DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Stay away from this movie. Far away. Phil Fondacaro stars as the demented ringleader of a Freakshow. Every performance is flat and unfeeling, except Fondacaro's. The plot is a simple one, and follows almost every horror movie cliche possible. A group of high-school kids go to a carnival, see a side-show, and get in over their heads.

Fans of Fred Olen Ray should be warned, this is not like any of his other films. This one is lacking in all departments (humor, sex, horror, etc.) other F.O. Ray movies excell in.

The version I saw also contained a Making-Of documentry, in which the director makes comments like "We had a limited budget" and "with our limited timeline" which speaks volumes about how much Charles Band cared about this film. Go rent "Droid Runner" (Fred Olen Ray) or "The Dead Hate the Living" (Full Moon) instead. Full Moon should be ashamed of themselves (and that's saying a lot after seeing "Killer Eye")

Grade: D-

Sentiment: negative
About your terrible movie copying Beethoven. As a professional musician it's my duty to watch every movie made about any composer and Beethoven is one of my favorites. When Hungarians and Americans meet, it's a terrible combination of empty over the top emotions combined with the worst taste possible. You proved it in your terrible b-movie. The only thing that carries the movie is the music. Of course you didn't bother to look further than the good but in my taste contrived performances of the Tackacs quartet, but OK I have to admit that the performances at least have quality as contrast to the movie you've made. It starts of with the dying DEAF Beethoven who perfectly understands Anna who is merely whispering. Beethoven's hearing during the movie get's better by the minute, but that must be because of some vague divine thing. Then there is the quite impossible semi-pornographic "eyes wide shut" double-conducting scene which is totally over the top with the luscious Anna and the crying nephew in the end (who also cries in the deleted scenes with constant red eyes, my GOD what a performance). And as culmination the rip-off from Amadeus, with Beethoven dictating music to Anna not in notes but in total nonsense, which she understands perfectly but no-one else in your audience even trained professional musicians will understand. Of course your reaction will be that negative response is a response at least, but I can assure you that Beethoven himself is turning in his grave because of your worthless creation and with reason. This so called homage is blasphemy and I am so sorry to have rented one of the worst movies ever made even though it's about my favorite subject. Ed Harris and others, you cannot comprehend the greatness of Beethoven in your wildest dreams and certainly not after a couple of lessons in conducting and violin playing. That's the trouble with you Americans: you think you can grasp everything even when it takes a lifetime of hard work. Yeah we can do it anyway! Remember that a good product comes with hard labor, talent, devotion and professionalism. All these you creators of Copying Beethoven lack. See you in kindergarten.

Sentiment: negative
Jimmy Wang Yu, an authentic Asian superstar, directed and wrote this film which I have only seen in a dubbed videotape version. The widescreen (Shaw Scope!)shape was lost and the original actor's voices absent but this is still good to watch. The story is the usual martial arts school fights villains from Japan plot with our young hero winning out in the end by beating up loads of assorted thugs.

The combat gets better as the film unravels. Early in the film it looks stiff and dull but later there is a great scene where Wang Yu fights hordes in a gambling joint then walks out into a snowy scene and takes some more villains on with knives, sword and fists. That part is very exciting.

Quite good then but it would be interesting to see a non dubbed widescreen version if there is one.

Sentiment: positive
Jolene (Heather Graham) operates a night club in NYC and lives with her husband, Carl (Luke Wilson), a photographer. After about 500 days of marriage, Jolene comes home to find a note from Carl that he needs "some space" ....and a bouquet of daisies, her favorite flower. Jo promptly puts the daisies in the blender and presses the button. Soon after, she embarks on a journey to find Carl somewhere out west because, after all, she is "committed" to Carl. However, when she finally tracks him down in Texas, Jo camps out near his home, at first,, hoping to find clues to his decision to leave. She meets a gorgeous sculptor-neighbor (Goran, can't spell his name!) but Jo discourages his attraction to her. When she learns Carl may have a new girlfriend, she decides to consult a Mexican-American mystic (Alfonso Arau) for advice. Jo is committed but does that mean anything to Carl? This is a very imaginative, quite humorous look at the marriage vow. It's quirky script and offbeat style is downright infectious. Graham is just great as the jilted woman who is having a hard time letting go. Wilson does not give his best performance but is adequate as the mixed-up husband. The rest of the cast is quite nice, however, with Goran the gorgeous one wonderful as the sexy neighbor. The scenery, both in New York and in Texas, is very lovely and the costumes are fresh and fun. If you like romantic comedies AND independent films, this one is made to order for you. It walks to a different beat that is most attractive but still delivers in the ultimate happy ending category.

Sentiment: positive
I believe there are two angles to the story, first, it's the world satyric view, presented in an obvious Kafkaesque manner, underlining the sordid spectacle behind some of life's most common, but also pleasant, or comfortable moments and elements, which are usually enough to keep man functioning in society. Like: a good job, a good home, a good wife, a good car, and even a good mistress. Apart from this so called common bliss, there are some, who cannot help asking themselves some more uncomfortable questions, like, where they come from, or weather they can have some other form of bliss, weather there could be a reason for them being or weather there could be something they missed out on, or, even more sinister, weather there could be something the system itself is withholding from them.

