DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Let's begin by acknowledging that there are arguably three types of horror films: good, bad, and utterly embarrassing reels that make the entire genre suffer in every way. Dark Harvest promises big with its Artisan DVD cover, but rest assured that is where the show stops. Following a grueling opening montage, we soon discover that the film consists of a very poorly written script, extremely under qualified (even for a beginners film) acting, disastrous lighting and even worse special effects. Seriously, could no one afford anything more than a mask for the villain, or did they just think it was good enough for Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers , so it's good enough for us? Well, it did not work at all to create a scary villain. At any rate, this is one of the movies that make you check your watch, sigh and curse your own gullibility. The timing in every scene is painful, and the entire production has a middle school feeling to it (come to think of it, I have seen better middle school stage productions, right down to the special effects). I'm trying to think of some way to end this review on a positive note, so let me suggest that all copies of this train wreck be donated as drink coasters, Frisbees, wind chimes.......I'd say "go see your yourself", but that would just be cruel.

Check out the rest of this production company's reviews and you'll find the same for every one of their movies. They claim to honor the contract between film and audience (i.e. please the fans) but all they have done is chuckle and dumped a load on our heads for the cash (of which I am sure they saw very little for this). 

Sorry people, the high ratings and favorable reviews are obviously posted by those either directly or indirectly connected to this travesty. 

1 star out of 10 because it is the lowest possible rating. Giving it even one makes me angry.

Sentiment: negative
Hilarious, evocative, confusing, brilliant film. Reminds me of Bunuel's L'Age D'Or or Jodorowsky's Holy Mountain-- lots of strange characters mucking about and looking for..... what is it? I laughed almost the whole way through, all the while keeping a peripheral eye on the bewildered and occasionally horrified reactions of the audience that surrounded me in the theatre. Entertaining through and through, from the beginning to the guts and poisoned entrails all the way to the end, if it was an end. I only wish i could remember every detail. It haunts me sometimes.

Honestly, though, i have only the most positive recollections of this film. As it doesn't seem to be available to take home and watch, i suppose i'll have to wait a few more years until Crispin Glover comes my way again with his Big Slide Show (and subsequent "What is it?" screening)... I saw this film in Atlanta almost directly after being involved in a rather devastating car crash, so i was slightly dazed at the time, which was perhaps a very good state of mind to watch the prophetic talking arthropods and the retards in the superhero costumes and godlike Glover in his appropriate burly-Q setting, scantily clad girlies rising out of the floor like a magnificent DADAist wet dream.

Is it a statement on Life As We Know It? Of course everyone EXPECTS art to be just that. I rather think that the truth is more evident in the absences and in the negative space. What you don't tell us is what we must deduce, but is far more valid than the lies that other people feed us day in and day out. Rather one "WHAT IS IT?" than 5000 movies like "Titanic" or "Sleepless in Seattle" (shudder, gag, groan).

Thank you, Mr. Glover (additionally a fun man to watch on screen or at his Big Slide Show-- smart, funny, quirky, and outrageously hot). Make more films, write more books, keep the nightmare alive.

Sentiment: positive
Okay, let me break it down for you guys...IT'S HORRIBLE! 

If Roger Kumble did such a fancy job on the first Cruel Intentions then why did he do such a bad job on this. I'm sorry but this movie is stupid, true it may have improved if its series was ever aired but lets be realistic...this movie a crock! A lot of bad acting *NOTE The Shower scene* "Kissing Cousins" ?????? What kind of line is that? "Slipery when wet" ?????????? Can we say DUH-M! This movie had effort, I'll give you that, but it was too stupid! They even tried to make it funny by giving the house servants stupid accents which actually....WASN'T FUNNY! It was pathetic. Not to mention that they made everyone in the this one look Absolutely NOTHING like the original cast. It's as if they made them look different on purpose or something! I like watching it when I'm really really really board which doesn't happen occasionally. For those of you who did like it...Okay, what were you thinking? Could you possibly choose this movie over the other one which had great acting and the fabulous Sarah Michelle Gellar? A movie is gold if it has Sarah Michelle Gellar in it, DUH! But this movie doesn't, no offense Amy Adams. Oh, yeah since when does Sebastain have a heart????? UGH!

