predictable ending ... this is your 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 probably one of the worst movies I've seen in a very long time. A friend of mine grabbed it off the shelf at the video rental store, and all but forced me to watch it, an action we both deeply regret. Ehh... Where to start? The writing, the acting, the quality? All of it, sucked.
Quite possibly some of the worst writing ever displayed in a movie. The dialog was worse than I thought it could ever be in the movies. Blatant dialog, such as \"how ya doing?\"...\"not that great, doc\" (directly after an attempted exorcism of a man's daughter and then his wife's attempted suicide. Of course he's not that great.) was, at some points, kind of funny. If not horribly written, planned out, and obvious. The general plot of the movie, the writing and the way it worked, HORRIBLE. It was like the writers could come up with nothing better to do then write a bunch of crappy dialog and throw in as many sex and nudity scenes as they randomly could. The only almost good sex scene (between the preacher and the tattooed & Peirced girl) was filmed with such poor quality that it looked more like a cheap porno than a feature film. Oh yeah, and they never actually got the deed done.
The acting? Horrible. x100. I think the only good actor was the short Spanish guy who played Miguel, Del Zamora. And his part was written horribly. The worst acting? Arguably Paul Kappellas, whose acting combined with shitty music, a gun, and a half naked bluish white girl running around in the woods made the movie almost unbearable to sit through. He even screwed up his own death scene, one that should have been easy to nail. Although, most everybody else's acting was horrible as well.
The lack of characters also added to the overall suck level of the movie. There were just enough characters so that almost half of the characters died, that same amount of people became possessed at one point, and then the remaining characters couldn't be counted on one hand. Like... 50 thumbs down.
P.S. What IS it with the climax of exorcism movies happening in a stable, anyways?
\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 girl named Isobel becomes possessed by a demon. The local priest (who formerly dated Isobel's sister) must try to save her, but the bigger problems are with the family's suspicions of each other rather than the demon in their daughter.
This film is directed by Ethan Wiley, the writer of \"House\" and the writer/director of \"House II\". I loved the first film and liked the second one even better, so you would think this would be a winner. Alas, this one looks like it was thrown together by first-year film students. Dawson Leery could have done better. I have thought about blaming new writer Ellary Eddy, especially because the idea is hardly original (are they trying to cash in on the fans of \"The Exorcism of Emily Rose\"?), but Wiley should have been able to do his magic.
Also, you'd like to think veteran horror stars Jeffrey Combs and James Russo would help this film. Russo (playing the bishop) barely shows up, and Combs has a great role as a sheriff... for the five minutes he's on screen (but I love the mustache). So, no help here.
After seeing \"The Exorcist\", all other exorcism films must be compared to the classic by default, no? And the demonic possession in this film was not scary in the least. No head-spinning or paranormal activity at all. Just a girl with a deep voice and runny makeup. All the \"demonic\" stuff was centered around the father accusing everyone of sleeping with his wife. As another reviewer wrote, \"you get a lot of Isobel bouncing on her bed like it's a trampoline, hiding in her closet, and jumping from a hay-loft. Yeah, it's Chuck E. Cheese gone wild.\" That sadly sums up the extent of the \"evil\" in this movie.
If you want to watch a movie about family members who invent accusations and yell at each other while the possessed daughter sits in another room off-camera, this is the movie for you. But, if you don't mind my saying so, you have a horrible taste in film if this is what you're seeking.
The plot seems to focus on the father accusing a cowboy of sleeping with his wife (who didn't, but did sleep with his daughter) and of the veterinarian of sleeping with his wife (who might have, but denies it). And then you have a gardener who attacks the possessed girl with a crucifix and tells the family to call an exorcist, but once the priest arrives the gardener declares he does not believe in God. What was all the Bible-quoting you were doing five minutes ago?
A horrible exorcism movie. Horribler examples of what Combs and Russo are capable of. And such a sad display of directing after the \"House\" series of films became classic. I would like to pretend Wiley had no part in making this shamefully derivative and unoriginal, uninspired film. The power of Christ compels you to avoid this movie as if viewing it were a cardinal sin.
