DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Okay, first the good thing : If you saw the trailer then you know about 100% of the "scary/jumpy" moment of the movie. And yes, it's a good thing because you should just stick to the trailer and not go see the movie.

I now understand why Sarah Michelle Gellar did not stay alive in that movie for very long, she did not want to associate her name with this production. I wish her the best for "The Return".

You have to follow 3 different story in this movie, and they are all disconnected (in time and meaning) until the very end. And even then it's a very bad climax. And god forbid even open the door to another sequel.

Yes, in this movie, "The Rage and Fury" is on the move. No need to visit the house anymore, just be close to someone who when inside and you're done. It's not a curse anymore it's kinda like a virus. Go inside the house, get scared, return back to USA and spread the joy in your apartment building.

It's not that difficult to follow, but you just don't really care about anyone. The plot line is slim to none and you have many scene in this movie where you just laugh and shake your head... Milk anyone?? I saw Ju-On 2 at the Fantasia movie festival last summer, different story completely but much better than this dud. It's not a remake, but this time, maybe they should have simply done a remake....

If you must see it, wait for the DVD.

Sentiment: negative
The Devil Dog: Hound of Hell is really good film. It has good acting by the cast including Richard Crenna and R.G. Armstrong.The music is spooky and gives that devilish chill!I liked the effects on the dog and I think the creature itself looked really cool with its horns,frill like part on his neck, and acted really viscous!If you like horror films and haven't seen The Devil Dog: Hound of Hell before and are able to find and buy this rare film then do so because its a good movie and I don't think you'll be disappointed!

Sentiment: positive
I watch a lot of films, good, bad and indifferent; there is usually something of interest to fixate upon, even if it is only set design, or the reliable labor of a good character actor, or the fortuitous laughter that emerges from watching ineptitude captured forever.

However, I was quite pleasantly surprised by this film, one I had never seen before. Graham Greene has been translated into film many times of course, in such masterpieces as "Thin Man" and in lesser vehicles. "Confidential Agent" is one of those lesser vehicles, yet it manages to get me somewhere anyway, despite lackluster direction, the incongruity of Bacall and Boyer's depictions as (respectively) British and Spanish, and the almost complete non-existence of any chemistry between the two leads. In some ways, this last "problem" actually begins to work in the film's favor, for how can love really blossom in the killing atmosphere of fascism and capitalism meeting about one person's tragedy? The most compelling aspect of the film arises directly from Greene's complex and guilt-ridden psychology, which pervades the film. I know some see the deliberate pacing here as dull, and I can understand that. Yet I found that plodding accentuated rather than detracted from what is a claustrophobic world. I was compelled to watch, not by any great acting (although Boyer is marvelous as usual, managing to convey a rich mixture of world-weariness, tragedy, hope, and fervor with his magnificent voice and yearning eyes), but by the down-spiraling rush of one man's slim hopes against a world of oppression and money. What is a thief? What good is love in the face of death? Where does mere profit-taking end and exploitation begin? The film does not rise to the level of art, and thus cannot hope to answer such questions, but it is much more than mere entertainment, and its murders and guilts are very grimly drawn. The lack of glitz, of "bubble," of narrative "bounce" help to make this movie very worthwhile.

And there is no happy ending, for history wrote the ending.

Sentiment: positive
No one can say I wasn't warned as I have read the reviews (both user & external), but like most of us attracted to horror movies... curiosity got this cat. (Come on, we all scream at the people in the movie not to go into the dark room, but you know that's horror aficionados are always dying to know what's in there even if we know it'll be bad).

The bottom line is that this movie left me angry. Not because it pretends to be real (who cares...gimmicks are allowed), or because the actors and dialogue are so lame (is this an unusual event in horror movies?) or even because the movie is so bad (and I am being polite here). What really got me mad is that the film is not only a rip off of BWP, but also a half-hearted lazy rip off at that.

I don't believe in sacred cows and if they thought they could outdo BWP then kudos to them, but they didn't even try. The movie was made with little effort or care and that is the most unforgivable sin in horror (or any) movie!

Sentiment: negative
This has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. This movie has nothing positive about it. Some of you people actually like this movie! I've seen a lot of Dracula movies and I've liked everyone that I've seen, but when I saw this movie I said to myself, "What the hell is this?" What a stupid movie. Now they have Dracula becoming who he is because he is Judas. For those of you who don't know who Judas is, he betrayed Jesus Christ and then felt so guilty he hung himself. You have to be kidding me. That's the dumbest reason I've ever heard for why Dracula became evil. Who asked for a reason anyway? What a piece of sh** this movie is. Who ever came up with this sorry excuse for a movie should be beaten. Even the Dracula is horrible. If you ever saw this movie you wouldn't even think it was Dracula. Wow, Dracula 2000! Is that title supposed to impress me? Don't waste your time or your money on this trash.

Sentiment: negative
I must say, when I read the storyline on the back of the case, It sounded really interesting, but when I started to watch the movie seemed boring at first and even more at the end. Some scenes are way too long and the story has not been worked out properly.