Sentiment: negative
this is an example of a movie that can have great potential and is executed very poorly.. i am a fan of kids and thumb sucker and many other so called teen angst films, but this one bugged me.

why is every white kid made into a thug who loves rap, its getting to be one dimensional. the acting was awful but simple since It mainly consisted of just dropping f bomb after f bomb just a bad bad movie if you'd like to see better movies like this : thumb sucker kids bully all

those i think are better so i recommend one of those is you'd like to see a good "teen movie" i hope my comment you found useful and hope you hear future comments from me

Sentiment: negative
The voyage here is a search for God, the big guy in the sky, the big cheese with a beard. Cunningly disguised as the thirst for ultimate knowledge. Taking over from Leonard Nimoy in the directing chair is The Shat himself, Captain Tiberius William Shatner Kirk. In an attempt at blending the fun corny aspects of the series with sci-fi histrionics {Klingon dialogue consultant, really?}, Shatner and his co-writers have only achieved what is almost an embarrassing parody of a parody. Where's the danger,? where's the brothers in arms spirit,? in fact where is our badly underwritten crew?. Star Trek humour is a wonderful thing, when it's in the right places and done with a straight lace so befitting what has come before The Final Frontier. Some light moments exist, but they do not compensate for the lack of serious moments. While do we really need another Spock revelation,? really?.

Some nice sets and little knowingly Trek moments aside, The Final Frontier is just a bad movie experience. 3/10

Sentiment: negative
The film that gave us John Waters is one of the funniest films ever. Yes it may be gross but it's filled with hysterical moments that nobody has done since. The infamous dog-scene has to be one of the highlights of cinema. not a film for the easily offended it's one of those movies where you always see something new. Divine's performance is worth the reputation. Mink Stole is hysterical. This is the film responsible for the Farrely brothers and the entire Gross-out comedy genre. I know that sounds a bit extreme but think about it. Before this comedies were very run of the mill and almost identical. After this movie comedies became strange and weird, but in a good way. I'd give it 15 out of 10 if I could.

Sentiment: positive
You've got to think along the lines of Last Tango in Paris for this one because the mood and emotion runs along the same lines and maintains the same heights - the difference being that in this exceptional, intense and torrid depiction of love among the ruins of a Dostoyevskyian dispossessed the setting is a gay-subcultural milieu - perhaps even one that is set to vanish in time, and not the equally arresting but heterosexual context of Bertolucci's own film.

The last third of this film depicts a passionate love never seen in gay cinema. To talk of pornography or gay self-effacement misses the point and intelligence of this work. This film, though on first impression appears to take us into the familiar & often depicted underworld of gay street-life, then precedes to subvert the rules of this genre by exaggerating it to a super-real degree. The result is a hyper-charged emotional heightening - an exceptional strategy that elevates the drama to one of big universal themes and giant gestures.

This film snatches the high ground because of the brilliant performances by it's actors, notably a young Jean Hugues Anglade and the directing. A tour- De -force of cinema. Outstanding in ambition and it's unceasing plummet into the depths of human emotion. As a contribution to gay cinema, this film conquers this difficult ground and makes it it's own triumph.

Sentiment: positive
It's really annoying when good movies like this one go unnoticed. But I'm glad I did not miss it.

They should re-release it with a lot more publicity. I do not think they did anything to promote it. Great work Paxton.



Sentiment: positive
I was truly and wonderfully surprised at "O' Brother, Where Art Thou?" The video store was out of all the movies I was planning on renting, so then I came across this. I came home and as I watched I became engrossed and found myself laughing out loud. The Coen's have made a magnificiant film again. But I think the first time you watch this movie, you get to know the characters. The second time, now that you know them, you laugh sooo hard it could hurt you. I strongly would reccomend ANYONE seeing this because if you are not, you are truly missing a film gem for the ages. 10/10

Sentiment: positive
"Written on the Wind" is a Douglas Sirk's melodrama. Douglas Sirk was rediscovered by the "Cahiers du Cinema", Fassbinder etc.. that hailed him as a master director - I think that it is because of the sophistication of his cinematography - "Written on the Wind" offers luscious color images and gorgeous decors. But I ask myself: Is this enough to carry a film? The acting in "Written on the Wind" ranges from weak to fair (excepting Robert Stack - he is convincing as the weak & spoiled playboy). Lauren Bacall, normally a powerful presence in the screen, is miscast in this film. Dorothy Malone as the seductress, the care-free "femme fatale" is OK, but she lacks the strength for the role. Rock Hudson is efficient but vapid .

