DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
GAME.... Huh... game. I'm not even sure the bloody hosts of that particular reality-game know what the term 'GAME' means, let alone the bloody PLAYERS in the game! 

An aspiring PUA would look at that and think... Hmmmmm... What the flying FORK was that useless excuse for a demonstration of seducing women? I've seen my neighbours DOG seduce women with more panache than that! And it is one UGLY bloody dog! And its main approach tactic is to frenetically hump legs! 

I challenge the frustrated chump hosts of that show to a SHOW-down; a demonstration of their SO-called pickup ability... Can they deliver? If one is to view that piece of un-reality-drivel, then you would realise, No, these grandstanding, mentally-masturbating, suck-me-darling-boyfriend, wanna be hosts of Queer Eye or something similar (not that there's anything wrong with that...), are unable to un-shrinkwrap their penises long enough to provide a demo of a REAL pickup. 

As you lovely North-Americans say: "...'Nuff Said!..." 

A message from Down Under... with Love....

Sentiment: negative
Plot: Ed and Alice are engaged. They live together and are living the dull life. He has slept around before meeting Alice. She has a lot less experience. She decides she needs to sleep around before marrying. He very reluctantly agrees they should both see other people for a while. 

At first he is not really into it. His wild days are behind him and he is simply content. Until one day Alice comes back and tells him she made out with some random guy; who of course starts to fall for her. 

Of course this is a BAD idea which causes extreme strain on the relationship.

Good movie. You can see the train wreck coming but still good.

Worth a rental.

Sentiment: positive
A longtime fan of Bette Midler, I must say her recorded live concerts are my favorites. Bette thrills us with her jokes and brings us to tears with her ballads. A literal rainbow of emotion and talent, Bette shows us her best from her solid repertoire, as well as new songs from the "Bette of Roses" album. Spanning generations of people she offers something for everyone. The one and only Divine Diva proves here that she is the most intensely talented performer around.

Sentiment: positive
Possible SPOILERS: Not Sure

While watching The Lion King 1 1/2, I couldn't help but have mixed feelings about the whole film. It is definitely a good way to spend about an hour and 15 minutes. But there is nothing about it that would give you the same sort of feeling that The Lion King did. The story, for those who haven't read the other reviews, is about how Timon and Pumbaa meet, and how they affect events in the original Lion King.

There are actually some very funny jokes in the movie. My favorite part is when they show the pair raising Simba. However, for me the worst parts have to be when they show Timon and Pumbaa directly interfering with the events of the original. I can never look at the "Circle of Life" or "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" sequences the same way again (I'm okay with the "I Just Can't Wait to be King" sequence).

The voice talents are excellent. Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella do a wonderful job, as do Matthew Broderick, the guy who does Rafiki, and the hyenas. Even the actor who does young Simba sounded enough like Jonathon Taylor Thomas for me. But why did they even include a voice actor for Zazu? He literally had only 2 lines, and neither were very necessary. The additions of Julie Kavner and Jerry Stiller only add to the talent, although you still can't hear Timon's Mom's voice and not think of Marge Simpson.

There are some scenes that seem to not fit in with the original, the one coming to mind being when they are pride rock at the end. How did they have time to fit in the initial fight with the hyenas?

As for the DVD itself, you can't help but feel that for a 2 disc set, the special features are especially lacking. They could have easily fit a commentary, or another aspect ratio on the 1st disc. I enjoyed the "Who Wants to be King of the Jungle" game, even if it is the most shameful example of cross promotion I've ever seen. Some of the questions are actually difficult.

Overall, a good movie, though not nearly as good as TLK or even TLK2.

Sentiment: positive
Having been brought up in Phenix City as a child, I recognize many of the local people in the movie, so for me, it's like a trip down memory lane to see "The Phenix City Story" again. As a matter of fact, my granduncle is in it in one of the very first scenes. Uncle Drew's the one in the Hawaiian shirt who scoots his chair out to get a better look at the singer/stripper.

Unless you've been there, like Mr. Page and I both have, you couldn't possibly understand the story it tells. The reviewer from New York calls John Patterson racist, most likely without ever having had an encounter with Mr. Patterson or his father. And what is your point in bringing up Mr. Patterson's employment now? It has nothing to do with the film that you're supposedly reviewing. How in the world can you sit back and judge either them or this film when you've probably gone no further yourself than the south Bronx? It's been my experience that people who do that are simply attempting to feel morally superior to the folks portrayed in the movie. By most accounts of the time, both Mr. Pattersons were basically good and decent men. Their families were respectable people, as were most of the people who lived in Phenix City.

By the way, why is so hard for those who live outside of the south to believe that there are good and decent people even in small towns in Alabama? And why do they assume that everyone living in a small southern town is a racist? My parents lived there and yet, they didn't tolerate it in our household. Others didn't tolerate it either, but the myth that everyone in the south is racist lives on through the willful ignorance of others.