\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 normally don't add comments on movies, but I finally watched a movie that was so utterly full of bullsh*t and riddled with incompetence that I just had to warn people about. Blackwater Valley Exorcist is loosely about a wife-beating/pederast/priest and this podunk family of horse freaks, and to make a long story short the youngest daughter who was molested by the priest but in love with the hillbilly ranch hand gets possessed. Along with a heroic god shunning Mexican gardener who once participated in a exorcism, the wife-beating/ pederast/priest manage to save the day, but not before the possessing demon is able to jump over to a hooker who the town sheriff made blow him. All in all this movie is the biggest pile of useless (I could get very descriptive with this part but why waste my energy on this movie)sh*t I've ever seen. Any and all persons associated with the making of this movie should be sterilized so that they cannot pollute the earth with their useless spawn.
\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\nEven worse then the incredibly boring \"the Exorcism of Emily Rose\". It started off decently, and right up until the mom said to the dad, \"See I knew she was possessed\", in an I told you so voice. It was a terrible line, spoken badly and it foreshadowed the rapid demise of this amazingly bad movie. Every family member has an issue from the past with the priest. The dad starts to accuse everyone of either liking his wife, or actually having an affair with her, culminating with him killing his buddy, then himself in the obvious instant lucidity after he realizes his friend hadn't slept with his wife after all. People are dying, others are coming under possession, and by this point most viewers don't even care anymore. Except for their employee Miguel, none of the characters in this movie was actually likable, making it hard to care, about any of them. The acting was terrible and the writing even worse. Glad I saw it for free; although I feel that for a movie this bad someone owes me money for the time I lost.
\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 to agree with the previous reviewer. Although the Kristin Erikson did a great job of playing the possessed girl, I seriously don't think that Isabelle, the character she was playing, was possessed. I have seen people have psychotic breaks due to sexual abuse, and they never made it clear whether or not the father had actually abused her or not. I also had to watch some parts of it over again, to make it clear as to what the letter said, what the characters' names were, and I'm still not clear on a few things that happened, whether they were real or not. I'm trying to find the \"original\" story that it was based on, to compare facts, but I can't seem to find anything about it online.
It wasn't a bad movie, but some of the dialogue was incredibly cheesy. Special effects wise, the movie wasn't bad for a Grade B, pretty much, and those possession scenes made it all worth while... that is, if you have nothing better to do. LOL
\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 had very few moments of real drama. After the opening minutes the film descended in a spiral that didn't quite take us to hell and back - viewing was pure purgatory to say the least. The acting was more horrendous than the subject matter of the film and at times I couldn't stop laughing. The continuity between some of the scenes was dire - characters disappeared from scenes without explanation only to be replaced by other characters who minutes earlier had been some where else. Surely this was a spoof of The Exorcist. The collection plate at the church must have been full of copper the day Mr Russo signed up for this one. Do I speak Latin? Et tu Brutus.
\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 the metaphoric flies fled this steaming watery stool of a film i found myself longing to join them.
From the opening sentences, you quickly gather that the actors are talentless. The script editor was probably dead and the director should be. To be honest I didn't manage to finish this film because about twenty dismal minutes in the sight of the main actress scuttling across the floor like a Shetland pony that has been shot in the ass was too much for me to stomach.
I have never, and I mean never, seen a film as sweaty as this one and I watch tons of crap films.
Turd.
\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\nWhile watching BLACKWATER VALLEY EXORCISM, I encountered scenarios and dialog so incredibly bad that I was convinced that this was supposed to be a comedy. A few choice bits of dialog worthy of a belly laugh: \"I ate a rabbit.\" \"I TOLD you she was possessed!\" \"Are you telling me the Devil is in my daughter?!\"
There are many, many more, but you must discover these for yourself - if you dare.
The story goes off into all sorts of directions and things happen that probably shouldn't and everyone seems to be a perv or psycho of some sort (even the Priest). And I haven't even gotten to the bad acting. Most notable in this area is the fellow playing Isabelle's father. The director must have just told him to act like he's got a stick up his @$$ because that's the general impression one gets.
I don't really want to steer anyone away from BLACKWATER VALLEY EXORCISM because there is entertainment value to be had...for all the wrong reasons, but if you're looking for a decent horror movie that makes sense and is actually scary...well, run don't walk.