Sentiment: negative
i can't figure out who greenlighted this thing! it has no redeeming qualities, none, nada, zip, zilch.

the acting was bad. the directing was bad. the writing was bad. the plot was bad. the music was bad. the editing was bad. ....well, at least the filmmakers were consistent.

Sentiment: negative
Ummm, please forgive me, but weren't more than half the characters missing? In the original novel, Valjean is a man imprisoned for 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread and then attempting several times to escape. He breaks parole and is pursued relentlessly by the police inspector Javert. Along the way there are MANY characters that weren't in this version. Some worth mentioning would be Fantine, Cosette, M & Mme. Thenardier, Eponine, Marius, Gavroche, and Enjolras. The only character with the same name is Javert. I was confused and frustrated throughout the whole movie, trying to see how it was in any way connected to Victor Hugo's epic novel.

Sentiment: negative
That's right, we've got a 2008 film using themes of "Brief Encounter," and "The Bridges of Madison County." It's basically the story of lost loves, redemption and a triumph of the human spirit.

The performances by Richard Gere and especially Diane Lane are very good. Gere gives the kind of restrained performance here as a doctor who is searching for meaning, after a patient dies on the operating table. Lane is the mother of a rebellious daughter and a nice young son, who has split from her wandering husband and has also sustained the loss of her father in the same year.

Scott Glenn steals the show in a one scene meeting with Gere. He is the heartbroken husband and he recounts his love to his departed wife, it will bring tears to your eyes.

Fresh from her triumph as an acquiescing mother in "Doubt," Viola Davis appears as an understanding friend in the film and literally hangs her hair down in a rather benign performance.

Sentiment: positive
the only reason i bought this DVD is because cynthia rothrock is in it.now everybody knows she is the queen of martial arts b movies.the trouble is this is not a martial arts movie.cynthia rothrock has about a minute or so of fight scenes in this stupid movie.now if you were a film maker and you had cynthia rothrock in your movie would'nt you want to have a lot of martial arts action? all she does in this movie is walk around looking bored just like i was when i watched this pile of crap.i own a lot of her movies and they are all b movies but at least they had some cool fight scenes in them.if you are a martial arts fan avoid this no matter what.i'm still mad i wasted 4 dollars to buy this DVD

Sentiment: negative
I play final fantasy 7, and this movie is EXCELLENT like the game, all fans of final fantasy will love this movie. 

The music are fantastic and the history is good, but, the best of this movie is the visual effects, are amazing. The characters are equal to the game and that detail are good for the fans. 

You don't need play the game to like this movie, all the people can enjoy the film, because the history is some different and is easy to understand. I buy the DVD because is EXCELLENT, IS 100% ADVISABLE, if you don't see this film, what you waiting for? believe me,you will fascinate like me

Sentiment: positive
I had first watched this several years ago on a now-defunct Sicilian TV channel; amazingly, the film emerged as a heftily-priced DVD from Criterion: not being sure what I had made of it initially (despite having attained cult status over the years, the achievement proper is clearly viewed with modesty even by genre buffs), I opted not to make the purchase  as I did with the similar and, to me, unfamiliar FIEND WITHOUT A FACE (1958). Recently, however, I managed to acquire THE BLOB via a copy of the Spanish DVD which, interestingly, ported over the two Audio Commentary tracks from the Criterion "Special Edition"but, regrettably, I could not switch off the Spanish subtitles during playback of the main feature! Anyway, looking at the film anew, I was surprised by how much I enjoyed it (despite many a narrative flaw, which I will get to later)  as a pure example of 'B-movie' schlockiness (atypically shot in pleasant color) and a time-capsule illustrating late 1950s social attitudes. The male lead was an early role for Steve(n) McQueen and, though the actor may have subsequently looked at it with disdain, his sole contribution to the genre proves fairly engaging: not averse to juvenile kicks but still essentially a decent (and, more importantly, altruistic) kid. The special effects depicting the slimy and expanding creature are not too bad of its kind and period; the film itself rises to a good climax  beginning with the monster's invasion of a cinema (showing DAUGHTER OF HORROR [1953/7] as I mentioned recently in that film's review but being curiously screened 'flipped' and which sequence, incidentally, would be featured at the opening of a satirical Italian program actually called "Blob"!). As to the admittedly minor quibbles I have with the film: the monster is not shown traveling  it just turns up at a variety of places, never being seen by anyone!; there is a baffling over-emphasis (tantamount to padding) on the kids' scrapes with Police; it is silly to have the town doctor shoot at The Blob  as if fluid, whatever its proportion, can be destroyed by bullets!; equally nonsensical is having the teenagers alert the townsfolk of the danger by making door-to-door visits (especially when considering that, at that stage, only McQueen had actually seen the monster in action)! An inferior sequel emerged in 1972 called BEWARE THE BLOB!; the original was then remade in 1988  I watched this not too long ago but it seems not to have made a lasting impression on me (though I know Micheal Elliott loves it). For the record, I will be following this viewing with two more collaborations between director Yeaworth and producer Jack H. Harris, namely 4D MAN (1959) and DINOSAURUS! (1960).