The movie itself is simple and direct. It isn't the whole story --- Hollywood added a certain sensationalism when the film was made. Parts of it were absolutely on target. Other parts of it bordered on fairy tales. And if it's the source that anyone uses to decide how folks in small southern towns are, they need to get a grip and understand what most of us do --- it's ONLY a movie.

Sentiment: positive
This film is one giant pant load. Paul Schrader is utterly lost in his own bad screenplay. And his directing is about as comatose as it can be without his actually having been sleepwalking during the process. 

The worst though is Woody Harrelson, whom I ordinarily like when he's properly cast. He plays "the walker", a homosexual man in D.C. who plays social companion to the bored wives of the Washington elite. He couldn't have been more one dimensional if he had been cut out of a magazine and bounced around in front of the camera on a popsicle stick. His "southern accent" is that "off the rack" version that decrescendos from the beginning to the end of every line he delivers, as though the heat and humidity of the South is still draining him of every ounce of energy he has. It is monotonous. But, his is not the worst accent in the movie. His "boyfriend", played by Moritz Bleibtreau, attempts to affect some kind of a Mid East accent that is so clumsy he can barely deliver the bad lines written for him. He is incapable of rolling his r's in spite of the fact that in real life he is German, and speaks several languages - one of them being Italian! That's kind of a good reason to cast someone else don't ya think? 

From the story, to the screenplay, to the directing, to the camera work, to the performances by the leads, this movie is bad from beginning to end. The only tolerable moments in this film came from three supporting actresses: Lily Tomlin, Lauren Bacall, and Kristin Scott Thomas. Only these three managed to make it through this movie with their dignity in tact. In fact, all three are excellent, in spite of being trapped in a really bad film. Ufortunately, no one could ever be good enough to redeem this endless series of flaws. If you like these three actresses, watch them in something else. This movie is not worth your time.

Sentiment: negative
This is an example of what film school lecturers would call a good debut movie. It follows all the rules. Short scenes, to the point, cheap to shoot, guerilla-film-making, no sets (just disused buildings) and possibly an empty hospital wing. Also, even the black&white film-stock was a stroke of genius, probably selected more for its low expense rather than film effect, but it worked.

Reno was amazing as the Brute. Everyone's acting was brilliant. The plot was simple and effective and no flabby bits left to distract you. A tight, well-crafted, cost-effective budget movie.

Released in 1983, this would've been made just before the art of big-budget action spectaculars became refined by the Hollywood movie-making engine, and movie-making was more exclusive and therefore more difficult and more in need of the right people in the right places than today's internet-enabled world, so Luc Besson would've had to do quite a bit of negotiating and promise-keeping to achieve this result, which makes the end-product all the more remarkable.

But, then again, the French movie-industry has always maintained an excellent reputation (yes, I know Luc Besson is Belgian, but the movie is a French production) and has been the source of many Hollywood remakes.

If I have one criticism, it's that the cover-picture on the DVD (and possibly the original sales poster) bears no resemblance to the movie whatsoever and appears to be a rather bizarre image rather than representative of any of the movie's themes - at first glance, it appears to be a man in post-apocalyptic armour on a swing, but on second inspection reveals a man in armour with a lance on an office chair with his legs on a desk in a reclined, self-confident posture. This never happens in the movie once.

It's black-and-white film-stock, zero dialogue, physical acting, tight scenes and brilliant actors makes this movie one worth adding to your private movie collection. A superb movie.

Sentiment: positive
This film is remarkable in how unremarkable it is. This is the true story of one woman and one man and their quest for happiness amid the dull, rote life of a housewife and "man of the house". It could be any couple, any family, in any town... but that's what makes the story so moving. It touches each of us in some way and reminds us of someone we know and love, or of ourselves. I laughed, I cried, I couldn't stop thinking about it... and what more could you ask for from a film, really? Especially a documentary. This is an excellent film and one that I highly recommended to anyone who enjoys documentaries, stories about families like yours, stories about love, life, parenting, loss, expectations, soul searching, yearning, wandering through life and finding your way, or not.

Sentiment: positive
Bean, Kevin & Perry, UK TV creations that have made successful transitions onto the BIG screen. Now its Ali G's turn and I m afraid to say this is not one of them!

Ali has always been obscene but funny with it. This film was extremley sick and not funny at all. Scenes involving bestiality, gay sex and paedophilia should not be portrayed for entertainment's sake.

Ali G In Da House is rubbish and deserves making very little money.

1 out 10

Sentiment: negative
After having seen The Lost Child for quite a number of times since its release in 1995, and having read the reader's comments (mostly about Jane Tennison's background and Helen Mirren's superb role in it), it strikes me more than ever that no comments are made upon the brilliant role Robert Glenister is playing as Chris Hughes. Even after 10 years it is still one of the most credible ways of portraying the complex personality of a child abuser, carrying the weight of his own past.Watching the episode for the full one and a half hour makes you constantly switch between feelings of love and hate for this guy, in which the hate prevails because of the gravity of his actions. I have seen more brilliant roles of my favorite actor, but this one never fails to make the largest impression possible to me. Helen Mirren would never shine without these wonderful actors next to her. Praise for Robert Glenister!

