MLP-SEMO/CSR_datasets · Datasets at Hugging Face

sentence stringlengths 3 2.65k
The appearance of Denise Richards was again a pleasure for the eye.
But that's it.
We (the four of us) we're a little bit disappointed.
But feel free to see this movie and judge it yourself.
The Good: I liked this movie because it was the first horror movie I've seen in a long time that actually scared me.
The acting wasn't too bad, and the "Cupid" killer was believable and disturbing.
The Bad: The story line and plot of this movie is incredibly weak.
There just wasn't much to it.
The ways the killer killed his victims was very horrifying and disgusting.
I do not recommend this movie to anyone who can not handle gore.
Overall: A good scare, but a bad story.
out of ***
Its plain to see why the makers of Scary Movie found it so easy to spoof these 'teen slasher' movies.
They are so unbelievably formulaic.
And if Valentine had been released a year or so earlier, I'm sure they would have been spoofing this film too - that's if they found any actual original material to distinguish it from the Screams, I know what you did last summers, and Urban Legends.
Valentine offers nothing new to this genre, except a better than usual ending which, of course, leaves lots of room for the inevitable sequel.
As always, a masked psychotic killer stalks a bunch of beautiful young women, killing the main character's friends, one by one, in typically over the top style.
Lots of T&A on display, no character development, bad acting, and overly elaborate bloodshed.
The thing I can't stand about these kind of movies is that they pass themselves off as 'who done its?
The thing is that they aren't because the motive is only revealed once the killer has unmasked, and tells the main character who's friends have now all been murdered.
Usually something that was never made at all clear during the film anyway (eg.
main character's mother's uncle's fishing partner kicked his friend's father's dog).
Everybody still left alive throughout the film is a 'suspect', but they are more 'Red Herrings' than suspects.
As we all know at this point the main character manages an implausible escape and kills the unmasked psycho killer after the motive is revealed.
Valentine followed this formula almost to the letter.
***************SPOILER!!!!!!
(mini spoiler anyway)*************** In Valentine the motive was not revealed, but more, left for you to think about given that the film didn't quite conclude in the typical 'teen slash' way.
The issue is only part resolved, and the goal of the lead killer may or may not have been fulfilled by surviving the bloodshed and killing almost everybody.
Will the killer want more, or were the demons truly vanquished?
This still didn't make Valentine a good film, instead it simply saved it from being as bad as usual, which still doesn't count for much.
To anybody thinking of making another film along these lines, please don't.
Originality is so important, and its hard to see any originality coming out of this genre.
*SPOILERS* *SPOILERS* Are all teen slasher flicks suffering from a drought of originality?
It awfully seems so.
First of all, this is a noble premise that could've been utilized well.
A rejected young nerd who grows up, stalks and murders all the girls who tortured the hell out of him when he was in junior high?
Can't say you had nothing to work with.
But this film goes through the same motions as all the other recent slashers.
Everything from the score to the camera angles allow us to predict exactly when a false alarm is coming and exactly when the killer will strike.
We know the pattern by now.
These stupid slasher movies push the credibility envelope more and more by the minute.
Let me ask you something: Who, in their right mind, is going to surprise a friend of theirs in a dark, dreary morgue in the middle of the night and just surprise her out of the blue while she's all alone and surrounded by corpses?
Does that make any damn sense at all?
"Valentine" is only occasionally innovative.
One good shot involves the butchering of Denise Richards' character.
She gets trapped inside a pool and the killer pokes at her with a chainsaw.
There's some good songs in the soundtrack, including one cool track by Orgy.
The music video is contained in the special features section on the DVD.
Even the acting is mediocre at best.
The actors all sleep through their roles.
Of course, David Boreanaz is often stoic, even in his portrayal as the title character on "Angel."
Denise Richards is a fine actress, though, and she keeps a stoneface throughout the movie.
"Valentine" is just like you'd expect: pretentious, implausible, forgettable, cheesy and without a good scare in sight.
Don't even bother.
My score: 4 (out of 10)
here was no effort put into Valentine to prevent it from being just another teenage slasher film, a sub-genre of horror films of which we have seen entirely too many over the last decade or so.
I've heard a lot of people complaining that the film rips off several previous horror movies, including everything from Halloween to Prom Night to Carrie, and as much as I hate to be redundant, the rip off is so blatant that it is impossible not to say anything.