\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 tell you something...this movie exceeds all of the Troma laugh and gore movies hands down as it ACTUALLY TRIES TO COME ACROSS AS A SERIOUS MOVIE. From the terrible acting... \"I knew it, I knew she was possessed!\"...to the priest accepting sexual favors and getting into showers with naked teenagers...this piece of dung takes the cake. I am at a loss trying to compare this to another movie equally as bad. This may just be in a class all its own. The kicker is that supposedly some Cardinal oversaw production to make sure it was true to the actual situation. I did not know that people from Backwoods USA act like utter imbeciles. I am not sure if I am upset for renting it or have stumbled across a jewel of comedy. This was a very guilty pleasure...so awful that I watched with hands over my eyes half the time (while I wasn't laughing so hard I was crying). The ending simply made no sense whatsoever, pulling the whole thing together perfectly. If you want to watch something so awful its funny, here is your movie. If you want a scary movie on exorcism....move on.
\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 just seemed to lack direction. The plot developed so many twists in such a short amount of time that it seemed to lose any semblance of what the true storyline was. There was a lot of wasted dialogue and just seemed like the writing was rushed and a little too wandering. The exorcism scenes and possession story began to take a back seat to the character's back stories (which were a little weak to begin with).
All in all, I would say skip it unless you have rented out the rest of the horror section at your local video store and you have a jones for a movie you haven't seen before. You're much better off just watching The Exorcist or The Exorcism of Emily Rose.
\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\nBlackwater Valley Exorcism is a movie about a possessed young girl. Do I need to describe any more of the plot to you? The Exorcist and The Exorcism of Emily Rose are two terrific terrifying movies. Classics (IMO). Blackwater Valley Exorcism (BVE) is not. Not by a long shot. It's certainly not as terrible as a low budget copy of The Exorcist could have been. From start to finish it has the feel of a \"made for Sci-Fi channel\" production. It's one of those movies that will probably be spoofed and ridiculed on Mystery Science Theater 3000 (or a similar show).
The make up and effects were absolutely laughable. The acting was horrendously bad. There was not a single performance that didn't lead to me rolling my eyes or giggling. Oh, except maybe for Jeffery (Re-Animator) Combs as the sheriff. The script wasn't THAT terrible but it certainly wasn't anything special.
It seems like through most of the movie everyone is more focused on who is sleeping with who than they are with the demon possessed girl in the other room. Oh, there was something I learned from this movie. Apparently if your teenage daughter is possessed by a demon then all you have to do is lock them in the room. C'mon. And if your daughter is possessed don't worry too much because all it does it make them talk in funny voices, eat rabbits, try to stare you down, and put fog machines in their bed. Other than that there is nothing to worry about. Apparently she was possessed with a low budget D-List demon.
There was none of the ghastly deeds done by A-List demons like crucifix intercourse, painful body distortions, or even projectile vomiting.
Totally laughable movie. Not worth even a discount rental.
2 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\nWhile this movie did have a few scary moments (great use of music and film angles to build suspense), it's obvious director Ethan Wiley and scriptwriter Ellary Eddy didn't waste any time researching their subject matter; which also makes me question their claim that the exorcism scenes were overseen by a genuine Catholic bishop.
Amongst the many inconsistencies:
* Jacob the Roman Catholic priest, when we first meet him outside the church, is wearing an academic robe over his clericals rather than the typical alb, chasuble or surplice. Academic robes are commonly worn by Protestant ministers in liturgical denominations, not Roman Catholic priests.
* Jacob the priest quotes some obscure and disturbing scripture about the angels taking up weapons. He attributes it to St. Paul. This verse is not from St. Paul's writings, neither is it in the Bible. I can't even find it in the Gnostic scriptures.
* Jacob tells his bishop he doesn't believe in demon possession and turns down the request to study exorcism but does a complete 180 (later that same day?) within minutes of talking to possessed Isabelle. Sure, it's possible; but a little unrealistic. See Father Damien as a priest/psychologist in the original THE EXORCIST for a bit more realistic portrayal of a skeptic-turned-believer.