Sentiment: positive
This made for television version of the legendary stand against hopeless odds is more objective, more realistic than earlier filmed versions of the events, though the one movie made after this went perhaps too far in humanizing the figures of Sam Houston, Bowie, Travis and Crockett.

The focus here is on Jim Bowie, played with sharp, cynical detachment by James Arness who is apparently still alive at age 85. Then 65, he made a comeback to acting after years away from the screen to do this part.

Puerto Rican-born Raul Julia humanizes Gen. Santa Ana as no one since J. Carol Naish back in '54 had done. However, the Mexican dictator is portrayed as a lecherous, vainglorious popinjay--gaudier uniforms have never been seen before or since. He receives excellent advice from the European officers he has hired but, convinced of his own infallibility, he does not heed it.

Alec Baldwin is the one actor whose age is appropriate to the character he plays: Col. William Travis. His portrayal is earnest. He is almost in awe of the older men who share command with him.

The one jarring note was Brian Keith as Crockett. In a coonskin cap and carrying Ol' Betsy, he stumbles about as if he had wandered in from another movie. With no conviction in the portrayal, the character is reduced to a few stage conventions. 

The script reveals some historical facts overlooked or suppressed in earlier film versions. We learn that Jim Bowie was, in the person of Santa Ana, fighting his own brother-in-law. The Mexican soldiers performed poorly in part because they were armed with rifles left over from the Napoleonic Wars a generation earlier. "Santa Ana likes a bargain." Bowie wryly explains. The whole project of defending the former Spanish mission as a fort was militarily ill- advised--a fact explored in greater depth in the 2004 film "The Alamo".

Sentiment: positive
Overall, this is a pretty bad film. But for $5 at PathMark, it wasn't a total waste.

The whole scenario has to do with a guy who is with this lady infected with snakes, supposedly from a magic curse. The actors/actresses aren't names that are big (even though some look like from TV shows), so I won't do my usual Troy McClure thing.

For awhile, the film holds your interest as the couple hop a train and travel to L.A. to see a shaman to undo the curse. There's a bit of other plots going on too; like two ladies smuggling drugs.

But the last 20 minutes turn out to be a total let down. As violent and gory as the whole film is, the grand finale is just totally computer animated.

I saw the unrated version which had tons of language, gore, blood, violence, everything! The bonus features were OK.

Overall Grade: D-

Sentiment: negative
Shame Shame Shame on UA/DW for what you do! 

I was appalled. 

Do NOT take kids to see this movie. The humor is totally inappropriate for children - plus they'll be bored and disappointed. Certainly *we all* have read Theo's wonderful children book and certainly we have expectations...but this is pure trash. Dr. Seuss would be ashamed and certainly would've never given his "thumbs up" at such a dastardly attempt to capitalize on a classic.

What a pity. 

Spend your money on the book. If you own a copy, then buy the book and donate it to a Toys for Tots program. This movie is NOT worth a "free" ticket viewing.

Stick with the book. The tv cartoon version works well if you want a visual portrayal - save your money...seriously. SAVE your money - it will be on cable by saint patty's day.

Shame shame shame on what they do!!

Sentiment: negative
I was totally impressed by Shelley Adrienne's "Waitress" (2007). This movie only confirms what was clear from that movie. Adrienne was a marvelously talented writer-director, an original and unique artist. She managed to show the miseries of everyday life with absurd humor and a real warm optimistic and humanistic tendency. Ally Sheedy steals this movie with a terrific performance as a woman who has fallen over the edge. Male lead Reg Rodgers, looking like Judd Nelson, is fine. There is also a great cameo by Ben Vereen. The song at the end of the movie "The Bastard Song" written by Adrienne can stand as her optimistic eulogy: 

"It's a world of suffering,

In a sea of pain,

No matter how much sun you bring,

You're pummeled by the rain...

Don't let the heartless get you down,

Don't greet the heartless at your door,

Don't live among the heartless"

Sentiment: positive
I am a great fan of Martin Amis, on whose book this film is based. Unfortunately the director has been unable to translate the book to the screen. The novel is thoroughly post modern and highly artificial in its wildly overblown characters and the disintegration of traditional plot line and character development. It is an hilarious examination of human greed, excess and emptiness by one of the most moral of contemporary British writers. The director of the film has completely missed the point of the novel. In his hands, the film screams along at breakneck speed, indulging in every known trick shot and 'odd' camera angle possible. It is like Ken Russel on acid, and suffers from that older director's self indulgence cranked up to a hundred. Not even the (brief) glimpse of gorgeous actor Christian Solimeno's penis was enough to save this wretched film for me. Abysmal!