Second, the most interesting aspect of this film, I believe, is the fact that it attacks head-on this natural compulsion to dissect the world around us, questioning it by our personal judgment, and usually condemning it because it doesn't serve us better, because it's not tailor-made to suit us as a person. 

The symbolism behind the train-accident, I believe suggests that our own will can be overpowered by fate or some other universal greater power, even in the face of our so called power to decide when we want out. Instead the man gets to be dismissed by this greater power(let's call it THE SYSTEM, because the authors clearly avoid calling it GOD, perhaps further underlining that the SYSTEM is MAN - made and therefore can be mastered by man, unlike FATE, which is a concept closer to religion) on it's own terms, not by killing him, but by showing him that there is a place for the man who asks/wants too much, suggesting maybe, that true fulfillment does not come from the outside world, but from within, and if the outside world "decides" to provide you with some comfort, you should learn to accept it, without questioning the fabric of every little aspect of it. 

Unconfortable, but makes you reevaluate some existential questions which have become mainstream in the last century, like what can man do in a world increasingly drained of substance, a consumer-driven world in which man can be interchanged without making a difference to the bigger picture, but only as long as he is of some use to the system.

Sentiment: positive
No idea how this is rated as high as it is (5.8 at the time of writing) but this movie was absolutely horrible. The acting wasn't entirely bad but it really had no point whatsoever and the overall quality was poor. Its obviously a B movie (or a C if such a thing exists) and it looks like it was made over a weekend at a friends house or something. Im all for low budget movies and I generally watch any I come across but this one is really really bad. I mean like "The Fanglys" bad. I don't know what else to say but trust in this as I have indeed sat thru this horrible horrible movie and I can save you the effort... Don't bother. Seriously... Just don't.

Sentiment: negative
This early Anime movie was a rather good film that I caught once on the Science Fiction channel when Anime was actually popular here in America and not the ratings disaster that adult swim claims it is on the cartoon network. I quite frankly think it has less to do with it being less popular and more with the fact people would rather now buy dvds are watch the episodes uncut on the internet. This film though probably did not have all that many cuts and the voice work was okay for a dubbed movie, though I would rather watch the original Japanese version. Americans tend to use some rather annoying voices for children in anything dubbed. This film features a young boy who boards a train called the Galaxy Express in the hopes that he can make it to a planet that has the technology to turn him into a robot. He wishes to become a robot to avenge his mother, who was brutally murdered at the hands of a robot who hunts humans for fun. During the course of his adventures he becomes friends with the various workers aboard the train as well as a woman that resembles his deceased mother, a beautiful woman named Matel, who as with most woman in Anime movies has a secret that could either be really good for our young hero, or really bad. He goes from planet to planet too as the train makes various stops and he runs into a space pirate named Captain Harlock who apparently starred in his own animated cartoon series, so basically the Galaxy Express takes place in that universe. All in all a very good ride with a rather strange and unexpected ending. There would be a sequel to this one, but it was not quite as good as this one, however the ending was a bit more final than it was here.

Sentiment: positive
I watched the movie about 13 yrs ago while living in Airlie Beach Qld Australia. I had found it in the shelves of a little shop in the back that most don't bother to browse.

To my pleasure I found it and watched it with the intention of one day owning it and being in my collection. I still do not have it but will one day.

I like the concept with the poetry and the fantasy. The semi deserted street scenes with a busy teaming city in the far background added to the visual effect.

I have numerous times mentioned this movie to people that enjoy this genre, with nothing but praise. It has stuck in my mind and will for a long time to come.

I fully recommend this film, but only to those that are into this type.

This comment and the one from LA,CA can assist you when choosing to watch this film. The comments may be negative but I found them positive if you look past the derogatory connotation.

Sentiment: positive
michael jackson is the greatest singer and the greatest dancer that ever lived and this film proves it. It is brilliant to watch and the dance is fantastic. when michael turns into a werewolf is a bit of an on the-edge-of-your-seat part the first time you watch it. and vincent price's rap adds to the fear when all the zombies a rising from their graves. if you like this then i suggest you buy 'Making Michael Jackson's Thriller' which has the film then the making of it after it. the making shows an unbelievable performance of 'Billie Jean' by michael, which is when he first did on television the moonwalk. watch it.

Sentiment: positive
Another horror flick in which a goof-ball teenager battles a madman and his supernatural sidekick who want to take over?! Yes, but the fact that this one was from Canada gives it a slightly different feel. "The Brain" has troublesome teenager Jim Majelewski getting put into a treatment whose leader turns out to be a cult leader aided by a big ugly "brain". Can Jim stop him? I guess that since our northern neighbor has accomplished all that they have accomplished, they're entitled to make at least one ridiculous horror movie. But still, they'll probably want to be known for having national health care and all.

The bad guy had a brain. Why didn't the people who made this movie?