* Miguel, the former priest turned farmhand, is the first to try an exorcism on Isabelle. He quotes scripture, and she quotes back. He says \"I see you know Psalm 65\" - she corrects him \"that's Psalm 67\" - they're both wrong.
* Miguel, the former priest who just got done performing an exorcism - making the sign of the cross, calling on the name of Christ, applying holy water, etc. - tells Jacob he doesn't believe in church and he doesn't believe in God. (Maybe he's just conflicted?) Jacob enlists him to put on home-made vestments and have another go at it anyway.
* Miguel, the former ROMAN CATHOLIC priest, crosses himself backwards (or Eastern Orthodox-style). As an Hispanic Roman Catholic who USED to be a priest, he should've crossed himself forehead to sternum, left-side to right side of chest.
I had to read into the little side stories to get the notion Satan was messing with the whole family, not just Isabelle; but even in the end it was hard to say for sure if anyone was really guilty of the images in their heads or if it was all demonic trickery (except for the sheriff - it's pretty clear he was guilty).
On the positive side: Isabelle was CREEPY - in my opinion she was the best part of the whole movie and I liked the plot twist with Claire.
I'm just not sure if the movie was meant to be serious or a spoof.
Listening to the running commentary with Cameron Daddo and Ethan Wiley, I'm inclined to believe it was a joke.
\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 by-the-numbers exorcism exercise with a disappointing non-allegiance and usage of the term 'blackwater.' The cinematography appears right out of basic cable MOW land which removes any semblance of swampy, murky atmosphere from the proceedings. In addition, there's not nearly enough gore, sex or attractive young things to satiate the majority of the film's targeted viewers. That being said, the lead actress who plays the possessed has a sexy olive-skinned presence. What else needs to be said about this non-winner? Don't rent unless you've got a thing for middle-aged adults bemoaning their past and rants with clichéd priests, shrinks, hispanic stablemen all regretting their past actions.
\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 to differ from the other comments posted. Amid sporadic funny moments, there are a lot of actors trying too hard to be funny. The strain shows. I watched this with two friends on another friend's recommendation- none of us were thrilled.
\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\nFormulaic to the max. Neither title reflects the serial's actual content, \"Fighting Nazis in Morocco,\" (actually, the Iverson ranch). The plot is just to fill in the lulls between fistfights. The packaging claims over 40 'fistic encounters' in 15 chapters. That's at least three a chapter! Aside from seeing Duncan Renaldo cast as a Spanish accented Frenchman, watching how much furniture is overturned, smashed, thrown, burned or blown up is what this serial is really all about. When the protagonists start fighting, you can bet that everything in the room will be in it, too. So, kudos to the fight choreographer, who is the real star of this serial!
Two positive notes: the characters do sometimes lose their hats during the fights, and best of all, we have the girl side kick (often a journalist, as she is here) actually participating in the mayhem, mostly by shooting and killing the bad guys. Yet to come is Linda Stirling killing the main villain in \"Manhunt of Mystery Island\" (1945). On the negative side, there are just too many jump out of the way escapes-- before the slab falls, before the car goes over the cliff, before the speedboat explodes, before the building explodes, before the truck hits you, etc. etc.
It is claimed that this serial partially 'inspired' George Lucas to make the first Indiana Jones film, but that is more by implied concept than because of the actual story or the serial's development.
Rod Cameron 'shines' as a moving rock, a role he played in all his films. Other than watching all the furniture getting smashed, there's nothing really going on here, compared to other serials that have fewer fights, more story, better actors and more developed characters.
I give it a 3 for all the furniture smashing.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nI just saw this at the Castro Theatre in San Francisco and had trouble staying awake during this incredibly repetitive, unenlightening little film. It is a 75 minutes film that felt like 175 minutes and has about 20 minutes of modestly engaging material. It's not bad in any offensive way, it just repeats things that have been said many, many times over and more interestingly and provocatively. With only a couple of exceptions, the interviews drone on and on and on, making little emotional contact or context to the whole topic. It's more like a \"how to\" guide for something that can't be done anymore. I was alive during the era but felt little connection or nostalgia for what was presented.