Sentiment: positive
I came to watch Guerrilla, part two of Steven Soderbergh's biopic of Che Guevara, without having seen the preceding film and without more than a cursory knowledge of Che's life. At the same time I was rather apprehensive that this would be both a heavy-going history lesson and an unrepentant love-letter to the iconic revolutionary. As it turns out, this film far exceeded my expectations.

Guerrilla works remarkably well as a standalone film. The story of Che's failed attempt to lead a revolution in Bolivia, then under military rule, is a compelling tragedy. The initial impetus brought by Che's arrival incognito to lead the guerrilla war is lost as misfortune follows misfortune. The odds stack up against the revolutionaries. US backing for the Bolivian army, hostile conditions in the rainforest, suspicious locals and Che's failing health are just some of the difficulties which beset the nascent rebellion.

Soderbergh's portrayal of Che is largely uncritical, but this film is no hagiography. The style is refreshingly undramatic, with a subtle and effective soundtrack by Alberto Iglesias adding quiet drama to many scenes. Che is undoubtedly the centre of the film but there are very few close-ups of his face and we are encouraged to see the people fighting alongside him and sometimes against him too. Where Soderbergh wishes to demonstrate Che's virtues we see it in small episodes such as the loyal acolyte who upbraids two fellow guerrillas when they question Che's leadership, and emphasises the sacrifice that he has made in leaving behind Cuba to fight again for revolution.

The direction throughout is superb. Part two feels tightly edited despite its narrow focus and is able to communicate a great deal through images without the need for a narrator to spell things out for the audience. At the start of the film we see a few short clips of lavish parties in post-revolutionary Cuba, immediately furnishing us with ideas as to why Che would sacrifice his old life to fight again in another country. Later on, the portrayal of guerrillas marching through the unending rainforests stands out as a strikingly beautiful scene and helps to create a feeling of the enormity of the task before this tiny band of revolutionaries.

If there is a problem with the film it is the distance between the viewer and Che, which, though it does allow us to appreciate the context of the insurgency and the people around him, makes it hard for us to understand him better as a person. True, Benicio Del Toro is utterly convincing in the lead role  so much so that it is difficult to remember that you are watching an actor and not the man himself. However, watching Guerrilla as a standalone film means that we are given precious little insight into what is shaping Che's thoughts, words and actions. It is to be hoped that this is more to the fore in the first part of Soderbergh's biopic (I cannot comment on that yet), and certainly the strength of part two is making me look forward eagerly to seeing the prequel.

Sentiment: positive
Although I am sure the idea looked good on paper, and it appealed to me when I first heard of it, this movie often lumbers along and falls flat, and when I watch it, I just want it to end. The bookend beginning and ending of the film about Lou having to babysit a troublemaker is contrived at best, although I found the tall cop part to be humorous. However, I found little to laugh at with the bottom of the barrel script that was thrown together for these two great comedians. I thought that it was a mistake to put them in a musical, and it reeks of "Wizard of Oz" rip-off (with the songs and black and white to color format). I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone but die-hard A&C fanatics. Anyone else will be disappointed, and they have many better films.

Sentiment: negative
This film was one of three that were later combined by Chapin into a compilation that was released to theaters in the late 1950s under the title "The Chaplin Review".

This was an odd film in some ways because later in life, Chaplin was anti-war and his movies stressed peace and brotherhood. This film, in contrast, is a propaganda comedy meant to bolster the US efforts in WWI. It's truly odd to see Charlie as the "super soldier" who single-handedly captures 13 Germans, casually and coolly shoots several Germans in mere seconds as a marksman and then goes behind enemy lines to try to capture the Kaiser himself! Truly, this was a major departure for the Little Tramp, though it was, at the same time, very very entertaining and funny. The film is exceptionally well-paced, well made and I'm sure did a lot to bolster support at home for our troops (too bad it was such a pointless and costly war).

Sentiment: positive
This is an early one from the boys, but some people may not be satisfied with this one like all the others. I found it to be different somehow than the your average Stooge slapstick. It was more funny for it's jokes rather than the poke in the eye or slap. Watch for a hilarious part when Larry grabs the stethoscope from Moe and sings into it. Moe gives him a good smack. That part made me crack up for a good ten minutes. Another hit for the Stooges.

Sentiment: positive
The humor in Who's Your Daddy is such poor taste that I actually closed my eyes in certain scenes. Close ups of semen are not funny! Nobody thinks they are. People get nervous when they see something so gross and to hide their nervousness, they laugh. Watching Who's Your Daddy gave me a disgusting nervous feeling.

Sentiment: negative
Don't spend your money or your time on this pitiful piece of film in the guise of cinematography.When every third word is devoted to foul language and there is no real plot as well as having a cast of old actors who are still giving the same dated performances from the past and have not evolved in their careers, leaves a lot to be said. I was expecting something better from award winning actor Benicio del Toro. The vision that others may have of Puertorricans will be irreversibly distorted by such trash as Maldeamores. A foul word at a given moment in a film may be used to emphasize a given point of view and may even be funny or sad depending on its context (see the movie Elsa and Fred for example) but it should not permeate the plot. The movie is a total embarrassment and there was absolutely nothing funny or even cute about this film.