The punch bowl over poor Jeremy's head early in the film is so obviously taken from Carrie that they may as well have just said it right in the movie (`Hey everyone, this is the director, and the following is my Carrie-rip-off scene.
Enjoy!
').
But that's just a suggestion.
(spoilers) The film is structured piece by piece exactly the same way that every other goofy teen thriller is structured.
We get to know some girl briefly at the beginning, she gets killed, people wonder in the old oh-but-that-stuff-only-happens-to-other-people tone, and then THEY start to get killed.
The problem here is that the director and the writers clearly and honestly want to keep the film mysterious and suspenseful, but they have no idea how to do it.
Take Jason, for example.
Here is this hopelessly arrogant guy who is so full of himself and bad with women that he divides the check on a date according to what each person had, and as one of the first characters seen in the film after the brief history lesson about how bad poor Jeremy was treated, he is assumed to carry some significance.
Besides that, and more importantly, he has the same initials as the little boy that all the girls terrorized in sixth grade, and the same initials that are signed at the bottom of all of those vicious Valentine's Day cards.
It is not uncommon for the audience to be deliberately and sometimes successfully misled by the behavior of one or more characters that appear to be prime suspects, and Jason is a perfect example of the effort, but not such a good example of a successful effort.
Sure, I thought for a while that he might very well be the killer, but that's not the point.
We know from early on that he is terrible with women, which links him to the little boy at the beginning of the film, but then in the middle of the film, he appears at a party, smiles flirtatiously at two of the main girls, and then gives them a hateful look and walks away, disappearing from the party and from the movie with no explanation.
We already know he is a cardboard character, but his role in the film was so poorly thought out that they just took him out altogether when they were done with him.
On the positive side, the killer's true identity was, in fact, made difficult to predict in at least one subtle way which was also, unfortunately, yet another rip-off.
Early in the film, when Shelley stabs the killer in the leg with his own scalpel, he makes no sound, suggesting that the killer might be a female staying silent to prevent revealing herself as a female, rather than a male as everyone suspects.
But then for the rest of the film, we just have this stolid, relentless, unstoppable killer with the emotionless mask and that gigantic butcher knife.
Director Jamie Blanks (who, with all due respect, looks like he had some trouble with the girls himself in the sixth grade) mentions being influenced by Halloween.
This is, of course, completely unnecessary, because it's so obvious from how badly he plagiarizes the film.
The only difference between the killer in Valentine and Michael Meyer's is that Michael's mask was so much more effective and he didn't have a problem with nosebleeds.
This stuff is shameless.
At the end, there is a brief attempt to mislead us one more time as to who the killer is (complete with slow and drawn out `and-the-killer-is' mask removal), but then we see Adam's nose start to bleed as he holds Kate, his often reluctant girlfriend, and we know that he's been the killer all along.
Nothing in the film hinted that he might be the killer until the final act, and these unexplained nosebleeds were not exactly the cleverest way to identify the true killer at the end of the film.
Valentine is not scary (I watched it in an empty house by myself after midnight, and I have been afraid of the dark for as long as I can remember, and even I wasn't scared), and the characters might be possible to care about if it weren't so obvious that they were just going to die.
I remember being impressed by the theatrical previews (although the film was in and out of the theater's faster than Battlefield Earth), but the end result is the same old thing.
This movie in away was super-clever.
It's theme rhymes with every single horror movie ever made.
Valentine makes ZERO attempt to be original.
What is valentine anyway?
It's a bunch of people giving each other the same lame messages that were given to the same people a year earlier.
There is nothing original in Valentine.
I only saw it once, and in that one viewing here are some of the films it ripped off.
Prom Night 2.
Carrie 3.
Scream 4.
Any other horror movie in which somebody is killing somebody.
I know there is more, but my mind was slowly turning into a puddle of silk so it couldn't grab them as fast as they came.
Valentine had no chance of being a good movie.
How come every horror movie has to have a "suprise" killer, people you don't care about because their emotions take a turn every other scene.
One minute a nice girl turns into an evil B--ch, then she's an insecure woman, and so on and son on.
Normally any horror movie (in my book) can be saved by gore, once again Valentine doesn't have this.
It was as if they tried to make it PG-13 but failed, so they left the edit.
Do not see this overly-inspired, rip-off unless you hate yourself, and you want to die.