Sentiment: negative
There is nothing wrong with showing an old man falling in love with a young girl. Lolita did it. American Beauty did it.

But. They did it subtly. They did not make it so apparent from the start that the director is gearing them up to make them fall in love with each other. Not as naturally as two people would (Age no bar) but forcing them to be around each other as if they were SUPPOSED to fall in love.

All in all, there should have been chemistry. It would have solved the biggest problem. People with reservations against the subject would also have been engrossed and perhaps convinced. It would have become the perfect love story, no matter the impracticality.

I found it difficult to believe Jia's character at times. What I found more difficult to understand, is why Vijay - a photographer and an artist, who seems serious - would have had an interest in a girl so frivolous. Unless he himself has some frivolousness hidden in himself, which did not come out at all.

There is a lot of use of Dutch angles or angles in which the frame is tilted. It is generally used to show something unnatural or something that might lead to something that is not right. So RGV is himself calling the relationship unnatural.

The camera angles, background score, editing, and even the juxtaposition of shots and symbology emphasises and overemphasises their relationship. Is the Indian audience so dumb that we need to be told something in 10 different ways for us to understand? Especially when the two of them were dancing together... it was apparent what was happening. What was the need of slowing the scene down with dramatic background music? I feel the subject was very well chosen. But Verma should not have made the film with the fact in mind constantly that this is a controversial subject. If it is, then handle it delicately, why don't you?

Sentiment: negative
A tough life gets tougher when the three children of a single mom are scheduled to be sent to separate foster homes after her untimely passing.

To stay together, the older boy plans a daring, high risk escape to find a distant lost uncle- their only remaining next of kin.

Their trek takes the three fearful runaways on a chase through the desert in a classic beetle, penniless, hungry, desperate, terrorized by delinquents and too young to drive, hunted by the ever threatening civil authorities.

What the movie lacks in acting and plot realism, it makes up for in the honest human need to be a part of a fulfilled and complete family- even if that family is cobbled together with spare parts of broken lives.

Sure, the ending is forced and too over-dramatic for the critical movie goer, but every heart beats the same cry for family togetherness and belonging.

With all its weaknesses, I still give this movie a strong recommendation.

Sentiment: positive
You do not get more dark or tragic than "Othello" and this movie captures the play fairly well, with outstanding performances by Lawrence Fishburne and Irene Jacob. Fishburne's expresses to the viewer Othello's torment as he falls prey to Iago's lies very convincingly, even providing a realistic epileptic episode. Jacob is the loving and loyal wife who becomes either the instrument of Iago's revenge against Othello, or the object of his wrath (it is not clear which since no motive for Iago's behavior is offered). Although Kenneth Brannagh (sp?) displays his usual talent for Shakespeare in this movie, he is somewhat marginalized. The characters of Cassio and Emilia also wander in and out of scenes even though they, like Iago, seem more crucial to the plot. I have not checked the movie against the play to see how many lines were cut out, but I know that Shakespeare tends to develop his characters, even the seemingly unimportant ones, very well.

If I had any criticism of the movie it would be that the story unfolds too quickly, and that the relationships between some of the characters are not laid out more. The director had a great cast, and no one offered a bad performance. The relationship between Cassio and Othello and that between Emilia and Desdemona need to be further developed earlier in the film. I have a feeling that they were closer to each other than the movie suggests, although you get a sense of this very late into the movie. Also, Othello and Desdemona need more time together. Although their anguish is convincing, the amount of interaction they have with each other makes it seem like they just met. On the other hand, maybe the did just meet---like Romeo and Juliet.

In brief: good performances, too short.



Sentiment: positive
You can never have seen either film and still know that The Jerk Too is a disaster. The question is not, "How did it get made," because if you throw money at anyone and tell them to make a film, they will do so.

No. The question is "Why, oh why, did Steve Martin allow it to be made?" I think he needed the money to fight a nuisance lawsuit and was determined it not cost him anything. He knew the sequel was going to be so frightful, that out of pride, he wouldn't even count it's royalties as income. 

The only way this sequel could not be an embarrassment is to have had Carl Gottlieb and Steve Martin revive the nation's favorite poor black family.

And "dcreasy2001" (aka Mark Blankfield?): It's just transparently obvious that you worked on this film in some sad capacity, and the only way you can feel better about your involvement is to be the sequel's lone cheerleader as an IMDb user comment. I was praying for you to veer over into satire, but alas, you were really making an effort at spin. Why not 10 stars?

Sentiment: negative
Just kidding, I rented 12 Monkeys the other day because I am a huge Bruce Willis fan and I heard some things about the film. Some good and some bad, but it was one of those films you had to pay attention to every second, so I was a bit worried. Just because I felt like for a minute if this was going to be one of those films that I had to watch several times to get. But I watched it last night and I was really impressed, this movie had everything in it: action, drama, sci-fi, history, dark humor, and even a little romance. The actors all did a terrific job, I give a lot of credit to Bruce, during his scene in the car with his psychiatrist, he really got to me. But Brad Pitt, I'm just amazed with how much of a great job he did. He didn't over do his character, who was crazy, and just made it work and was extremely believable. The story was just scary, but very good and a wake up call.