Sentiment: negative
Where do I start. Lets list the good things about this movie first.

1. Mikael Persbrandt is great as the Gangster Thomas. This is the only character you will actually care about, and he's a bad guy! (allthogh never does anything bad, and is generally a pretty likable guy) 2. Kjell Bergkvist is always great. He's a bit toned down here, but he is quite funny still 3. The movie looked pretty good by Swedish standards, good use of depth of field and lights.

Now the bad. This is by far the worst script to make it into the big screen ever. The acting by everyone else was pretty bad and over the top. The direction was horrible. A totally meaningless story, totally unrealistic characters and events and 1.5 hours to long. During emotional scenes pretty much everyone in the theater laughed. People just started walking out during the course of the screening. 

There's no way to actually summarize the story into something coherent, so I wont even try. Every cliché ever conceived is in there, and in all the wrong places. I'm sorry to say this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my entire life. 

Watch it for a good laugh, but try not to pay any money for it ;)

.R

Sentiment: negative
Summer Phoenix did a great performance where you really feel what she's not able to feel and you just cannot understand what she has on her mind. Besides, she portrays a jewish girl who behaves really confronting the status quo of that century.

Sentiment: positive
I have been looking forward to the release of this DVD (and it's follow-up {Female Prisoner Scorpion: #701's Grudge Song}) for some time. I very much enjoyed the first two movies of this series. After just watching this film, I would have to say that this is probably my favorite of the three. 

All three of these movies were directed by Shunya Ito. What is great about them, though, is that, even though they all feature the same lead character (wonderfully played by Meiko Kaji), they are each vastly different from the others. 

The first movie (Female Prisoner #701: Scorpion) is more or less a typical Women In Prison movie. But the character of Scorpion is very intriguing - very reminiscent of the anti-heroes of many spaghetti westerns. And the director often used some very interesting and unusual visual approaches to the material. 

The second movie (Female Convict Scorpion: Jailhouse 41) is a real tour-de-force. Not so much a WIP movie as the bulk of the film has Scorpion and six other escaped inmates on the lam. 

This movie (Female Prisoner Scorpion: Beast Stable) is the third in the series and the last one directed by Shunya Ito. This one plays out as much more of a crime drama. Once again, our heroine is on the run. But this time out, she has managed to maintain a certain amount of normalcy in her life (relatively speaking anyway). She gets a job, she finds a place to live, she makes a friend on the outside. But, of course, everything has to unravel eventually. FPS: Beast Stable has a more straight-forward story that is told at a more leisurely pace than its predecessors. But I found it to be engaging from beginning to end. And don't worry: there is still plenty of depravity to go around in this movie! But I think these movies transcend most exploitation films because the more disturbing elements are played in a straighter tone rather than being used exclusively for in-your-face shock value. Yes, there were definitely moments in this movie where I cringed mightily. But I didn't feel that they detracted from the value of the story (well, maybe a time or two). One thing I have greatly enjoyed about these films is the continued build-up of Scorpion's mythos. With this entry character development is used much more extensively than in the previous two. We get to see that she is much more than just a stone-hearted vengeful badass!

As I mentioned earlier in this review, a fourth movie followed. It also features Meiko Kaji as Scorpion but had a different director. Without giving anything away I want to mention that FPS: Beast Stable ends in such a way as to make a sequel completely unnecessary. The fourth film is still quite good but it seems to play as a superfluous footnote to a mind-blowing trilogy.

I would highly recommend this movie to anyone interested in out-of-the-ordinary films. FPS: Beast Stable can be enjoyed as a stand-alone piece (as can the first two movies) but I would also recommend watching the others first if you have not already done so.

Sentiment: positive
"Everything a great documentary could be"?? Yeah, if one is deaf, dumb, and blind. Everything but meaning, wit, visual style, and interesting subject matter. Aside from that. . .

Seriously, volken. This is a movie that is completely inauthentic. An adventure doc with no adventure, a war doc with no feeling for war, a campy send-up with no trace of wit. It means nothing, feels like nothing, and carries the implicit message that absolutely nothing matters. No wonder it has so many IMDb fans! Of course, going in you know a movie starring the great Skip Lipman will have no culture, no intelligence, no wit (other than a corrosive adolescent jokiness), and no recognizable human emotion  just adrenaline. "Darkon" isn't a movie -- it's a panic attack! Avoid. There too many real documentaries and too little time in life to waste it on toilet build-up such as "Darkon".

Sentiment: negative
Honestly I can't understand why this movie rates so well here, nor why Bakshi himself thought it was his finest film. I'm a huge fan of Bakshi's earlier work - particularly 'Heavy Traffic' and 'Wizards', but frankly 'Wizards' (1977) was the last good film he made. After that he turned to the mainstream, beginning with the diabolical 'Lord of the Rings' and then knuckling down with sword and sorcery heavyweight Frank Frazetta, for 'Fire and Ice'.