The appearance of Denise Richards was again a pleasure for the eye.

But that's it.

We (the four of us) we're a little bit disappointed.

But feel free to see this movie and judge it yourself.

The Good: I liked this movie because it was the first horror movie I've seen in a long time that actually scared me.

The acting wasn't too bad, and the "Cupid" killer was believable and disturbing.

The Bad: The story line and plot of this movie is incredibly weak.

There just wasn't much to it.

The ways the killer killed his victims was very horrifying and disgusting.

I do not recommend this movie to anyone who can not handle gore.

Overall: A good scare, but a bad story.

** out of *****

Its plain to see why the makers of Scary Movie found it so easy to spoof these 'teen slasher' movies.

They are so unbelievably formulaic.

And if Valentine had been released a year or so earlier, I'm sure they would have been spoofing this film too - that's if they found any actual original material to distinguish it from the Screams, I know what you did last summers, and Urban Legends.

Valentine offers nothing new to this genre, except a better than usual ending which, of course, leaves lots of room for the inevitable sequel.

As always, a masked psychotic killer stalks a bunch of beautiful young women, killing the main character's friends, one by one, in typically over the top style.

Lots of T&A on display, no character development, bad acting, and overly elaborate bloodshed.

The thing I can't stand about these kind of movies is that they pass themselves off as 'who done its?

The thing is that they aren't because the motive is only revealed once the killer has unmasked, and tells the main character who's friends have now all been murdered.

Usually something that was never made at all clear during the film anyway (eg.

main character's mother's uncle's fishing partner kicked his friend's father's dog).

Everybody still left alive throughout the film is a 'suspect', but they are more 'Red Herrings' than suspects.

As we all know at this point the main character manages an implausible escape and kills the unmasked psycho killer after the motive is revealed.

Valentine followed this formula almost to the letter.

***************SPOILER!!!!!!

(mini spoiler anyway)*************** In Valentine the motive was not revealed, but more, left for you to think about given that the film didn't quite conclude in the typical 'teen slash' way.

The issue is only part resolved, and the goal of the lead killer may or may not have been fulfilled by surviving the bloodshed and killing almost everybody.

Will the killer want more, or were the demons truly vanquished?

This still didn't make Valentine a good film, instead it simply saved it from being as bad as usual, which still doesn't count for much.

To anybody thinking of making another film along these lines, please don't.

Originality is so important, and its hard to see any originality coming out of this genre.

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Are all teen slasher flicks suffering from a drought of originality?

It awfully seems so.

First of all, this is a noble premise that could've been utilized well.

A rejected young nerd who grows up, stalks and murders all the girls who tortured the hell out of him when he was in junior high?

Can't say you had nothing to work with.

But this film goes through the same motions as all the other recent slashers.

Everything from the score to the camera angles allow us to predict exactly when a false alarm is coming and exactly when the killer will strike.

We know the pattern by now.

These stupid slasher movies push the credibility envelope more and more by the minute.

Let me ask you something: Who, in their right mind, is going to surprise a friend of theirs in a dark, dreary morgue in the middle of the night and just surprise her out of the blue while she's all alone and surrounded by corpses?

Does that make any damn sense at all?

"Valentine" is only occasionally innovative.

One good shot involves the butchering of Denise Richards' character.

She gets trapped inside a pool and the killer pokes at her with a chainsaw.

There's some good songs in the soundtrack, including one cool track by Orgy.

The music video is contained in the special features section on the DVD.

Even the acting is mediocre at best.

The actors all sleep through their roles.

Of course, David Boreanaz is often stoic, even in his portrayal as the title character on "Angel."

Denise Richards is a fine actress, though, and she keeps a stoneface throughout the movie.

"Valentine" is just like you'd expect: pretentious, implausible, forgettable, cheesy and without a good scare in sight.

Don't even bother.

My score: 4 (out of 10)

here was no effort put into Valentine to prevent it from being just another teenage slasher film, a sub-genre of horror films of which we have seen entirely too many over the last decade or so.

I've heard a lot of people complaining that the film rips off several previous horror movies, including everything from Halloween to Prom Night to Carrie, and as much as I hate to be redundant, the rip off is so blatant that it is impossible not to say anything.