\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 should be retitled: Sex in the 70s In a Part of New York City called Greenwich Village and Chelsea.
This movie does little to talk about sex in the 70s except focus on the hypersexual environments of public and private sex spaces in New York City. I doubt that the Manhole bar was symbolic of actual sex in the 70s and that kind of sex is much more prevalent in the film.
Don't get me wrong, the time period looks like a blast. And it's rather important to document the scene to which the film refers. But as far as calling this film Sex in the 70s, the title is a bit misleading. Technically it's no Oscar Nominee, but the rawness of it feels appropriate for the subject.
Overall, an \"eh.\"
\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\nBeing a gay man who lived through the time period examined in this tedious documentary, I was eager to see how the subject matter was handled. Unfortunately, the film makers wasted what could have been an energetic and insightful opportunity to shed some light on our collective gay history. This film only concerns itself with the period within New York City, ignoring the rest of the country. While I spent a fair amount of time in NYC at that time, I can assure you that there was a gay life outside Manhattan! The men interviewed here are the same \"A-list\" queens who thought they were better than anyone else during the 70s, and here they are again, waxing nostalgic and still throwing attitude. The film should have at least tried to cover larger topics, such as race, ageism, the burgeoning gay \"caste system\" based on wealth, body image, and the rise of the \"clones\", discrimination of sub-groups within the community, and the ability to grow a decent mustache (which was very important in the 70s!). Alas, we have none of this presented, and the recollections of those interviewed are no different than my own memories. If you were there in that decade, you'll enjoy the archival photos and grainy home-movies of the bars and discos we haunted. If you weren't there, this film will undoubtedly seem dull. It should have been so much more, but sadly, it's not. Two stars for jogging my memory...I still miss going to the Anvil!
\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 absolutely love the first three movies, they were great! I once caught Part 5 on VHS 10 years ago, and I was disappointed. But perhaps that was because I never saw the fourth one, because they were shot back-to-back. but after finally viewing a copy today, I have to say it was no way better than number 5. My expectations weren't high to begin with, but this is cheap direct-to-video stuff, not even a horror movie, it's PG-13. The acting was not convincing, the story was rather dumb without any excitement and there were not many effects. But the main problem is that there were no kills or any gore (the annoying kid who gets killed in his car was supposed to be the highlight, but come on..)
Surprisingly, both Parts 4 and 5 were directed by Sequel-director Jeff Burr who gave us the excellent Stepfather II and Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III. I liked Puppet Master: The Legacy, even if it was nothing else than a tribute with the best scenes from all movies.
Overall, Puppet Master is very much like the Hellraiser Series: A great trilogy but forget the rest..
\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***SLIGHT SPOILERS*** This installment of the Full Moon franchise changes the storyline a bit and implements some new elements. First off a new puppet master is established. Secondly, the puppets turn good in this sequel. Finally, It introduces some scifi/fantasy elements as well.
A new tenant of the infamous hotel by the bay, his girlfriend, her psychic friend, and that psychics boyfriend, stumble upon Andre Toulon's puppet trunk. They also learn about some demon from another dimension that holds Toulon responsible for stealing the secret to animating the unliving. So Sutekh (the demon) sends the totems, a bunch of craven little creatures that look like ear-less gremlins. Then it's up to the puppet troupe to take care of the inter-dimensional threat that's trying to kill there new friends.
Like most low budget movies this film is rife with continuity problems. How did the puppets get put back in the trunk? How come nobody remembers the last rasche of killngs in the hotel? Who bought the hotel? Why would a contractor by a building with a history of mass murders? All this and many more questions, will not be answered...ever.
The real suprise of this movie is the acting. It's actually pretty good. The actors take it with a enthusiasm unusual especially for a bunch of Full Moon nonames. Teresa Hill was especially impressive as the shy, nervous, psychic Lauren. Chandra West (Susie) was also a pleasant suprise also. Gordon Hill was a tolerable protagonist. But Cameron was far too annoying to stomach. Thank the norse god he dies before halfway through.