The plot has very interesting ingredients. The main characters are: 

A rigid patriarch 

his alcoholic son Kyle (Robert Stack) (never loved by the disappointed father) 

his frustrated and nymphomaniac daughter Marylee (Dorothy Malone)

Lucy (Lauren Bacall) - a woman of principles, formerly a secretary and now married to Kyle 

Mitch (Rock Hudson) - brought up together with Kyle and loved by the patriarch. 

Secrets beyond the door, a love triangle, frustration, fistfights, laughter, death etc. - well, when I read the story summary on the back cover of the DVD I thought that I was in for a treat. My mistake! Why? I'll try to explain: "Written on the Wind" takes itself seriously and tries to tell a dramatic story. As I said before the acting, in general, is not good enough - the intensity is lacking. There are many strong scenes in the story, but the actors just do an efficient job. I think that maybe with Italian or Spanish actors those scenes would have been explored fully - they would end (for us) in an explosion of laughter or tears .

What remains to us is the beautiful cinematography of Douglas Sirk. For me this is not enough. If you want to enjoy a good melodrama, see "Aventurera".

Sentiment: positive
Oh f*cking hell, where should I start... First of all; this show is just another stupid American non-funny so called comedy which has pathetic acting and very very poor humor. The American way of laughing-track business makes the whole thing even worse. How come I can hear laughter, yet there's nothing funny happening? Pretty stupid, eh? This show is only for those American people who haven't ever heard that there are far more funnier, better and wittier comedies - not only in Great Brittain, but also in America (The Simpsons for example). I simply can't understand what is so good about "Reba" that it has lasted for long a while in television. It has nothing new to offer, it underestimates the (possible) viewers in so many ways and it simply isn't funny at all. I could have lived with the fact that there are so bad shows as "Reba", but why the hell they had to run it here in Finland. If I see few seconds of this horrible show the rest of the day is ruined for me. Take my word and believe me - this show sucks ass even more than these kind of American "comedies" usually does. This is simply horrible. Do yourself a favor; don't ever watch this peace of sh*t. 

Well I leave the commenting for those who now this language better. Thanks for your (possible) interest.

Sentiment: negative
After watching the trailer I was surprised this movie never made it into theaters, so I ordered the BluRay. I had a great time watching it and have to say that this movie is better than some major animation movies out there. Of course, it has its flaws but I can still really recommend it. The animation is well done, very entertaining and unique and the story kept me watching it all the way to the end. Some of the backdrops are just drop-dead gorgeous and you can see the French talent behind it. I thought that Forest Whitaker's performance feels a bit lifeless but that is how the character Lian-Chu is depicted in this movie. So overall, thumbs up, I liked it a lot and I hope it is successful enough for all the studios involved to continue making great movies like this. I would recommend to give it a chance and be surprised how great a movie can be with such a small budget. Hektor alone is worth watching the movie since some of his moments are Stitch-like hilarious.

Sentiment: positive
Martha Plimpton has done some prestigious movies, working with River Phoenix and Harrison Ford, but she was never able to expand her limited, tomboyish appeal into the same class as, say, Molly Ringwald. This film, which was barely released, is just an extension of her late '80s/early '90s attempts to find a screen-persona which was identifiable to moviegoers, and it represents another failure. Plimpton plays a troubled young woman who finds out on her 21st birthday that she was adopted and--worse than that--was actually abandoned as an infant on her parents' doorstep! She sets out to find her biological mother and father, but the viewer has no clue why she'd even want to (would simple curiosity give her this much determination?). Unattractive material given sitcom handling; it starts off on the wrong foot and never recovers. Plimpton gives a sour, surly performance, but Hector Elizondo and Mary Kay Place are fine as her adoptive parents. *1/2 from ****

Sentiment: negative
A friend of mine enjoys watching the worst films he can possibly find, and I have a good laugh watching them with him.

I have told him if he puts this one on again I will be forced to give him a good kicking.

He knows I am serious!