Sentiment: negative
The first time I saw this movie, it didn't seem to go anywhere. When I watched it a second time though, it made a lot more sense. Give it a chance, watch it more than once, there are a lot of key elements that shape the story that could be missed the first and even second time watching it. The Cohen brothers brilliantly weave actual happenings of the early 20th century into this story to make a believable setting and storyline. The combination of Clooney's leading role blends well with Turturro and Nelson's supporting acts. John Goodman's appearance in the movie is hilarious. The soundtrack is great as well. This movie has become a household favorite for my family. 10/10, for sure.

Sentiment: positive
I basically found Eden's Curve to be a very poorly constructed that made it difficult to watch. However, there is something I must say about how the director captured something about the atmosphere of the early 70's in the choice of settings and clothing. The "back to the earth" philosophy and the interest in sexual exploration and drugs that was not dramatically decadent, as portrayed in many later versions of the 70's was right on, as was the "don't ask don't tell" pseudo-liberalism of the fraternity made up of east-coast intellectuals, except that I would have thought this was more likely of a New England school rather than one in Virginia, where I imagine the "good ole boy" mentality still dominated even elitist schools like this one. Another thing I appreciated and could relate to is that this was a time when homosexuality was not linked so much to leathermen or drag queens and I appreciated some homosexual roles not related to these terribly overused images. I felt it was very unfortunate that "gay culture" took on certain standard forms in the 80's out of Castro and Christopher Streets and these defined the movement and left out huge numbers of gay men that were more subdued in their lifestyles. I appreciated the film mainly as a way of remembering a more natural way we were about our sexuality and personal relationships without "the scene."

Sentiment: negative
I was wondering what possessed the organizers of the Victoria Film Festival to include this film in their program. I guess they must have agreed with the others who have reviewed this film. I, on the other hand, consider it the worst film I have ever seen. It starts with a bad script, full of holes, and dialog so unlikely it's embarrassing. Ideas are introduced, then dropped with no development. The acting left me totally cold and uninvolved. The set decoration was appropriate for the time, but a decorator's nightmare. The only way the characters could love this house is if their previous homes had been ghastly. The attic looked as if the items had been thrown in for the scene with no attempt to create the look of a real attic that has been filling with junk over the years. The photography was leaden and lacking in variety. Save your money for something worthwhile.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is one of the worst movie i have ever seen in my life! i waste my time on this. I watched this movie completely as i took it a punishment for me. I wonder how Suneel Darshan could make such a movie? it doesn't have any continutity. It feels he just shoot scenes and then joined them in some editing software!!! Music is of course good but the film doesn't need so many unwanted songs. Kangana Ranaut looks fake and I wonder what role does Celina Jaietly has in the movie? Bobby deol is good. at least he can act! Upen Patel needs to take some acting lessons rather than taking off his shirts in almost all the scenes! The end was the most pathetic!

I watched Shakalaka Boom Boom after watching "300" (the movie), you guys can really imagine what i felt about this bollywood movie. 

I really respect bollywood but please directors and producers, get real, not everything is fantasy!

Sentiment: negative
I rented this film purely on the fact that the cover appealed to me. However as soon as the film began I had regrets. It seems they used a home video camera to shoot this film and let a young child do it. They also used inappropriate ghostly faces and shapes to try and scare people but i found myself laughing, i could have put that together myself and done a better job of it.

As for the plot I felt that it had some really good ideas but because of dodgy lines and in some cases acting they were overshadowed. It had no direction.

I didn't want to sit through it all because it caused me physical pain to watch it but i always finish what i start so i took a deep breath and let it carry on. Definitely 98minutes of my life wasted.

I would save yourself the embarrassment of knowing that you have watched 'Haunted Boat' and find something that is more entertaining. I'm a fan of low budget horror films but this was a major disappointment i thought nothing could get worse after 'Terror Toons' but this made me reconsider. A let down to its genre.

* out of ***** (The star is for the ideas of having their worst fears coming for them)

Sentiment: negative
I've been watching a lot of Asian horror movies lately, but this one has to be the worst so far. It started out interestingly enough, but lost momentum after the first 15 minutes of the movie. The added "drama" scenes, flashback sequences and serious plot holes left me hanging. What really happened in the tunnel? Just "something terrible"??? Who started all the killing if it wasn't the ghost? What did she want returned to her????? No answers whatsoever! Overall, not very scary at all and the movie makers need to come up with a lot better ideas than this...

One positive was the cute actress, but that's about it.

Not recommended.

Sentiment: negative
I spotted in the guide to films list for the Santa Barbara Film Festival, where I went when I was in Hollywood, that this film was in screening. Basically there is an election for the new chairman of the Hong Kong Triads Wo Sing Society coming up, so you can imagine how much violence that is going to occur during this. The struggle is between "candidates" Lam Lok (Simon Yam) and Big D (Tony Leung Ka Fai) for control of the oldest and most powerful Triad parts of the society. Also starring Louis Koo as Jimmy Lee, Nick Cheung as Jet, Cheung Siu Fai as Mr. So, Lam Suet as Big Head and Lam Ka Tung as Kun. There are some good realistic corruption themes and moments, just about enough action, apart from maybe when the cops get involved, but a sequel followed, so it's a pretty worthwhile crime drama thriller. Very good!