The puppets are there usual animated selves. With some improvements as well. There emotions (especially Jester's) are much more human due to the sounds that have been given to them. Blade's hisses, Pinhead's grunts, and Six-Shooter's snicker have all been improved and sound much better. The stop-motion animation is only average at best, especially the totems. They just don't seem to move as fluidly as the previous installment in the series. Also the Sutekh costume is absolutely awefull. How are we supposed to afraid of a creature so humorous looking.
The story seems a bit juvinile for the series. I think Charlie Band was looking to focus in on a younger demographic. The violence being toned down in this movie also seems to speak the same. Gore fans will be disappointed.
I think the above is the main problem this movie can't really stick with many people. It doesn't have the violence for gorewhores. The language is a little cleaner. Yet it's too violent and harsh for the wee ones. Which is why the movie gets low ratings. I have to say that the common reviews are mostly fair.
\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 a big fan of the demonic puppets. Looking at the surface of this one, it looks pretty good! You've got Decapitron, the puppets, and a new villain in THE TOTEM! Unfortunately, the little punk that's doing this project to animate, inanimate objects, can't act. He stinks! His girlfriend is worse. If they were left out, it would probably be cool, BLADE VS. THE TOTEM. I'd watch that for 2 hours. But instead, the puppets role is down played, and the whole movie suffered because of it. The mystical Skull guy who created the totem is corny at best, and Decapitrons appearance is long awaited, short, and really quite disappointing. You'd be better off watching the first one again.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nA severe backwards step for the puppets in this mainly dull and tedious outing. Guy Rolfe, so fantastic as Andre Toulon in part three barely features this time and Richard Band's fantastical them tune appears with the puppets a fair few minutes in to the film. For the start of the movie we are introduced to the caretaker of Bodega Bay Inn (Gordon Currie) and some youth friends of his (many of the cast are Canadian and are all very good in unfortunately rather undemanding roles - Teresa Hill is quite yummy). Totems, minions of the Egyptian God Sutek want the secret of animation life back and the puppets (when they surface) act with a previously unseen cleverness to attempt to destroy the ugly and very computer game looking Totems. The Totems merely complicate the series and distract from the things that previously made the series so unique - they don't share the weird beauty of the puppets and thus don't really fit in. Top scene is Pinhead using a rag to clean blood from Tunnelers drill bit, classic and about the goriest this film goes. The fifth film was filmed concurrently with this one so expect similar sections of mediocre and a Toulon performance that seems to have been filmed in a different era (or even galaxy). Guy Rolfe deserved better and series fans certainly do. Grrrrrrr.
\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 I decided to watch the entire Puppet Master series, and had just watched parts 1-3, which I thought were ALL excellent. They had a unique charm to them, and a certain intelligence that I really appreciated. About a year ago, I even saw Puppet Master Vs. Demonic Toys, which of course was bad, but still a terrific guilty pleasure and fun to watch.
From the very beginning of this film, I knew it was in trouble. The cheesy Power Rangers-style Egyptian skull villain who watches the Puppets 'Rita Repulsa-style' through his pyramid glass came straight out of left field! All of the additions to this franchise in this story were completely absurd! Suddenly we have a grand assortment of all kinds of new and random characters and plots that are a far cry from the first three films. I seriously doubt that when the first Puppet Master was being penned, the writers had visions of someday seeing an Egyptian Power Rangers villain, totem monsters, annoying twenty-somethings who seriously can't act (and are supposed to be brilliant scientists but never say anything intelligent), and a lame \"Decapitron\" puppet who's head can morph into the ghost of Toulon.
Another thing that greatly disappointed me in this film was that it completely ignores what happened in the last entry (Part II, since III was a prequel). Suddenly, the puppets are back at Bodega Bay Inn, back in their case (minus Blade), and Toulon for some reason is willing to help his puppets again (he betrays them in part II for his love of Elsa). This isn't explained AT ALL...and so with that, and all of this other junk thrown in, I was no longer amused.
I'm a huge fan of ridiculous B movies, a connoisseur if you will. I even collect laser discs of rare B movies you can't find on DVD, and so it takes a lot for me to say that this was one of the most absurd movies I have ever seen in my life. I still love those puppets, the original ones, Blade, Tunneler, Pinhead, Jester and the rest, and if they had only stuck with what they had rather than trying to fix something that wasn't broken, well, the series might still be alive and in good health. That being said, even though the reviews aren't so great, I'm really interested in checking out Puppet Master Retro, sounds like an interesting one that pays great tribute to the original themes.