James Cole is a man in the future where a virus broke out in the past and killed 5 billion people and only 1% of the population survived including him. Animals are now ruling the ground above while the humans are down below, but scientists send James to the past of 1990(really meaning to send him to '96), to find out about information of the virus. James gets put into a mental institution meeting his new psychiatrist, Dr. Kathryn Raily and another mental patient, Jeffrey Goines. He tells them the future, of course no one believes him, he goes back to the future. But the scientists send him back to the correct year to where the doctor is kidnapped by James, but he tells her more, and believes him. Now they are set on trying to prevent the virus from ever happening.

12 Monkeys was an incredible film. Like I said the story was so scary just because it's not at all hard to believe that we are not far from that happening. But the whole movie was just great, the cast, the sets, just the whole picture was a great one. It had a Terminator type of feel to it where we might loose something precious one day, ourselves if we don't listen to others. What is right and what is wrong? Who knows? But I would highly recommend 12 Monkeys, it's a great movie that if you give it the proper chance, I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

9/10

Sentiment: positive
This self-indulgent mess may have put the kibosh on Mr. Branagh's career as an adapter of Shakespeare for the cinema. (Released 4 years ago; not a peep of an adaptation since.) I just finished watching this on cable -- holy God, it's terrible.

I agree with the sentiment of a reviewer below who said that reviewing something so obviously and sadly awful is an ungenerous act that comes across as shrill. That being said, I'll take the risk, if only because *Love's Labour's Lost* is the perfect reward for those who overrated Mr. Branagh's directorial abilities in the past. Branagh has always been a pretty lousy director: grindingly literal-minded; star-struck; unforgivably ungenerous to his fellow actors (he loves his American stars, but loves himself more, making damn sure that he gets all the good lines).

Along those lines, the sad fact remains that *Love's Labour's Lost* is scarcely worse than the interminable, ghastly, bloated *Hamlet* from 1996. In fact, this film may be preferable, if only because it's about 1/3 the length. Branagh decided it would be a good idea to update this bad early work of Shakespeare's to the milieu of Cole Porter, George Gershwin, Fred Astaire, yada yada. So he sets the thing in 1939, leaves about an eighth of the text intact in favor of egregious interpretations of Thirties' standards (wait till you see the actors heaved up on wires toward the ceiling during "I'm In Heaven"), and casts actors not known for their dancing or singing (himself included). The result is a disaster so surreal that one is left dumbfounded that they just didn't call a horrified stop to the whole thing after looking at the first dailies. I don't even blame the cast. To paraphrase Hamlet, "The screenplay's the thing!" NO ONE could possibly come off well in this hodge-podge: the illustrious RSC alumni fare no better than Alicia Silverstone. Who could possibly act in this thing?

Branagh's first mistake was in thinking that *Love's Labour's Lost* was a play worth filming. Trust me, it isn't. It's an anomaly in the Bard's canon, written expressly for an educated coterie of courtiers -- NOT the usual audience for which he wrote. Hence, there's a lot of precious (and TEDIOUS!) word-play, references to contemporary scholastic nonsense, parodies of Lyly's *Euphues* . . . in other words, hardly the sort of material to appeal to a broad audience. Hell, it doesn't appeal to an audience already predisposed to Shakespearean comedy. The play cannot be staged without drastically cutting the text and desperately "updating" it with any gimmick that comes to hand. Which begs the question, Why bother?

Branagh's second mistake was in thinking that Shakespeare's cream-pie of a play could be served with a side-order of Gershwin's marmalade. Clearly the idea, or hope, was to make an unintelligible Elizabethan exercise palatable for modern audiences by administering nostalgic American pop culture down their throats at the same time. But again, this begs the question, Why bother?



Sentiment: negative
After seeing the movie last night I was left with a sense of the hopelessness faced by organisations trying to tackle the problem the film portrays. The scale of the prostitution seems so large that it's hard to see how it can be defeated without major governmental changes in Cambodia.

Anyway, on with the review.

Although it is a sombre movie with an uncomfortable central relationship this is a very compelling film, and I'd even go so far as to say it was enjoyable. The film was well edited for the running time and the performance by Thuy Nguyen was excellent. I also felt Ron Livingston played a very difficult role well.

It would have been nice to have a little more insight into why Patrick feels he has to help Holly, but maybe the reason is a simple as he explains to Chris Penn's character. I won't explain it here - go see the movie.

This is a good, thought-provoking film with obviously good intentions. I hope it gets a wide enough release to reach a decent sized audience and gain more support for the K-11 Project.

Sentiment: positive
I have just seen this movie and have not read the book. The good thing of the movie is that at some parts it gets you thinking for a little while on the spiritual subject, evolution, sincronicity and your part in the world.