Sentiment: negative
Bradford Dillman plays a scientist who wakes up one morning in the middle of a bloody crime scene; having partial amnesia (or "global amnesia", which one character claims to define as elective loss of memory), the scientist finds a private detective in the phone book in the hopes of piecing his life back together. Abhorrent concoction very loosely based on Walter Ericson's book "Fallen Angel" (filmed in 1965 as "Mirage" with Gregory Peck). It was probably too racy for television--what with drugs and hippies added to the mix--that NBC initially refused to air it, which is how this low-budgeter wound up in theaters. Director James Goldstone gets freaky with the hyperkinetic visuals and camera-tricks, while editor Edward A. Biery goes wild with the zig-zag cuts. Unfortunately, their admittedly-colorful gimmicks cannot cover up the weaknesses of this updated plot, and the acting is woefully overripe. Dillman, under pressure to recall the events of the night in question, goes through an Actor's Seminar of tics, stammers, nose-wipes, and crazy half-laughs while spitting out dialogue like, "Dream...a dream...drugs...yeah, drugs...that SOUND...bells...help!" As a villainous fellow scientist with a Cheshire Cat smile, Pat Hingle nearly upstages Dillman in the Grand Thespian department by continually addressing everyone in baby-talk, strutting about like a middle-aged peacock and twisting his mouth around in agony. Hope Lange's scientist/love-interest is given the short shrift, but not before she screams at indifferent-lover Dillman: "What do I have to do, talk Ape Man? Me want You!" This is one frantic "Jigsaw"! *1/2 from ****

Sentiment: negative
This movie is trash-poor. It has horrible taste, and is pedestrian and unconvincing in script although supposedly based on real-events - which doesn't add much of anything but make it more of a disappointment. Direction is not well done at as scenes and dialogue are out-of-place. Not sure what Robin Williams saw in this character or story. To start, Williams is not convincing as a gay in a relationship breakup nor is the relationship itself interesting. What's worse, his character is compelled by an ugly pedophile story that is base and has no place as a plot device. You have an older Rory Culkin tastelessly spouting "d_ck_smker" - in good fun- which is annoying enough and then laughed up by the Williams character. Finally you have Sandra Oh as a guardian angel adviser to Williams and a thrown in explanation of the whole fiasco towards the end. Toni Collete's character is just plain annoying and a re-hash of her 6th Sense performance with poorer direction. Very Miss-able.

Sentiment: negative
The brilliance of this story delivers at least one skillfully crafted message to each viewer in the audience. This story is about success, it's about failure. It's about the choices you make in life and the choices others make for you. The story deals with self realization and determination on a scale so large, no camera angle could cover it. Within the grasp of each scene is resides an element marked for depiction within your imagination. Keep this in mind as you watch the movie; it's more than eye candy. The sexually suggestive, rarely explicit scenes serve only to distract and entertain you during the tedious process of character development.

Sentiment: positive
===minor spoilers=== 

I am, like many others, a huge Jerry Bruckheimer fan. So when I saw all the beautiful posters hanging out front, and the trailer coming by before MI:2, expectations were rising. A Jerry Bruckheimer production. Big cars. Nic Cage and fresh from an Oscar- Angelina Jolie. What can possibly go wrong? A lot. 

The script is neither funny (which it tries really hard to be) nor exciting. You put in a black person who is constantly making racist jokes about himself and Wooh-haa!! you've got comedy? I don't think so. Excitement is totally out of the picture. First of all (and this is probably said many times) there are no sympathetic characters so who cares who gets killed? IF you can stomach the premise that a psycho is gonna kill Nic's brother unless he steals 50 cars in 4 days, next thing you know is that Kip (the brother) is walking with Nic in the streets again. Is this excitement? Think not. Then comes the best bit- the romance between Nic and Angelina. She actually looks bored having to utter all these stupid lines to Nic. 'Do you have a girlfriend?' 'Are you seeing anybody?' 'What went wrong?' etc.

Then there's only one sparkle of hope left: the car chases. They're disappointing to say the least, because the trailer made it look like it was full of them, and there's only one. A very long one, caught in irritatingly hectic camera movement. I really had trouble following the action.

So is it an action movie? a thriller? a romantic comedy? - there's no need to decide, just avoid this horrible mess. I'll give 3 out of 10 stars, and I feel like I'm being generous.