\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 borrowed this movie, I wasn't expecting a high-quality performance, but this was just sad.
Most of the acting was so unbelievably bad that you couldn't easily get into this movie if you tried. There's nothing quite like seeing a kid announce things like \"Oh no! My Dad is invisible!\" or \"I wonder what this does?\" in the same monotone that one might announce traffic advisories over the radio with. There are some good actors, but they are wasted on smaller parts.
The story is decent, though it would be fairly easy to guess, considering that there aren't too many real plot changes. Lots of holes, too. For example, the Dad is invisible, and the inventor figures out what part is needed to make him visible again. So the boy goes and steals the part from an electronics store. Couldn't he just ask his Dad for the cash?
This shows up in the Comedy category, but most of the comedy in this movie was fairly dumb, like the Invisible Dad taking off his clothes while invisible and then almost reappearing naked during a meeting, or walking around with his head covered at all times. Funny at first, but it gets old.
2/5, because it is watchable, and it's one of those movies that are funny in their own way... like the monotone recitation of lines.
\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 made me want to bang my head against the wall. It is hard to compare such badness as this to anything, but some say that watching this movie is similar to bleeding from under your fingernails. And that comment comes from the writer's cousin. This movie was so flipping bad, it made \"Hulk\" (The second worst movie ever) look like \"The Departed\" (One of the greatest movies in cinematic history). If you like boring family movies with predictable plot lines, then you will absolutely love this movie. If you have a brain, then you definitely will not. When I rented this movie, I actually fell asleep while watching it. The next day, I finished it from where I left off, and it was the worst decision of my life.
\n
assistant\n0
\n"
"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nWell the name in the summary should tell you everything. FRED OLEN RAY - the modern King of low budget flicks, be it for TV or direct to video (I doubt he produces for the silver screen anymore - with the death of drive-in B-movie double features and all).
Creator of such cult(?) classics, like Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers and Dinosaur Island....
Well I kind of like this guys stuff. Its mostly entertaining (in a distinctly cheesy, campy and especially cheap kind of way) and if he's one thing, he's a pro - something you can't say for all guys in the movie biz.
But this one flick here is among the weaker ones in his oevre. Insipid acting, an uninspired script and lame jokes conspire to make your brain go numb in a matter of minutes. If you are out for real F.O.R. goodness (or rather badness), look out for the above mentioned ones, and generally his stuff from the 70s and 80s (I think he lost a bit of his edge lately).
\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\nSometimes you get exactly what you expect. A film produced and by and as a vehicle for a rock band in the middle of a comeback is not to be expected to rank high in artistic merit- and in this case it certainly doesn't. In fact, as expected, the soundtrack is a much better investment than the movie itself, which like the 70's rock and roll lifestyle it attempts to portray, is characterized by excess, drugs, and over-the-top antics, but unfortunately is not nearly as much fun. Utilizing a script by Carl Dupre horrible enough to make a fellow screenwriter cringe, and wasting the talents of Edward Furlong, the sole highlight of this rock and roll period piece gone wrong is the music, most notably the elaborate recreating of a 1978 KISS concert.
\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\nNow this is a bad movie if I've ever seen one. In one of film's greatest years, 1999, Detroit Rock City contends with Runaway Bride and Wild Wild West for the bottom spot in a barrel of junkies. The plot is masterful. Four scrawny high school youngsters finally have their chance at seeing the hard rock theatrics of KISS forthe third year in a row. So when their tickets are toiled by an ultra-religious, chain-smoking mom, the pals scramble themselves in getting to Detroit, and I'm sure you can figure out the rest.