However, the movie's immersion is easily broken and there is very little rapport between the viewer and the characters. It is very clear that the book looses a lot in this movie version. The events that were suppose to show sincronicity taking place are almost unrecognizable. A lot of reasoning has to be done for the viewer to see that the scene indicates a coincidence, and even more to imagine that it has something to do with a greater purpose. 

Enlightenment scenes are visually poor and do not create the better feeling that it was supposed to. Do you recall the enlightenment with Keanu Reeves (in Little Buddha) ? Well, this is nothing like that.

Most scenes are poorly executed. There are a lot of scenes that really don't develop the story and also do not help in creating an atmosphere.

The better actors in this movie, namely Hector Elizondo, Joaquim de Almeida and Jürgen Prochnow cannot save it. The first 2 seem to have gotten more scenes than their characters should in an attempt to save the movie, and because they were paid more, but this does not work. Most of the scenes are not really necessary and do not help the story at all.

Jürgen does good in his scenes and sells as an evil guy (as always), but the script does not help him at all. The scene where he first tries to convince John (Matthew Settle) to join him is just bad script. The execution of the scene when he dies in an explosion is absurdly bad executed. The flashbacks throughout the movie cannot even be commented.

Overall this movie is a big waist of time, read the book! I have not read it, but it is probably a billion times better than this, it has to be.

It is so bad that I had to write my first comment in IMDb.

Sentiment: negative
The third Fred MacMurray/Carole Lombard film is a bit more serious than Hands Across the Table and The Princess Comes Across. It's yet another adaption of the play Burlesque which apparently was popular back in the day.

The original play Burlesque ran on Broadway in the 1927-1928 season for 372 performances and it's the role that Carole Lombard plays that Barbara Stanwyck originated on Broadway that brought her to Hollywood. A version starred Nancy Carroll in the early days of talkies and later on Betty Grable and Dan Dailey did still another version of it in When My Baby Smiles At Me.

In fact I have a vinyl album of a radio version that Al Jolson and Ruby Keeler did for the Lux Radio Theater. That's an interesting work, believe me.

Anyway MacMurray and Lombard do fine by the old chestnut, the story is now set in a nightclub where Lombard is a singer and MacMurray is a jazz trumpeter. Note a nice performance by Dorothy Lamour as the Latin vixen who gets between Fred and Carole. Also Anthony Quinn is in one of his earliest films as a wolf on the make for Lombard.

Swing High, Swing Low holds up real nice today and I wouldn't be surprised if we see yet another version of Burlesque for the Twenty First Century.

Sentiment: positive
What a great Barbara Stanwyck film that I happened to see the other night. "Jeopardy" was fantastic. It was made in 1953 and probably for double bills but it kept me on the edge of my seat.

Barbara Stanwyck plays Helen, who with husband Doug (Barry Sullivan) and son (Lee Aaker) drive to an isolated fishing spot in Mexico for a vacation. Husband has a fall from the jetty and the only way he is to be saved is if Barbara drives back to a garage for some rope.

While there she runs into a psychotic killer (Ralph Meeker - one of my favourites) and what follows is a game of cat and mouse as Barbara tries everything in her power to get Meeker to come back with her to free her husband.

The film was so suspenseful and such a surprise - I was not expecting such a great film. But I suppose I should have realized - is there anything Barbara Stanwyck does that is anything less than wonderful?

Sentiment: positive
Spheeris debut must be one of the best music documentaries of all time. And as far as I know it's also the only one that focuses on the L.A. Punk Explosion of the early eighties. It's all there: not just great, great bands like Black Flag, Fear, X, the Germs, whose names may not mean much to you today, but whose influence on today's alternative rock music can not be over-estimated, but also the promoters, the media and first of all the audiences - the punks - all portrayed in a manner that makes you laugh, shudder and gasp with astonishment about the energy, the anger and the fury these youths put into their music. Where is that today? The eighties may have sucked big time when it cames to mainstream music, but the underground was rocking. If you need a proof for that, watch Fear's performance in Decline. Unmatched. Great film! How come this is not available on vid, LD or DVD? P.S. The follow-up Decline Pt. II is hilarious, too

Sentiment: positive
Well its ten year's on since this film was released and the sands of time have not improved it one bit, again like the other comments made the Aussie film makers should have a little more drama rather than middle class aussies riding around beautiful places on there bikes with not much in the was of dialog. middle class is not funny nor is rich. there is also a mish mash of cast. why is a young woman going to marry a man old enough to be her father, it escapes me. It's such a shame about this film, looks like a wonderful place to holiday thou. Anyway its an hour and thirty mins of my life i will never be able to get back. lifes to short to watch this movie.

Sentiment: negative
Certainly not a great show, but better than most other sitcoms out there at the moment. It reminds of shows like Married With Children and Roseanne as they go to places not traditionally dealt with in sitcoms. It's sometimes funny even if you ignore the laugh tracks, but not rip-roaring hilarious.

Some of the characters are pretty funny (the gay friend) and some of the other drop-ins. This is also one of the few shows where the characters soliloquy (sorry for the butchered spelling) actually is effective and funny.