Sentiment: negative
I absolutely adore this movie! I had never heard of it when I saw it at the video store. I saw Kathy Bates was in it, so I figured it had to have some worth, you know? I watched it the first time just shaking my head . . . huh? Then it was the last scene and I found myself aching from smiling so hard. I clicked "play movie" and watched the whole thing again. It is without doubt the quirkiest movie I've ever seen. But the more I watch it, the more I love it. It's absurd and crazy and sweet and dear. Kathy Bates is impeccable, but the rest of the cast is fabulous, too. What odd characters they all are! The midget is just too funny for words. And Julie Andrews and Barry Manilow are hysterical. It's just an all around funny, fabulous movie. I get cravings to see it again. Whoever is watching it for the first time, please stick it out to the end. It's well worth it!

Sentiment: positive
Della Myers (Kim Basinger) is an upper-class housewife that lives in a private condominium in the suburbs with her twin children and her abusive husband Kenneth (Craig Sheffer). Della gives all the attention to the twins, neglecting their house and her appearance and upsetting Kenneth. On the Christmas Eve, she drives to the local mall in the night to buy wrapping paper for the gifts, and she does not find any parking space available. When she sees an old car parked on two spots, she leaves a message to the owner calling him "selfish jerk". When the mall closes, Della's car is hold by the driver of the old car and she is threatened by four punks  Chuckie (Lukas Haas), the Afro-American Huey (Jamie Starr), the Chinese-American Vingh (Leonard Wu) and the Latin Tomás (Luis Chávez). When the security guard of the mall protects her, he is shot on the head by Chuckie, Della speeds up her car trying to escape from the criminals. However she crashes her truck nearby a forest while chased by the gang. She takes the toolbox and hides in the wood, fighting against the gang to survive.

A couple of days ago, I saw the trailer of "While She Was Out" and I was anxious to watch the DVD. Unfortunately the trailer is better than the movie, and I am totally disappointed with this dull and implausible collection of clichés. Della Myers is presented as an insecure and neglectful housewife and inexistent as wife; the motherhood is her only interest in her concept of family. She is chased by four mean criminals but she defeats them with a toolbox that seems to be the Batman's utility belt. Therefore, the plot is so absurd that irritates. The gang of criminals is formed by the favorite cliché of American movies, with an Afro-American, a Chinese-American and a Latin together with an American lord to be politically correct. Kim Basinger has a decent acting, but their children are too young for a fifty-five year-old woman. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Enquanto Ela Está Fora" ("While She Was Out")

Sentiment: negative
Even though Ian Kershaw distanced himself from this project due to inaccuracies in regards to Hitler's life and yes, this is dramatised, but essential. Robert Carlyle plays Hitler during his later years, during this documentary that only deals with Hitler from boyhood until he became Chancellor of Germany, including The Night of the Long Knives. This TV-film (also a two-part mini-series) shows how a series of factors allowed Hitler to come to power, e.g. the financial disaster of 1930.

The series follows Hitler and little else, apart from the lives of Fritz Gerlich and Ernst Hanfstaengl. All in all, valuable and filled with interesting actors, yet I feel it should have been more tightly directed with stronger cinematography; most actors are portrayed in half-body shots which (for me) makes for a theatrical stance, not cinematic. The tempo is at times drowsy, and the film does suffer from it, being approximately 2,5 hours long.

Sentiment: positive
`Castle of Blood' (aka `Castle of Terror') is a well-crafted, surprisingly spooky entry from Italian director Anthony Dawson. Exquisite black and white cinematography, flawless dubbing, superb casting, fairly logical scripting, deliberate pacing and a surprise (though totally appropriate) ending set this one apart. Only the films sometimes hokey music and the rather abrupt `love at first sight' between Elizabeth (Barbara Steele) and Alan (Georges Rivière) mar an otherwise surprisingly entertaining movie.

While visiting England, Edgar Allan Poe sits in a pub, telling one of his ghostly stories to Count Blackwood. Recognizing the great writer, Alan, a young news reporter, requests an interview with Poe. During the course of the conversation, Poe reveals that all of his stories are true. Incredulous, Alan expresses his skepticism about life after death. Count Blackwood offers to bet Alan 100 pounds that he cannot survive this night in Blackwood's castle, a night following Halloween when the dead walk. Alan cannot afford the bet, so he bets his life for a 10 pound wager.