What can I say? The story is puerile, the animation is TV quality - I insist that it's considerably worse than his 70's stuff - and whereas 'Wizards' had real imagination, quirkiness, some gorgeous background art, and an underground, adult sensibility, 'Fire and Ice' is just designed for 14 year old boys, and has the intellectual clout of Robinson Crusoe on Mars.

Yes, if you liked the Gor books, you might like this. In my view though, this was just another blip in the slide in quality after 'Wizards' from which Bakshi never recovered (though he's done some decent TV stuff fairly recently)

4.5 out of 10

Sentiment: negative
In the original French version, the jokes of Numérobis (great, funny voice - Jamel Debbrouze) are very funny.

But in translated versions (I saw the German & English version) it's not half good than the original.

But: goof Special Effects, almost the full comic (with differences, like the Figure of Lügnix (German name) is placed in an other comic book.

Sure, the Asterix comic book are cult, but when you watch the animated comic movies from 1968 to 1998 you will see much better jokes, better story and the old "charme" and "flair" of the cult stories.

For French speaking people I suggest to watch it in it's original version, with or without subtitles, where available in different languages.

Sentiment: positive
Despite Disney's best efforts, this is a rather enjoyable movie about following your dreams. I was surprised that it didn't strike me as over-sentimental; this movie played fair. Dennis Quaid was very, very good in the role, which is saying something for a sports movie. I can't recall how many sports movies have had little quirks that bother me; here, everybody looks the part. This movie is surprisingly good, and I predict that it will do surprising business as it is a G-rated movie that doesn't require the viewer to stop thinking. Ebert to the contrary, this movie is a success.

Sentiment: positive
Lot of silly plot holes in the film. First we see him watching his master practice kung-fu, and die in the midst of his practice. That's fine with me. And then at the end of the film, we see him use the kung-fu that he learned just by watching his master when he was still a kid. Is that even possible? I don't think so.

This show is purely for Jay Chou fans, and the film lacks a depth in terms of character development, cinematography styles and unfolding of plot.

Anybody notice that the captain of the basket team (forgot his name) and the idolized player Li Xiao look so similar to each other, to the extent that you'd think they were the one and same person? Long hair, sunshine-boy look, tall and strong. The two of them looked like they came out from a mass production factory designed to churn out products that makes teenage girls scream wild in orgasm. Not that those two actors had anything of value to contribute to the movie as a whole for the movie industry at all.

The jokes were lame and not funny at all.

The scene with regards to the 4 masters of Jay Chou coming back to help him out in the basketball court, degenerated into a pointless plot when they started bashing their opponents ala Royal Rumble style. Worse of all, when the 4 masters won the fight, the crowd began cheering, and the match continued. It was truly a WTF? moment.

At the end of the show, when they win the match, all thanks to Jay Chou's excellent kung fu skills. How he acquired those kung-fu skills is a mystery, because the show somehow shows him acquiring the skills just by observing his master.

And then his long-lost father comes out of the woodwork to acknowledge Jay Chou as his long-lost son seemed just a tad too quick of the director to wrap up the film.

In short, this is a Jay Chou-flick (instead of the usual "chick flick"). Watch it only if Jay Chou is your fan. If you are one of those whose tastes in movies coincide greatly with those in the list of IMDb's top 250 films of all time, then this film is not for you.

Sentiment: negative
Daft potboilers don't come much dafter than this, but it's a Douglas Sirk movie which makes everything alright. Except in this case it doesn't. Based on a sanctimonious novel by the sanctimonious Lloyd C Douglas, (he wrote "The Robe"), and already filmed in 1935 with Irene Dunne and Robert Taylor, it's got more uplift than a cantilever bra.

Rock Hudson is the arrogant playboy who not only feels responsible for making Jane Wyman a widow but later is directly responsible for the accident in which she loses her sight. To make amends he takes up medicine, becomes a great eye surgeon and restores it. (No, it sin't quite that daft; he had planned to become a doctor before becoming an arrogant playboy). In between times, they fall in love.

Try as I might I can't quite find the redeeming social commentary and critique of American mores that are supposed to lie just below the surface of Sirk's films, (this one isn't too deep). On the plus side Rock Hudson isn't half bad, (I think I am rediscovering him), and, of course, it looks great, (in Sirk's films people live in rooms the size of cathedrals). Nothing in this film matches the best of his later work and even in soap-opera terms this is definitely daytime TV.

Sentiment: negative
During WW2 in the Philipines, Japanese soldiers are starving, dying, growing weak, and becoming more and more insane. A small group of soldiers, trying to stay alive, have eventually resorted to cannibalism. This film perfectly portrays the insanity that overtakes people under extreme conditions. There are a few humorous parts in this movie, but the majority of it is just a very slow moving and realistic film. It follows these soldiers from one painful moment to another, and eventually to death. A very interesting film, showing the death, and the horror, of what may have been the worst war the world has ever seen.