The punch bowl over poor Jeremy's head early in the film is so obviously taken from Carrie that they may as well have just said it right in the movie (`Hey everyone, this is the director, and the following is my Carrie-rip-off scene.

Enjoy!

').

But that's just a suggestion.

(spoilers) The film is structured piece by piece exactly the same way that every other goofy teen thriller is structured.

We get to know some girl briefly at the beginning, she gets killed, people wonder in the old oh-but-that-stuff-only-happens-to-other-people tone, and then THEY start to get killed.

The problem here is that the director and the writers clearly and honestly want to keep the film mysterious and suspenseful, but they have no idea how to do it.

Take Jason, for example.

Here is this hopelessly arrogant guy who is so full of himself and bad with women that he divides the check on a date according to what each person had, and as one of the first characters seen in the film after the brief history lesson about how bad poor Jeremy was treated, he is assumed to carry some significance.

Besides that, and more importantly, he has the same initials as the little boy that all the girls terrorized in sixth grade, and the same initials that are signed at the bottom of all of those vicious Valentine's Day cards.

It is not uncommon for the audience to be deliberately and sometimes successfully misled by the behavior of one or more characters that appear to be prime suspects, and Jason is a perfect example of the effort, but not such a good example of a successful effort.

Sure, I thought for a while that he might very well be the killer, but that's not the point.

We know from early on that he is terrible with women, which links him to the little boy at the beginning of the film, but then in the middle of the film, he appears at a party, smiles flirtatiously at two of the main girls, and then gives them a hateful look and walks away, disappearing from the party and from the movie with no explanation.

We already know he is a cardboard character, but his role in the film was so poorly thought out that they just took him out altogether when they were done with him.

On the positive side, the killer's true identity was, in fact, made difficult to predict in at least one subtle way which was also, unfortunately, yet another rip-off.

Early in the film, when Shelley stabs the killer in the leg with his own scalpel, he makes no sound, suggesting that the killer might be a female staying silent to prevent revealing herself as a female, rather than a male as everyone suspects.

But then for the rest of the film, we just have this stolid, relentless, unstoppable killer with the emotionless mask and that gigantic butcher knife.

Director Jamie Blanks (who, with all due respect, looks like he had some trouble with the girls himself in the sixth grade) mentions being influenced by Halloween.

This is, of course, completely unnecessary, because it's so obvious from how badly he plagiarizes the film.

The only difference between the killer in Valentine and Michael Meyer's is that Michael's mask was so much more effective and he didn't have a problem with nosebleeds.

This stuff is shameless.

At the end, there is a brief attempt to mislead us one more time as to who the killer is (complete with slow and drawn out `and-the-killer-is' mask removal), but then we see Adam's nose start to bleed as he holds Kate, his often reluctant girlfriend, and we know that he's been the killer all along.

Nothing in the film hinted that he might be the killer until the final act, and these unexplained nosebleeds were not exactly the cleverest way to identify the true killer at the end of the film.

Valentine is not scary (I watched it in an empty house by myself after midnight, and I have been afraid of the dark for as long as I can remember, and even I wasn't scared), and the characters might be possible to care about if it weren't so obvious that they were just going to die.

I remember being impressed by the theatrical previews (although the film was in and out of the theater's faster than Battlefield Earth), but the end result is the same old thing.

This movie in away was super-clever.

It's theme rhymes with every single horror movie ever made.

Valentine makes ZERO attempt to be original.

What is valentine anyway?

It's a bunch of people giving each other the same lame messages that were given to the same people a year earlier.

There is nothing original in Valentine.

I only saw it once, and in that one viewing here are some of the films it ripped off.

Prom Night 2.

Carrie 3.

Scream 4.

Any other horror movie in which somebody is killing somebody.

I know there is more, but my mind was slowly turning into a puddle of silk so it couldn't grab them as fast as they came.

Valentine had no chance of being a good movie.

How come every horror movie has to have a "suprise" killer, people you don't care about because their emotions take a turn every other scene.

One minute a nice girl turns into an evil B--ch, then she's an insecure woman, and so on and son on.

Normally any horror movie (in my book) can be saved by gore, once again Valentine doesn't have this.

It was as if they tried to make it PG-13 but failed, so they left the edit.

Do not see this overly-inspired, rip-off unless you hate yourself, and you want to die.