Unlike Mario Bava's overpraised `Black Sunday,' (aka `The Mask of Satan'), `Castle of Blood' is fairly restrained, making the few moments of violence even more dreadful, especially surprising from a director usually associated with those terrible Italian space movies from the 60s.

It's a pity the only version of this film I've found is badly deteriorated (and recorded) pan and scan version. Even so, it is well worth seeing, and cries out for a modern remake, perhaps with Christina Ricci or Jennifer Love Hewitt in the role of Elizabeth. Watch it and enjoy a film that compares well with Robert Wise's `The Haunting'.

Sentiment: positive
This representation of the popular children's story on film is pretty pathetic to watch. I know it is one of the earliest efforts at moviemaking, but this 15-minute picture is unimaginative and poorly shot. "The Great Train Robbery" (1903), which I also commented on, is much more creative and exciting to watch.

We see little long-haired Jack trade a cow (2 men in a cow-suit) for a hatful of beans from a merchant and later a beanstalk grows from where his mom throws them in the yard (I guess poor Jack attained the wrong kind). Jack dreams of a goose (actually it seems to be a chicken) and golden egg and the next day climbs the stalk into heaven.

There is no effort made to be creative in this film. The stalk looks like a rope with leaves on it, the giant is just a tall bearded guy in a home with nothing abnormally large in comparison to Jack and the climax to the film where Jack makes his escape with the goose-chicken and its golden egg is miserable as a stuffed dummy falls from out of screenshot in place of the giant and then the actor takes its place - rising up on his feet in a exaggerated death dance like in most early films. The beanstalk (leaf-covered rope) comes trailing down from above and coils neatly on the giants forehead.

Watch something else.

Sentiment: negative
I really enjoyed the performances of the main cast. Emma Lung is courageous and interesting. The director has developed performances where the characters are not one dimensional. A complex story with the changing between eras. Also appreciated the underlying story of the unions losing power and the effect of a large employer closing on a small town. I do not agree with the comment that the older man has to be attractive. There have be many relationships with older men and younger women - without the male being good looking. Depth of character can be appealing to the not so shallow. The film has a good look and the cinematography is also good.

Sentiment: positive
I'm a writer working at home and Diagnosis Murder is my lunchtime break companion - good, clean fun, good humour and nostalgia for the days of the Dick van Dyke show. How innocent we all were (and how innocent is Diagnosis Murder). I particularly enjoyed the episodes with other nostalgia figures like Joe Mannix. The bad guys always get caught, the good guys carry on. The stars clearly enjoy themselves and are having a ball without taking themselves too seriously.

One beef: why were so many of the villains women or at least bitches? Amanda was too dizzy. Its hard to imagine her really carrying out anything as gruesome as an autopsy.

I hope we haven't seen the last of Dick Van Dyke and family on our screens, esp. at lunchtimes!!

Sentiment: positive
I read the book in 5th grade and now a few years later I saw the movie. There are a few differences: 

1.Billy was oringinally suppose to eat 15 worms in 15 days, not 10 worms in one day by 7:00pm.

2.Billy is suppose to get 30 dollars after he's eaten all the worms. In the movie after Billy eats all the worms, Joe has to go to school with worms in his pants.

3. Joe is suppose to fake some of the worms but in the movie, he doesn't at all.

Even though there are changes,this movie is still one that kids will enjoy.

Sentiment: positive
Several story lines are interwoven here around different women characters. The shoes they wear serve as an indication of their troubled lives. All are transformed at the end of the movie. Adela (Antonia San Juan) leads a brothel; Her daughter Anita (Monica Cervera) is retarded and has a restricted life. Leire (Najwa Nimri) is a shoe designer with problems and loses her boyfriend; Maricarmen (Vicky Peña) has lost her husband and now raises the children from his deceased former wife. Isabel (Ángela Molina) is a bored rich lady.

Other characters are used to connect the five main women characters. In storytelling not everything is given away in the beginning: Some connections are established surprisingly late in the movie and that adds to the experience. The shoe-theme is driven to extremes: For example when Leire as a shoe-designer and working in a shoe store where she steals her shoes faints, she breaks one of her heels.