Sentiment: positive
i saw this with my with my kids they love it but i don't she did not get run overfed by a reindeer in the song, but what the heck in this crappy movie she got hit by the sleigh, it's like what the heck why why, when my kids heard the sinked they thought it was good but we they watched this they were like this "daddy why did Granny" thats how my kids say grandma, any way my kids said this "daddy why did grandma get hit by a sleigh" i told them that the movie was crappy they agreed, it's sad why would any one name there dog "Doofas" that's just dumb & when every one dressed in black that looked so so i mean Daphne looked like a dang emo goth girl every one looked like Goths & in the song they found grandma on the ground i think she died in the song, but in this weird crappy movie she was gone i think they should take this show off OK every one would love this i give this a 1 out of 10

Sentiment: negative
I loved this excellent movie. Farrah Fawcett played the part phenomenally and with good heart. She plays a woman who is driven to extreme measures to protect herself and her friends after she is attacked by a stranger. After being rejected by the police she realizes she is on her own.

Then one day when she at home alone the stranger breaks into her home and attacks her again. Not being about to call the police or get him out she is forced to spray him in the eyes and imprisons him in her fireplace.

I think there is a need for a wake up call to the laws of the land. They are too easy on these criminals. It's time for more harsh punishments.

Sentiment: positive
Let's face it: the final season (#8) was one of the worst seasons in any show I've ever enjoyed (mostly, I've never found dry spells to last a whole season). But if you judge this show by the last season, of course it's going to come across as inferior. That is an entirely unfair assessment-- because "That '70s Show" was, in its day, a brilliant and hilarious sitcom about a bygone era and how the people who lived there weren't so different than we are here in modern times.

All right... ignoring Season 8.

Topher Grace stars as Eric Forman, a horny geek of a teenager with a perpetual love of Donna (Laura Prepon), the feminist girl next door. Playing their friends, Danny Masterson (Hyde), Mila Kunis (Jackie), Wilmer Valderrama (Fez) and even Ashton Kutcher (Kelso) give fantastic performances in (almost) every episode. The best one is probably Fez, a foreign exchange student who is as mentally promiscuous as they get. What country is he from? Try to figure it out! For another dimension of entertainment, Debra Jo Rupp and Kurtwood Smith are phenomenal as Eric's parents. Rupp, as Kitty, is both formidable and sweet, sort of like Mrs. Brady meets Marie Barone, while Smith's Red exists mainly to scare the pogees out of everyone. Don Stark and Tanya Roberts play very well opposite each other as Donna's parents, the chauvinistic but likable Bob and the airheaded Midge. Tommy Chong has occasional appearances as Leo, a stoner who acts as a father figure to Hyde.

Apart from the anachronistic errors that pop up quite frequently and the over-the-top lessons that sometimes come (and that deplorable final season), "'70s" is a terrific show with amazing writing, spot-on direction, and a feel-good vibe pulsing through every episode. They're all alright.

Sentiment: positive
Like many here I grew up with Scooby-Doo. Unlike many here who did, I love this show! I think that it has been very well done and thought through. Everything about it marks it as a spin-off which isn't meant to be taken seriously. The formula is simple - it is a parody of other cartoons with a single bad guy trying to get the better of the good guy. By using the well known Shaggy and Scooby-Doo characters it is much easier to engage the viewer with the parody humour from the outset of each 30 minute episode.

There have always been Scooby-Doo spin-offs which have annoyed fans. The classic being the Scooby-Shaggy-Scrappy shorts from the 80's. These spin-offs had their place: They allowed new content to be sold, created new fans, and kept Scooby-Doo merchandise on the shelves. I would agree that "Shaggy & Scooby-Doo: Get a Clue!" doesn't fit in with this traditional role but it is probably what I had always wanted the Scooby-Shaggy-Scrappy shorts to be: an action packed show which focuses on the best/funniest Scooby-Doo characters! Good features of the show: the animation, the voices, the attention to detail, the bad-guys, the "Best Friend" relationship between Shaggy and Scooby-Doo, the constant humour! Bad features: None, although the revamped Mystery Machine is pretty close at times.

Well done Warner Bros. Animation! One of the cleverest cartoons in a long time!

Sentiment: positive
Peter O'Toole, one of our finest actors, is magnificent as a reserved school master who is dedicated to teaching young boys. He meets a show girl and falls in love. The story is one of love and devotion. Petula Clark adds spirit and sensitivity, not too mention a remarkable voice. You will enjoy this film even though the ending might not be a happy one. I enjoyed it.