Sentiment: positive
Do NOT judge this production by the 2-hour version that was released on VHS in the US, which is a choppy and incomprehensible mess. I had the pleasure of watching the full-length 6-hour version available on DVD from the UK, and was spellbound. The deliberate pace and growing sense of menace are mesmerizing, as is the amazing visual and aural landscape; this is an ancient Rome we have never seen before, and far more authentic than most.

Director Franco Rossi was justly celebrated for his 1968 mini-series of The Odyssey, and this mini-series is equally powerful. Just as Bekim Fehmiu became the screen's best Ulysses, so Klaus Maria Brandauer may be the screen's best Nero. Now, I am hoping someday to see Rossi's version of The Aeneid (Eneide) that was broadcast on Italian TV in 1971.

I am undecided which version of QUO VADIS is more powerful, this one or the Polish mini-series from 2001; each has different virtues, and in many ways they complement one another. Certainly, either one towers over that Hollywood camp-riot starring Peter Ustinov.

Sentiment: positive
The Evil that Men Do (1984) was one of the few non-Cannon films Charlie Bronson made during the 80's. Unlike most of the Cannon films Charlie starred in, this one wasn't fun or entertaining. Charlie basically tortures and brutalizes people for over an hour and a half. If you thought he was Mr. Emotion before, wait until you see this! 

In this one, Charlie goes to an unnamed Central American country and shows the populace that whoever messes with Chuck or his people have to pay the piper. This one is no fun. It's not cheesy or campy, just brutal, sadistic and not in a good way. 

I didn't like this one. I have no love for this film. No recommendations because it's not worth watching. Maybe if they didn't cut the hell out of it. Watch with precaution.

Don't bother.

Sentiment: negative
****Don't read this review if you want the shocking conclusion of "The Crater Lake Monster" to be a total surprise****

A claymation plesiosaur rises from the depths of Crater Lake to wreak havoc on a group of local rednecks, not to mention your fast forward button. To call "The Crater Lake Monster" amateurish is to overstate the obvious. If you aren't a fan of low budget drive-in films, you probably wouldn't be looking here in the first place.

The problem with the movie is that when there's no monster action going on, it really sucks and goes nowhere. The script is very Ed Wood-ish, in that it's utterly contrived in the way it sets up the main action sequences. Nothing is too outlandish for "The Crater Lake Monster". It explains its dinosaur by having a meteor crash into Crater Lake, 'superheating' the water to the point where it incubates a dinosaur egg that has apparently been resting at the bottom of the lake for millennia. Even if we could accept that the egg could have been lying there for so long and remained uncovered and viable, wouldn't "superheating" the water to such a high temperature cause most of the lake to evaporate? Other than some token fog in one or two scenes, we see no evidence of the water being hot, other than a few lines in the script.

The script is padded rather obviously in a few sequences, and it will do anything to get the characters near the lake so that they can be menaced by the claymation dino. A couple just passing through experiences car trouble and while their automobile is being serviced, they decide to rent a boat and head out into Crater Lake. Hmmmm...do you think these strangers in the story could be there so they would run into our title monstrosity? In a sequence that's just plain bizarre, a drunk robs a liquor store and decides to murder the cashier and a bystander instead of paying four dollars for a bottle of booze. A car chase ensues, and wouldn't ya know it...they end up right by the lake. Snack time for Cratey! Yeah, it's not hard to figure out, and you're so far ahead of the script that you're irritated when it takes another ten minutes for these scenes to unfold.

The shamelessness of it all is endearing, and I really want to like "The Crater Lake Monster". I just can't do it. There's not enough here to go on, and this is more of a movie to put on during a party, because you could talk right over it and it wouldn't matter. 

The film has a slim list of the things going for it, the most important being the dinosaur itself, which appears in three forms: a shadow puppet, a large model head that is dragged woodenly through the water, and a fully realized claymation insert that actually looks pretty good. There are also a pair of lovable hicks in it, and they carry the majority of the intentional humor in the movie. A downbeat ending leaves us mourning the death of both the monster AND one of our beloved hicks, so every good thing about this film is dead by the end of it. Why was I so affected by this conclusion? Was it the mournful song played over the closing credits? Or was I just weeping inwardly for the time that I waste watching films like this?

Sentiment: negative
wow...this has got to be the DUMBEST movie I've ever seen. We watched it in english class...and this movie made ABSOLUTELY no sense. I would never, EVER watch this movie again...and my sympathy to those who have ever PAID to see it.

Sentiment: negative
In the 2nd of his Historical Martial Arts films, Chiba portrays his real life sensei Mas Oyama. The film even recreates Oyama's incredible feat of killing a raging bull with his bare hands (Oyama did this feat over 50 times in real life). Dynamic fight choreography featuring authentic Kyokushinkai techniques. Ironically this is one of the rare Sonny Chiba films in which he DOESN'T tear out or rip off body parts of opponents. A must see for Sonny Chiba fans definitely one of his top 5 films

Sentiment: positive
I saw this movie in 1976, my first year of living in New York. I went on to live there for the next 26 years,but never saw anything as delicate and beautiful again as this small TV movie. It was part of a PBS series as I recall, and I've never forgotten it. 