Is this an All in the Family or Seinfeld type show? Absolutely not. However, it is certainly better than a show like 'Til Deat (probably the worst TV show of any type out at the moment).

Oh and the mom is not too bad looking and the Hilary character is a little hottie.

Sentiment: positive
Well, this movie wasn't as horrible as I thought it would be. I was expecting to give it one star. I chose to give it three. Why? Well, for a cheesy horror/sci-fi movie, it's not all that bad. Sure the characters are tacky (as is their acting - including a young Leonardo DiCaprio), the effects cheap looking, and the monsters...well let's just say that I've seen some more effective Halloween costumes in Elementary Schools... But there was something about this movie that made me watch it till the end. A little bit of humor helped out a bit I guess. And if you ever wanted to see an alien pass gas, this movie will let you live your dream. 3/10

Sentiment: negative
This movie was very enjoyable, though you'll only like it if: - you hate going to the dentist but aren't afraid of a movie where one of them goes beserk - you love horror movies

I particularly liked the fact that some care was given to explaining the brute actions of the main character. The fact that he's totally obsessed by cleanliness (especially in the mouth) and then catches his wives providing some oral pleasure to the mud-covered pool-man is a pretty believable reason to go overboard.

Liked it. I give it an 8.

Sentiment: positive
A one is the highest rating I could have given this movie, considering zero and negative numbers are not allowed. Pee yew, pointless mess of a movie with a lot of wasted b-list actors who have done better work, written and directed by some guy with the mentality of a twelve year old who smirks and giggles at stupid puns, and poop and fart jokes. For example, Gene Stapelton's (Ding-Bat from All in the Family) character telling Marilu Henner's character that she "swings both ways" sexually, was a cheap attempt at humor indicative of the general lameness of the movie... You want good, cheeky humor? Rent Animal House, American Pie (part one only), Old School or Office Space.

Sentiment: negative
The movie deserves 2/10. 1.5 stars for the girl, (I'm sorry I'm biased, i think pretty girl is the only highlight of the movies), and 0.5 for the fact that it is shorter than Azumi 1. I watched Azumi 1 and 2 in 1 seating. I amazed myself being able to sit through it. 

Lets talk about the plus points of the movie. The girl. Ueto Aya is cute. Thats all there is to salvage the whole movie. The fact is, if the main character was male, i am sure that most people (including me) would not have touched the movie at all. 

Now lets talk about the minus points. Firstly, it is real draggy, with lots and lots of repeated scenes. Scenes of Nachi and Azumi keeps coming back. It seems more like a drama way of shooting. Typical Japanese dramas love flashbacks, and this movie too. Secondly, the movie is too unrealistic in a historical setting. I do not mind unrealistic movies. But this movie is like a poor way of showing creativeness, by throwing in ninjas that act like bears and spider webs, etc... it reminds me of Shinobi, though Shinobi is a movie with a fantasy setting. Moreover, to portray "i-don't-know" what effect, the director films people dying with blood spraying (literally) all around... people not realizing their head was cut off... etc.. etc... etc... Too many of these spoils the show. It seems like the anime influence is strong in this movie. It degrades the show greatly. Thirdly, Isn't Azumi supposed to be an assassin. She seems more like an one-man-army to me, just that she is a female. I don't think you see assassins charging into army camps. The only time i felt she acted "assassin-liked" was when she killed the Kiyomasa Kato at the end of Azumi 1. Lastly, the plot was thin in both movies. Its a linear plot with no development and surprises in any way.

Sentiment: negative
This horrible! The acting, costumes, production values, editing, the script, everything about this film is as bad as it can get. It looks as if it was filmed with a video camera. Can you give a movie a negative rating? Watch The Ring instead.

Sentiment: negative
Most horror movies are in fact horrible movies. They get to be same ol'-same ol'. Same ol' pack every minute with some cheap thrill (usually 'splatter') and nowadays they can pack every second with gaudy special effects. One of the goals of a really good horror flick is to suspend the sense of disbelief of the audience. For instance, I saw both of the recent Mummy movies and nearly got dizzy viewing ridiculous special effects every second. It probably costs a million dollars per second to make those movies and my sense of disbelief was never suspended, it grew roots.

Subtlety can be more terrifying. Less is more. 

I first saw 'The Woman in Black' on the A&E channel. After flipping through the usual 987 channels of very bad television I stopped to watch it. This movie almost has the feel of a 'Masterpiece Theater' production. That was fine with me, I've always preferred British TV & movies anyway.

Most viewers would find this to be too slowly paced. But the slow pacing helps give the story credibility. The special effects are few which lulls the viewer into thinking that this film is set in the real world thus making us a bit more uneasy. The makeup and costume for the ghost are kept simple and believable. Hollywood would have made her look like a she demon from hell with glowing eyes-fangs-claws etc. Hollywood would have done an overkill and turned this idea into a mediocrity.

The woman only makes about five appearances in the film. Most of them are where she appears in the distance and even that creates a good fright. If she appeared too often, it could've cheapened the mood that gets set. However this movie is so well made that through much of the film we're led into sensing that she is there the whole time but not visible. The scene where she 'visits' Arthur Kidd late at night and we see her just a little too close is a masterpiece in horror.