Sentiment: positive
As the faux-Russian scientist says two-thirds of the way into the movie, "I came for the science." This pretty much sums up the reason I watched this movie - anything that involves a half-man, half-hammerhead shark definitely deserves a serious empirical investigation on the part of an impartial aspiring scientist. Or, as they say in the biz, my girlfriend's brother had the remote and the rest is history. To say that the special effects were bad would be a disservice to the field of special effects. This is 2005, it is not that hard to film a car scene without a cheesy bluescreen background. Yeah, this was charming and state of the art when Hitchcock was filming "The Birds" but in 2005 it just looks low budget. Spare me the cheap attempt at Sci-Fi and do me the service of actually making an attempt at the willing suspension of disbelief.

However, having seriously defamed the overall concept of this film, let me tell you again that, as sad as it may sound, this is probably worth your time. If nothing else, it is a tour de force of bad Sci-Fi - worth the education for the new movie buff and certainly worthy of a refresher course for those who have seen a few movies in their day.

The crazy hunchback mad scientist with a hammerhead transceiver who thinks it is a good idea to spoon canfuls of blood into the nearby water makes me question not only the intelligence of mankind, but also the ability of "B" movie writers to come up with remotely plausible plot lines.

This film also pretty much fulfills one of my longtime bad movie contentions - bad guys always wear sunglasses.

If this weren't 2005, I would be deadset on the fact this film was some sort of insanely poor metaphor for the Cold War. I mean, you might as well have Khan on the bridge of a Klingon Bird of Prey inserting leaches into Chekhov's ear.

One of the most moving lines of the movie is when the chick without the bra insists that the Charlton Heston lookalike, "wait for Tom" as he is trying to lift the escape helicopter off the ground. The thing is, Tom is wasting the bad sunglass guys with his never-ending banana clip attached to his Kalashnikov, or AK-47, in layman's terms.

As the mad scientist says near the end of the film, "my goal is to evolve the human species" - suffice it to say that this movie contributed only to a devolution of humankind. The faint Freudian references uttered by the mad scientist as he prepping the female protagonist to be mated with a hammerhead shark are a simple reminder that even in the worst of science fiction we can all find something to laugh about.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is exactly the same as Ridley Scott's, "Someone To Watch Over Me", which is a classic. It stars Tom Berenger and Mimi Rogers and the bad guy from the Fugitive. It's a quality movie, with good direction and great acting. This movie is the polar opposite. It's the same plot, just minus any good acting and adding TV movie direction. I do have to say I like the interaction between Lowe and the woman. She's hot and their romance is believable on many levels. Unfortunately, that alone cannot save this carbon copy of the classic Ridley Scott film.

Usually crappy TV movies have some redeeming quality that makes them watchable at the very least. I think for me, this film's redeeming value is that Rob Lowe and the lead female have chemistry. That and I was able to watch and compare the plot to another quality film.

Sentiment: negative
I remember seeing this film when it first came out in 1982 & loved it then. About 4 years later I had the privilege of seeing Luciano Pavarotti sing at the Metropolitan Opera house in New York (in Tosca) so seeing the ending of this film reminds me very much of that great night. What's not to like about this film? The music is brilliant and Pavarotti (Fini) was at his best and still looked great. The story is actually very funny in parts & the 'food fight' scene is still one of the funniest I have ever seen. The hot air balloon flight over the Napa valley was beautiful & so was the song he sang "If we were in love" (one of the few times Pavarotti sang in English). And hearing the duet of Santa Lucia gorgeous. Get real folks, this was a film about an opera singer called Georgio Fini who just happened to be played by Pavarotti. Kathryn Harrold & Eddie Albert were excellent in their supporting roles.

I am VERY glad that I still have this almost worn out VHS tape of this movie but I would love this to be released on DVD especially now that Pavarotti is no longer with us because I think this includes the best performance of Nessun Dorma sung by him still on film today!

Sentiment: positive
In the hands of a more skilled director, this film would have been considered a horror masterpiece. Despite Michael "Death Wish" Winner's merely passable direction, the movie is interesting, original and more than a little scary.

The script bucks more than one horror cliché off its back (several it can't shake) including Chris Sarandon as the heroine's boyfriend who actually listens to her as she insists that eerie things are going down. Burgess Meredith is delightful as the lovably insane neighbor. Eva Gardner is haunting with a young Beverly D'Angelo as her mute and disturbed lesbian lover. John Carradine does a heck-of-a job sitting in a chair. And watch out for a brief cameo from an unknown-at-the-time Chris Walken! This movie is creepy and creative. The plot twists are lovely, if a tad predictable. The climax, of which I will give no detail, is disturbing and quite impressive. Again a better director could have done more with it, nonetheless it is quite satisfying - at least to those with the sensibilities of seventies horror.

If you like modern overproduced body-counting torture-fantasy, you won't like this. There is almost no gore. The direction is quite spartan. The effects are few, although there's some delightful makeup near the end - most of which actually isn't makeup...but perhaps I've said too much already.

I've rated this a little higher than its quality may justify, but I enjoyed it as much as any "8" film that I've seen.