There are no sex scenes to speak of, just delicate, moving, extraordinarily touching moments full of tension and excitement, all set within a conservative, Boston (I think), World War 1 environment where women played the role of devoted wife awaiting the return of husband from the war, and did not seek out a career and financial independence. Frances Lee McCain is superb in the role of career photographer and I have spent the next 30 odd years searching for her in equally challenging roles to no avail.

There has to be a video of this movie? Sure it should be on DVD but surely at least a video?

Sentiment: positive
What to say about "Dead End Road"...

Lets just say that Edgar Allen Poe would have been so ashamed. The acting, writing, effects, and everything in this movie was just horrendous. That doesn't even do justice! This movie was the biggest piece of garbage I have ever had to sit through. That is also why I stopped it about 20 minutes before the ending because personally I didn't care what happened to the characters. I have seen bad but this was definitely the worst. I got hyped up for this because I am a fan of Poe and this was just bad. Just bad. 

What upsets me more is that you can't rate films with negative numbers.

Sentiment: negative
this is one of the funnier films i've seen. it had it's crude moments, but they were full of charm. it's Altmanesque screenplay, brilliant physical humour, and relaxed friendships were a pleasure to watch, and a slice of life most of us can relate to. and i can say with a measure of honesty that i was afraid for Steve Carell's nipple..i truly was. surprisingly, this is a good-natured, unabashed comedy that is essentially about love, and the many relationships we may find ourselves in along the way. Catherine Keener was terrific as Trish, and all of Steve Carell's friends were flawed but amiable, and so much fun. the idea that they suspected that Carell was a serial killer is a hilarious metaphor for a forty-year old virgin. but the simple truth was that he wanted to be in love first. original, charming, and very funny. highly recommended.

Sentiment: positive
You do realize that you've been watching the EXACT SAME SHOW for eight years, right? I could understand the initial curiosity of seeing strangers co-exist on an Island, but you'd think that after watching unkempt, stink-ladened heroes run roughshod through the bush with an egg on a spoon for half a decade would be enough to get you to commit to something a little more original (and interesting).

And I'm not even speaking of the shows validity which for the record I find questionable. It's just hard to suspend disbelief for "Bushy Bill" eating a rat when the entire crew of producers and camera people are housed in an air conditioned make-shift bio-dome sipping frosty mochcinno's with moxy.

What's the appeal here? I don't care about these people or their meandering lives. I just don't get it. But if you DO find yourself being captivated by hairy, unwashed people, I suggest you turn off your TV and just take a trip to your local bus station where you can see people like this in their TRUE habitat. They call them HOMELESS PEOPLE, and free of charge, you can sit back and marvel in their uncanny ability to retrieve various cigarette debris from a plethora of garbage canisters, eventually striking "pay-dirt" and fashioning a homemade Dr. Frankenstein-styled cancer-stick, all the while begging people for change for food when the stink of "Aqua Velva" on their breath is enough to suggest otherwise. And the best part? Much like Survivor, every week one member of the tribe "Leaves" the "Island" when they are unceremoniously sent packing to the local Institution when the frightening unmedicated state of full-blown schizophrenia kicks into gear! Now THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!

Sentiment: negative
OK, look at the title of this film.

the title says it all right? the title is great... i mean, a lot of things should come into your head after readin it. in fact, you might be extremely anxious to see it.

well, sadly, you won't see any of that.

just a bunch of bad actors, some blood spilling, some hot chicks, and some lesbo action.

oh, well, i think there are about 5-10 minutes of zombies and vampires indeed...

get away from this if you want to see a good movie. else get it.

Sentiment: negative
ALL GROWN UP is basically a spin off and not much else of the original Nickalodeon RUGRATS cartoon that featured the babies Tommy Pickles, Chucky Finster, Lil and Phil DeVille, Angelica, Susie and (later) Kimi (Chuckies sister) and Dill (Tommy's brother). I grew up with RUGRATS and thought it was a great cartoon. It had excellent humor, nice stories and the show's creators, Klasky & Csupo, were obviously very original and creative with the concept of the adventures of babies. The new show ALL GROWN UP tries to recapture the magic of the original cartoon. I was disappointed when I saw it. I found the "all-grown-up" Chuckie just annoying and the whole "pre-teen-acting-mature/trying-to-be-popular" that applied to (unfortunately) *all* of the characters dull and washed out. There still are some funny scenes and jokes in the new series and it was interesting how the artists would make the whole baby gang of RUGRATS look ten years from their age in the original show. Overall, this show is 'fair' and only watchable if a) you're a die-hard fan of the RUGRATS, b) have never seen the original show, c) you're a pre-teen that has nothing to do, or d) your so bored that your somehow forced to see this show. This show is not that good. It doesn't compare to the older RUGRATS episodes in quality, humor, and everything else.