In editing small connections are made between the scenes. A telephone rings, a cigarette is lit, a song, etc. are used to make the connection and fast cuts. Frequent change of storyline keeps it from being boring or reaching TV-levels. It is strongly music-driven to set tone and atmosphere. The cities of Madrid and Lisbon serve as the backdrop for the stories, and shots of those cities are used to extend the story beyond the characters. One of the more moving shots is when Anita, who makes the same walk every day, widens her walk and restricted life from the relative calm of her street to the busy main road: How the restriction of space is visually translated is well done. As with most Spanish movies a lot of storytelling is done visually, using the soap-like stories as the simple backdrop. There is a poetic ending that is somewhat romantic and sentimental but is still beautiful.

As Ramón Salazar is too much in love with his own material it is overlong. Some scenes are kitsch and on the soap level, including the acting (Adela's love life, Isabel's doctor). The shoe-theme is exaggerated and is a weak metaphor.

This is often compared to Magnolia because the structure is the same. But they are different. Magnolia is more technically competent, but somewhat mechanical. This has more the ability to translate emotion and atmosphere visually. After seeing this, you are inclined to immediately move to the new movie-city: Madrid.

Sentiment: positive
The lovely Eva Longoria Parker plays Kate, who dies after an ice angel crushes her before the "I do's" with fiancé Henry(Paul Rudd). After two years Henry has yet to move on and his sister Chloe(Lindsay Sloane)is very concerned. Chloe arranges for Henry to talk with an attractive psychic Ashley(Lake Bell). Ashley is to contact Kate's spirit hoping to help Henry get on with his life. When the psychic starts getting attracted to Henry, Kate's ghost appears to nip the romance in the bud. There are some funny situations; but if you've seen the trailers you have seen the substance of the film. Also in the cast: Stephen Root, Jason Biggs, William Morgan Sheppard and Wendi McLendon-Covey. I personally thought that Bell stole the show from Parker. And Biggs as usual a pain in the butt. Still this movie was over-hyped.

Sentiment: negative
Some movies are off-beat, but enjoyable, but many movies are just mind-numbingly weird. "Motorama" fits not-so-nicely in the latter category. Many seem to like it because of endless guest appearances and a total lack of sense, but those two things can only take a movie so far, and "Motorama" simply doesn't have any other merits to its credit.

"Motorama" delights itself on plot improbabilities. Its main character, Gus, is a cussing 10-year old on a roadtrip across an imaginary country trying to collect game pieces to win $500 million. When interacting with adult figures, none of them seem to notice or be concerned with the fact that he's 10 years old. At first it's incredibly funny, but it quickly becomes just too unbelievable, especially considering the people he runs into and the fact that he seems so unfazed by a lot of the disturbing (to someone that age) imagery going on around him. Gus has no depth, and, as an anti-hero who has no problem causing misery for others to get his game pieces, it's hard to feel sorry for him when he encounters trouble.

That trouble is provided by a slew of guest appearances, each mistreating Gus in more and more strange ways. Besides making the already worn-out plot even more unbelievable and less enjoyable, the characters share Gus' lack of depth and are equally unmemorable. The character's actions can get a little interesting, but the actors themselves don't add anything to them, thus negating the whole point of getting big names (they could've been played by anyone and the character would've been the same). These guest appearances seem to have been signed more for marquee value than anything else.

"Motorama" should be interesting - it's a unique idea, but there's too little semblance of sense in the script for it to work. Incidents that should have a lasting effect on the anti-hero and the viewer don't, as the movie quickly moves from incident to incident, in the hope that something will eventually make the audience feel sorry or understanding for Gus. That never happens, as by doing so nothing is allowed to connect, it just jerks back and forth as if on a conveyor belt, one incident after another. With a story so nonsensical it ceases to be enjoyable, and a main character who never evolves to care for himself or anyone else on a higher level, "Motorama" has little to offer except a brat sneaking around and trying to get rich. Why should we care about that?

Sentiment: negative
This was unusual: a modern-day film which was ultra-nice. In fact, it was so nice it bordered on being too hard to believe in parts. As I watching this based-on-a-real-life story, I was thinking, "nobody is this nice, this tolerant." Mainly, I was referring to Ed Harris' role as "Coach Jones." I think they went a little overboard on his character, but that's better than the reverse: showing him worse than what he was in real life. Odd to see Harris playing the role, too, since he has a long resume of playing nasty, profane characters.