Sentiment: positive
irritating, illogical flow of events. pretty much every joke is so simple that it can hardly be regarded as one. no wonder the cinema was empty and people actually walked away, yes away. I stayed, since I was enjoying a wonderful ice-cream with nuts during the whole movie.

Sentiment: negative
If anyone thinks this is a great sports movie it is probably the only sports movie they have ever seen. There are different aspects a sports movie can take. Whether it be professional or college or high school. Examples of sports movies I liked (and I haven't seen many) are Jim Thorpe: All American, All the Right Moves, Any Given Sunday, Eight Men Out, and Rocky, among others. All of those movies had a little more than just plain sports. Whether it was a mans ascent and then descent from greatness, or a man losing out on a dream by the actions of a vindictive coach, or the effect of money on professional sports. In Hoosiers, there is not much content. It didn't even seem as though the movie had a beginning or an end. There was no character development, all of them were forced on us. I could sum up this movie, by quoting a very bad coach: "Go out and try to score more points than the other guy."

Sentiment: negative
I gather from reading the previous comments that this film went straight to cable. Well, I paid to see it in a theatre, and I'm glad I did because visually it was a striking film. Most of the settings seem like they were made in the early 60s (except for the shrink's office, which was dated in a different way), and if you leave the Neve Campbell sequences out, the whole film has a washed- out early 60s ambience. And the use of restaurants in the film was fascinating. For a first-time director whose background, I believe, is in writing, he has a great eye. Within the first ten minutes I felt the plot lacked plausibility, so I just willingly suspended my disbelief and went along for the ride. In terms of acting and the depiction of father-son, mother-son, husband-wife, parent-child relationships, the film was spot-on. William H. Macy, a pleasure to watch, seems to be filling the void left by the late Tony Perkins, if this and Magnolia are any indication. Tracey Ullman as the neglected wife was quite moving, to me. It was a three-dimensional depiction of a character too often viewed by society as two-dimensional. Of course, Donald Sutherland can add this to his collection of unforgettable portrayals. The depiction of the parents (Bain/Sutherland) reminded me, in an indirect way, of Vincent Gallo's BUFFALO '66, although toned-down quite a bit! I would definitely pay money to see a second film from this director. He has the self-discipline of a 50s b-crimefilm director (something P.T.Anderson will never have!), yet he has a visual style and a way with actors that commands attention.

Sentiment: positive
This film seems well made, and more efforts should be made to promote films by women. That aside, this film is also profoundly disturbing in that it justifies the manipulative and psychotic machinations of a character that is profoundly disturbed. If you've seen any of the promotional material, you might think this is a poignant film about a relationship that's reached its end, but none of that suggests how really disturbing the central premise is:

A woman threatens suicide unless her soon to be ex agrees to relive here most treasured memories of their relationship. When told how unfair (to say the least) that such a threat is, Tessa (the purported protagonist) suggests that "life's not fair."

Huh??? This character also uses tears to manipulate her former lover into staying, and coaxes him into sexually oriented behavior (which she initially denies as a motive) all the while assuring him "this isn't sex."

Reverse the genders, have the leads played by Tracey Gold and Brian Austin-Green and this could air in feature length on Lifetime with a title like "Hostage to Obsession." There is no medically accepted definition of sound mental and emotional stability that would encompass Tessa's behavior in this film.

Props to Kristen Thomson for playing a border-line psychotic, manipulative ex to a T, perhaps too well because there is no well-adjusted person, male or female, who could watch this and not have shivers run up their spine.

Sentiment: negative
I have Never forgot this movie. All these years and it has remained in my life. I have looked for this movie on so many sites and stores. If anyone ever reads this and has a copy I will pay you for a copy of it or please let me know where I could find one. This is a movie that should be a Classic Romance known as well as my other favorite, Somewhere in Time. It was truly brilliant. If the right actors would remake this film and give it the Patience it needs, to be the Right acting, It could be a block buster.A Love story as powerful as this should be around for all lovers to see. I remember how sad I was at the ending and it really came as a shock. I believe with all my heart that Johnny really loved the woman and she him. This was one terrific movie and it is a shame that it is not available for us to purchase. Please contact me at shawe49@aol.com - I want to give my thanks to a wonderful lady that responded to my message almost a year later. She had a copy of the movie and was so kind to send it to me. She is a great fan of this movie as I am. With her help, there have been 3 happy ladies to receive these DVDs'. She is waiting for the book that it is based on. I am checking with my local library for it, titled 'Mrs Maitlands Affair, by Margarett Lynn. I am sure it is great also. Many thanks to Julie for her graciousness and friendship. I am your friend always,/ Sharon

Sentiment: positive
This film, recently voted as an audience favorite at the 2005 Palm Springs International Film Festival, is inspiring and moving. A famous conductor, forced to retire by illness, returns to the small village of his birth to become the leader of the church choir, and finally find fulfillment in his music. Drawing on Sweedish traits of keeping things within oneself and of the insular character of a small Swedish village, this film develops each of its characters well. superbly directed, acted and sung, it brought tears to many eyes, and smiles to all. Hopefully it will find distribution in the United States.