Sentiment: negative
This is possibly the worst of the worst. I am a huge fan of the horror movie industry and I can believe this movie was allowed to be made. The acting was juvenile and the story completely idiotic. The camera work was also juvenile. One scene that comes to mind is outside a store. It is nighttime and you can see the moon, yet the characters all have shadows that cast on the wall. There was no street light to be seen. One character gets gutted at one point, yet manages to resurface later after removing herself from a post. Come on!!! It felt like I was watching a middle school play. I kept expecting the characters to wave to their family members off camera and mouth "hi mom". I can only give it two positive comments...it ended and it was good for a laugh. Please do not rent this movie!!!!

Sentiment: negative
Never I have seen a movie so terrible that i've gone insane. It was a HUGE waste of time seeing this crappy film. There are a lot of things i hate about this movie: The songs is so terrible (yet a little bit catchy) i hit my head on the wall(especially from the song 'Grandpa is gonna sue the pants out of Santa' which i hit 10 Times *shrugs*), the character design, and that evil, greedy, and Bitchy cousin Mel.

I cannot stand her for one second, she has got to be one of the most bitchiest person i've seen. Even though i kinda like her southern voice. 

The only bright-side is that Austin Bucks is played by the person who is the voice of Liquid Snake from Metal Gear Solid.

I would not recommended to people to watch for the holidays as it was a HUGE disgrace for x-mas.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is NOT funny. It just takes the D&D nerd stereotypes and amplifies them. All the main characters make less than 30k a year, they all live with their parents, they're all socially retarded, and they have no luck with women. The jokes are horrible and unimaginative, such as two of the gamers getting beat up by a black midget because one of them had a KKK looking hood on (it was his wizard costume) and the other guy had on a John Rocker warm up (oh how funny, he's a nerd so he doesn't know about sports). You may have to be a childish high-schooler to find any of this stuff funny. Poorly done mockmuntaries are so painful to watch, but obviously extremely cheap to make. I feel sorry for Kelly LeBrock and Beverly D'Angelo. I guess these are the only opportunities available for hotties way past their prime.

Sentiment: negative
A friend of mine who has a mysterious knack for finding and - horrors! - liking bad movies recommended I watch 'The Pest.' At the time unaware of just how truly pathetic his taste in movies was, I decided to give it a try.

Bad mistake.

The story, although clearly ripped straight out of any sixth grade English textbook as far as the "manhunter" theme goes, would be amusing under the right conditions - good actors, writer, director, wardrobe, and so on and so on to almost no end. Clearly these factors are absent.

'The Pest' is supposed to be funny, I think. I say "think" because I let crack nothing more than a slight smile throughout the whole film. Not a guffaw, not a laugh, not a chuckle, not even a grin. A smile, at best. And that happened so rarely while watching this film I even remember how often I did smile - maybe 3 or 4 times at best.

So do yourself an immense favor. Never watch this movie. Avoid at all costs.

Sentiment: negative
There's nothing particularly original about this story of corrupt unions on one side and the "chief attorney" on the other. The stark but unimaginative lighting and photography stems from the fagged out noir cycle. The story could easily have been out of a Warner Brothers drawer with George Raft in the lead. The performances are routine, the direction flat, and even the set dressing perfunctory. (An alley is shown by a single plaster wall of simulated brick. It has one poster on it. The poster says, "Post No Bills.") We are introduced to the story and some of the characters by a portentous narrator who informs us that, while most unions work hard and honestly to advance the causes of their members, a few are corrupt. But we don't really get to know much about the unions or how they operate, although I suppose they were fair game after the success of "On the Waterfront" a few years earlier. Here they're just a peg to hang the tale on. The real ring leader is a disbarred lawyer who runs things through three or four thugs. The District Attorney (or whatever he is) finds out, like Dana Andrews did in "Boomerang," that the wrong man (Dick Foran) is charged with a murder and he spends the rest of the film almost alone, digging up evidence of Foran's innocence. He gets into fist fights and shoot outs like any inexpensive movie private eye.

Brian Keith is the D.A. He's shown some insinuating displays of talent elsewhere, but here he spends most of the time speaking quietly and staring at the floor. Elisha Cook, Jr., is a likable rummy but can't do a good drunk. Beverley Garland is okay but is undermined by the direction, which has her gawking in a night club when she should be furtive. The remainder of the cast would be suitable for a TV series.

And nobody is helped by the writing. When a "B girl" is about to be shipped by the union mob to the Filippines, someone advises her that she only has to learn a few words of Spanish. "I only know one word," she says, "Si. Yes." The writers have not trusted the audience to know that "si" in Spanish means "yes." The plot is clumsy and has holes in it. Keith visits a witness in her flat over a night club. He enters the door and has a gun shoved in his back by a yegg, but he outwits the heavy and knocks him out. Then the orders someone to call the police. The rest of the scene, played out at some length in the night club downstairs, forgets all about the police and they never show up, nor are they expected by anyone.

It's nothing to be ashamed of, and some people might enjoy it, but there is similar stuff, better done, elsewhere.

Sentiment: negative