This is just an extraordinary film that I think should rate as one the finest horror films ever made. I have a copy of 'The Haunting', 'The Changling' and a zillion more. I haven't seen anything that tops 'The Woman in Black' yet although I'm still looking. This movie is so well made that it gives even the most hardened skeptic (like me) a moment where I almost had second thoughts about the non-existence of ghosts. I joke to people that I occasionally get brief fears that she could appear standing in the middle of the road or that I'd see her staring through my window, etc. Maybe she could be in a crowd at the mall glaring at me with her look of hate. This is how a really great horror film should be. Like a LaFanu novel, The Woman in Black very slowly pulls you in and wraps herself around your neck and before you realize it, she's squeezing the life out of you and then it's too late.

Closest thing I have to a criticism is that this was made for the small screen... and it's a terrible shame that this is out of print. I just paid over $40 for my second copy of this movie. It's a major prize in my collection. Now I'm on a quest to find an even better horror movie that not only gives the chills but also qualifies a sound drama.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this short film on HBO the other day and absolutely loved it. Eight different characters, eight different perspectives. At first I was confused by the way the story was moving along, but then I realized that it was just one scene being shown over and over again, just to show us the different perspectives of the characters.

At first, you think the clerks are yelling at the teenager for stealing. They speak in their own language, which I (and Chris the teenager, played convincingly by Eleonore Hendricks) cannot understand. The perspective of the clerks dispels that view. I didn't realize how wonderful the short really is until the last two scenes.

Excellent short film. Hopefully, the director James Cox can turn the short into a feature length film with the same cast, or win us over with a whole new film.



Sentiment: positive
Unbelievable. "Philosophy". "Depth". "Genius". "Masterpiece". People must have seen another "Oldboy" because the one I've seen was a badly written, poorly conceived, over-the-top-acted, sordid piece of "Kraapola" which, even ignoring for a moment the ludicrously violent scenes which makes it unsuitable for the eyes of a child, could barely satisfy the imagination and the thirst for plot consistency of a seven years old.

The "depth" of this sorry concoction was exhausted in one little piece of wisdom, "Laugh and the whole world will laugh with you, weep and you'll find yourself alone", the type of boring fortune cookie saying which a great author, be him Shakespeare or, more to the point of IMDb, Kurosawa, would have thrown in the garbage can with no second thoughts. Where this movie should have landed too, if we wouldn't live in an era in which the cheaply shocking and the perversely disgusting are confused with what used to be named once "great art". In short, yuck.

2 out of 100. It's not 1 out of 1000 only because of some occasionally expert camera-work. In no way enough to save this infantile failure from worthlessness, though.

Sentiment: negative
In order for a thriller to elicit fear, suspense or any emotion the story must be believable. There is nothing believable or realistic about this film. The protagonists have several opportunities to escape or turn the tables but manage to screw it up every time. The antagonists who supposedly plan this out and customized their shuttle specifically to trap people sure left a lot of improvisational weapons laying around. There is actually one scene where the "smart" girl has a gun to the head of the main bad guy and decides to scold him instead of pull the trigger. This was a thoroughly predictably, brainless "thriller". Every character was one dimensional. The "victims" were the usual gutless, brainless sheep that deserved to be slaughtered. Is there anyone on this planet capable of writing an intelligent thriller?

Sentiment: negative
Greetings again from the darkness. Insight into the mind and motivation of a wonderful artist. How strange for most of us to see someone who MUST work... no matter the conditions, else his reason for living ceases. To see Goldsworthy's sculptures come alive and to see his reaction to each is extremely voyeuristic. This artist creates because he must - not for money or fame. It is his lifeforce. When you see his failures, energy seems to expel from his body like a burst hot air balloon. It is not the dread of beginning again, it is that he takes his energy from his work. Watching him create just to have nature takeover and recall his work is somewhat painful, but nonetheless, breathtaking. He discusses flow and time in the minimal dialog and there appears to be little doubt that the artist and the earth are one in the same. When he says he needs the earth, but it does not need him ... I beg to differ. Only complaint is the musical score seems to slow down further a pace that is relaxing at best.

Sentiment: positive
Unbelievable. I never saw something like that. Everything is bad; really bad. From photography (lots of scenes without focus!) to the acting (the young female is terrible). And what can we say about those helicopters made in Paint Brush...? Really amazing B, I mean, Z film.

The plot are bad, cliché and bad wrote. Basics conveniences to the screenplay seems to work. I can't even think a young student of cinema making this movie. Nothing justify it.

I recommend that you don't even think to see this movie. Sleep or play solitary are best choices. ;)

xxx

Sentiment: negative
This critique tells the story of 4 little friends who went to watch Angels and Demons the movie on the first night it came out, even though it was a school night, because "Angels and Demons is worth it." Two of the four had read the book. Of those that didn't, a guy, was wearing pink skinny jeans. This was the least eventful part of the evening after watching the abhorrent Angels and Demons.