Well, not exactly; the movie does go to extreme measures in explaining how the four band members (no, not Gene, Paul, Ace and Peter) go about getting these tickets: losing your virginity in a confessional; saving a smoked-out bimbo and your mom's Volvo (from the Soprano's Steve Schirripa, nonetheless); preventing a robbery in the midst of botching one for a 12-year-old's debt; and of course, stripping down to your bare essentials for MC Ron Jeremy after shuttling a full blender with bourbon-leftovers. Sounds funny, doesn't it? Perhaps Detroit Rock City does have a point with all this tomfoolery in how extreme sometimes these fans can go. And we do understand this movie is a comedy; it is supposed to be filled with slapstick. But does Detroit Rock City aim to the proper audience? It is rated R, meaning the only way prepubescent adolescents-the audience as I see it, to which many will eventually hail this one a classic-will voyeur is through illegal terms.
Detroit Rock City also fails at giving itself the late-1970's touch. The camera's texture quality is way too clear and way too bright, missing the necessary flair from films like This is Spinal Tap and Sid & Nancy. This would've allowed audiences to feel `more at home' with the times. Simply costuming kids into pre-90's grunge-wear and settling others into `disco infernos' does not do the trick. Environment does mean something you know; I doubt Detroit looked this glamorous in '78. If there's anything positive coming from this movie it's the kick-ass soundtrack of hard late-70 to early-80's rock. Van Halen, AC/DC, you name it, it's all here. Of course we can't forget KISS, the band aptly subjected throughout.
What the film noticeably fails to manage are questions concerning why the Knights of Satin's Service (it's really just KISS) were so frowned upon by moms around the nation. Sure, the loud rock and devilish makeup might be a part of that; encouragements for youth to explore themselves and have a good time might be fair reasons as well. But, what is KISS saying in the music we hear throughout the film towards this highly rebellious group? What separates these anthems of `rock[ing] and roll[ing] all night and partying everyday' from the rest of the music? Most likely, these questions will remain in a music communication class and not in the films that should answer them, simply because it is KISS and they rock and we must do everything in our God-forgiven power to see them.
1.5/5 stars
\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 picked this movie up because it sounded like a pretty decent flick, and I've always been a fan of Foreign films. However, for someone who likes movies, I was surprised at how much I hate, hate, HATED this movie.
Although it does aim to expose the lives of young, lowerclass men in Lima, and to an extent it does succeeed, the characters are hopelessly shallow and the audience winds up having absolutely no feelings whatsoever for them.
Although the story chiefly revolves around M, he rarely ever speaks, and his dialouge is, at best, amazingly dry and dull.
*** Warning: Some small spoilers ***
Basically, the story revolves around a young man named M who has been searching for jobs, but without success (He does gain employment twice, but quits because they're \"not for him\", when you're poor, the last option you have is to be picky). Some amount of time is spent with his friends, who's idea of \"fun\" is to rape a little 14 year old, steal crappy tires off a piece of shit car for a dime sack of weed, and several other slightly retarded activities.
M's friend comesup with a plan to make $25,000 a piece and move to the US by running Cocaine to Miami. When the drug lord gives them a job, we're treated to an extremely lame scene of the three friends buying clothes at the mall with some music playing in the background. We see them trying different clothes on like little girls given $200 to shop, get there hair cut, and then strutting off looking like slick gangsters (one character, Carlos, will from this point on wear sunglasses ALWAYS... even at night).The day before they leave, the leader of the group leaves to speak with the drug lord, leaving M and his friend to be dumb. They party up, take several samples of the drugs they're suppose to run, and break into thier old school, acting like animals and smashing everything in sight.
The movie ends when M tries calling his girlfriend, who hangs up on him. The friends then proceed to set the pay phone on fire, which brings out a bunch of kids and some old man with gun. M and Carlos' friend in charge of the drug run shows up on his motorcycle and wants them to leave with him now. Then he takes off by himself, and gets shot by that old man. The police show up and arrest M and his friends (but not the man who shot the guy) and cover thier dead friend up with newspapers as music plays and it fades to credits.
**** End Spoiler ****
I even watched this movie a second time, hoping to see some subtle, redeeming factor for it, but I did not. A complete waste of 102 minutes. Although I must give it credit for being straightforward and not shying away from disturbing elements, the casting, acting, and overall direction still leaves much, much, much to be desired.
IMHO, if you're interested in a movie that explores the issues this one was suppose to, go rent City of God (Cidade de Deus) instead. Avoid this trash at all costs! You have been warned!!
\n
assistant\n0
\n"