If you can, see it!

Sentiment: positive
Sometimes a movie is so comprehensively awful it has a destructive effect on your morale. You begin to really ask yourself, what does it mean for our society that the standard is so terribly low? Can they honestly expect that we'll endure this many clichés and still be entertained?

Of course, it is still a Hollywood mainstay to make the GUN the major character, plot device, and the source of all conflict and resolution in films. Character needs a gun. Gets a gun. Can't do that because he has a gun. Puts his gun down first. OH MY GOD What are we going to do!? He has a gun! He waves it around, acting more malicious than real human beings ever do. He pushes it in someone's face for 90 minutes, shouting questions. The hallmark of any conclusion will be the comforting sound of police sirens. 

It's a real challenge to make such a tired, hackneyed formula work again; a film has to be very clever and well executed. This one is neither. It has no life and no personality, and it will suck these components from YOU. it will make you feel WORSE about living in the time and space that you do. Really, who needs that!? So yes, I'll say it: I think this may well be the worst film I have ever seen. Anyone who was involved in the making of this sub- mediocre soul killing trash should be publicly embarrassed for the disservice they've done to us all.

Sentiment: negative
After watching Avalon (which was decent only because of the very nice digital fx), and several anime films written by Oshii, including Jin-Roh (which is fantastic) I decided I should check out the Oshii cinema trilogy box set. Being that the Red Spectacles and Stray Dog are related, I will comment here on both. And let me tell you, it was one of the biggest wastes of money I have spent in a while. I first watched Stray Dogs and then The Red Spectacles. I am sad to say that these films are quite possibly the most boring two movies I have ever seen. For only about 10 minutes in each film do you get to see some action between the the characters, who are only dressed in the "Panzer Cop" outfits for a few fleeting scenes. The rest of the time you will see some very drawn out scenes filled with boring dialogue in some less than impressive locations. I really don't understand the motivation behind these two films at all. I love the Wolf Brigade outfits and the idea behind the plot, but the films themselves leave much to be desired. I would suggest NOT watching these films, and certainly do not buy the box set like I did, unless you enjoy wasting money. Oh, and if you are wondering what I think about the 3rd movie in the set, Talking Head, I couldn't even bring myself to watch it before I purged the box set from my DVD collection via eBay at a $20 loss. If you want cool Japanese live action, check out Returner, or Ichii the Killer or the Zeiram series.

Sentiment: negative
I looked forward to spending part of my Independence Day weekend watching a good film about Jefferson. This film was not it. It was rather long, drawn out, dull and unbalanced. Too much time was spent exploring Jefferson's relationship with Cosway and not enough time was spent on his relationship with Sally Hemmings. The lady who played Sally, Thandie Newton, was absolutely awful. Her acting was so bad it was like watching an A1 airhead trying to recite Shakespeare. Her constant whining voice grated the nerves! Nolte's accent made Jefferson sound like an ignorant man, rather than a genius. Jefferson's relationship with his daughters and their feelings on slavery was also underdeveloped, yet his eldest daughter's rebellion (Patsy)is a key event late in the film. The film was too long and the script lacked energy and excitement. On the positive side, the costumes were quite beautiful, and Greta Scacchi played the part of Cosway well. If you want to watch a film about the revolutionary era and/or Jefferson, then watch 1776, it's much better than Jefferson in Paris.

Sentiment: negative
When I rented this movie, I half expected it to be a low budget, plot less Indy film, but thought I'd give it a try. I started watching Part 1 and couldn't pull myself away till it ended 3 hours later. It was by far one of my absolute favorite films of all time. From the writing to the directing to the performances, I was laughing, crying, and singing all the way through Nan Astley's rite of passage from innocence to adulthood. Rachael Stirling is phenomenal in this film. I had never heard of her before, but now I will forever remember the vulnerability and strength I felt in her performance. She, Keeley Hawes, and Jodhi May are incredible as they guide you through the emotional turmoils that most feel as they deal with an alternate form of sexuality. The fact that the film is set in the 1890's not only educates the audience about homosexuality in that time period, but makes a statement about our society today. You must see this film and, probably like myself, you'll be making a trip to the store to add it to your collection.

Sentiment: positive
Excellent Hitchcock thriller with Robert Cummings proving once again that he could really act up a storm.

This time he is a defense plant worker caught up in a horrible plot when his best friend is killed at the plant.

Priscilla Lane is the girl who suddenly becomes interested in Cummings as the plot thickens and he is pursued from California to N.Y.

There is a diabolical plot by a group of wealthy 5th columnists to destroy from from within. Hitchcock was known to play up the upper echelons of society involved in mayhem in his long career as a director.

Ironically, the film implodes at the very end. While we see what happens to the guy who killed Cummings' friend, we don't see what happens to the rest of the gang, again, many of whom represent the upper crust of society.

Sentiment: positive