The movie starts out in a lab where the antimatter is being created while another process is going on. And apparently someone knows about it or something. Notice how very confused I am.. I don't get what happened: they were just making the antimatter. Vittoria finds her own father dead... WHAT? The Illuminati symbol sent to Langdon is a PRINTOUT, not a burn on someone's chest. They take out the X-33 scene. They take out Maxmillian Kohler. They, pretty much, take out CERN and the symbology connected to it. They take out the Hassasin and replace him with some religious, British dude. They take out the Illuminati Diamond. They take out Vittoria's near-rape scene. They take out Langond's fight with the Hassasin (now British dude on crack). They take out the press dude following them around. They take out the death of the fourth cardinal. They take out the fact that the Camerlengo becomes pope. They take out the Camerlengo's grand scheme. They take out Langdon's being in the helicopter and landing on that island toward the end. They take out the fact that Vittoria's father was a scientific priest. They take out Langdon's fun and most unfortunately, they take out Vittoria's sexual appeal.

Other than the movie COMPLETELY losing focus of the details, the movie is acted HORRIBLY. One must admit, though, there were some good things. For example, the Sistine Chapel recreation must have been extremely difficult and it was extremely well done. The explosion scene was MIND-BLOWING. Other than that, SCREW THIS MOVIE FOR RUINING THE BOOK FOR THE PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T READ IT.

Sentiment: negative
Edith Nesbitt's best book has been adapted into a truly magnificent film, I love it. The film itself has gorgeous cinematography, and fine realisation of the subject matter. The ending is enough to have you in tears, as it is so beautifully done. Lionel has directed some truly excellent films, like the Amazing Mr Blunden, but this is his best film as director by a mile. The costumes were absolutely lovely, that matched the beauty of the countryside, and the sparkling and conveniently-faithful script helped matters. However, it is the quality of the acting that holds this film together, as it is nothing shorter than incredible. Dinah Sheridan is suitably sincere as the mother, a much-needed characteristic of the character, and Bernard Cribbins was hilarious as Perks. In fact, I preferred Perks on film, as he isn't as humorous in the book. The children were perfect. Gary Warren and Sally Thomsett both gave spirited performances, but it is Jenny Agutter's enchanting portrayal of Bobbie that impressed me the most. Another special mention is the gorgeous music by Johnny Douglas, the title music reminded me of Charlie Chaplin's Smile. In conclusion, a funny and poignant masterpiece, that is better than the book, I think. 10/10. Bethany Cox.

Sentiment: positive
Plot:

- A Chair from EBay

- Random people

- Random people talk (" Dude, it's right. " "I'm feeling it." "Lets get married now!")

- If you are a "hippie" then you will love this movie. (You must be high or drunk, otherwise you will question your life watching this junk.)

This movie was clearly not thought out from the beginning to the end, and the other comments are probably the crew padding the reviews. If this wasn't aimed at my demographic, I don't know what it is aimed for. I found the plot everyday boring. It's something that I would do, and trust me it's not worth filming. Going on a roadtrip and filming half of the silence does not make a movie!

Sentiment: negative
Best-selling horror novelist Cheryl (a solid and sympathetic performance by the lovely Virginia Bryant), her husband Tom (the likable Paolo Serra), and their son Bobby (nicely played by Patrizio Vinci) go to a remote castle located in the countryside for summer vacation. Local legend claims that the area is cursed. Cheryl discovers a creepy, hairy, nasty ogre (hulking David Flosi in a strikingly hideous costume) living in the basement. Cheryl has to surmount her deep-seated childhood fear of the beast so she can defeat the foul find. Director/co-writer Lamberto Bava does an expert job of creating and sustaining an eerie and unnerving nightmarish mood. Moreover, Bava eschews the standard blood'n'guts fright flick routine in favor of crafting a compelling and provocative dark adult fairytale-like fable on how the best way to overcome that which frightens us is to face said source head on. Sturdy supporting turns by Sabrina Ferilli as friendly school teacher Anna, Stefania Montorsi as hottie babysitter Maria, and Alex Serra as batty painter Dario. Gianfranco Transunto's glossy cinematography boasts a few fluid tracking shots and plenty of great atmospheric lighting. Fabrizio Sforza's gnarly make-up f/x, Simon Boswell's splendidly spirited spooky'n'shuddery score, and the dank, dark, cobweb-covered cellar set all hit the skin-crawling spot. Well worth watching.

Sentiment: positive
I stumbled upon this movie by chance. I was traveling a few years back and this movie was on some channel on cable at the hotel late one night. Not much else on and figured I watch it for about 20 to 30 minutes until I decided to go to bed. Needless to say, I stayed up and watched the complete movie. The plot was very interesting and does make you wonder if there had not been SS who did this or at least thought of doing it. I have been looking all over for this movie. I even sent and email to the production company, but the weren't sure that it would ever make it to DVD, but said there was always hope. If anyone finds this movie drop a note here where you found it, as I'd sure like to get a copy some day.

Sentiment: positive