Anyway, I never complain about a nice, feel-good film, and it is nice to see a bunch of well- meaning, kind people. Those folks direct their friendship, love and compassion to "James Kennedy," better known as "Radio," a mentally slow high school kid played by Cuba Gooding Jr. The story takes place in the mid 1970s in South Carolina. Gooding does a nice job with the role, too. However, like Sean Penn's role of a mentally-challenged man in "I Am Sam," an hour-and-a-half of a character like this is plenty. After that, the loudness of those guys gets tiresome to hear.

Note: It was interesting in one of the documentaries on this DVD to find out that, in real life, in took years for "Radio" to make his transformation, not months as shown in the film.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this film with a special screening of the work of Owen Alik Shahadah. It is so interesting where did this guy come from. Now he is probably the key independent African filmmaker in the world. And I am not talking about black filmmakers I am talking about filmmakers who are rooted in culture. The idea if anything testifies to the diversity and range of African themes, with his film 500 Years Later it is a African issue. But the Idea doesn't fit that mold. Showing the artistic diversity. The film is an all African cast but the topic is a human topic which most of us could relate to. I just love the mild comedy in it. And the Kora of Tunde Jegede is just amazing, it is really a art-house gem.

Sentiment: positive
Dear Readers,

I've found in my studies of movies that whenever Michael Bay makes a movie, people pan it and hate it, yet they still go to see it and it makes somewhere around 100 million dollars. Why? Because Michael Bay is one of the top five directors of all time. Standing alongside Ridley Scott, Spielberg, Kubrick, and Miyazaki, Michael Bay has cemented himself as Hollywood's best action/adventure director. That point is proved with his most panned film, Armageddon.

An Asteroid the size of Texas is hurtling towards the planet and the only way NASA can think to take it down is to land a team of men on the asteroid, drill to its core, and drop a nuclear warhead inside then blow up the asteroid. Only one person is qualified enough to do it: Bruce Willis. Willis portrays Harry Stamper, a grizzled hardened oil driller trying to keep what's left of his family together. Not helping that fact is his daughter, Grace (Liv Tyler), having an affair with his best driller, AJ (Ben Affleck). Hired by Dan Truman (Billy Bob Thornton), the head of NASA, Stamper and his team of roughneck drillers train to become astronauts and save the world.

Armageddon is a two part movie. First there's the funny parts where we meet the gang and wackiness abounds. Then they get into space and all the comedy gets sucked out the window and is replaced by mind-blowing special effects, cool music, and great serious acting. Murphy's law goes insane in the second part, meaning that everything that can go wrong, does in fact go wrong, increasing the tension of the film to outstanding levels.

With a cool cast and crew (Michael Bay as Director, Jerry Bruckheimer and Gale Anne Hurd as Producers, and J.J. Abrams as one of the scriptwriters.), tons of special effects, great humor, awesome music, plus an intro done by Mr. Ben-Hur himself, Charlton Heston, Armageddon rocks big time.

Signed, The Constant DVD Collector, Matt Macleod

Parental Warnings: This is not a film for kids. The F-bomb is used a few times and lots of other swear words are used as well, plus there's a Strip bar scene and the extremely intense second part might be too hard for a kid to handle.

Sentiment: negative
Drum scene is wild! Cook, Jr. is unsung hero of this and many movies. Fantastic actor, great flick. A few twists that keep you moving. A must-see.

Sentiment: positive
I have watched anime but I'm not a die hard fan; and I don't read manga. I say this because many of the reviewers who are waxing lyrical about this film seem to have that background. I have seen "St. John's Wort," and although it isn't a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, it made me pick up "Shinobi," especially since everyone seems to love it.

Well, I watched it this afternoon, and fought very hard to keep watching. Yes, it's very beautiful - the slow motion water scenes, the autumn leaves on the trees, even the CGI eye flicker - majestic. I liked the hawk, the costumes, even some of the fight scenes, but overall this was dull as dirt.

It seemed as if someone took "Romeo and Juliet" - the translation even mentions that they are star crossed lovers - and threw in some "X-Men" for good measure. Two of the characters split Wolverine's powers - the guy dressed in a bear costume had his claws and the grey-haired guy had his ability to heal himself. Then you have the girl who has a poison kiss - that's Poison Ivy (from Batman). Why do they give these women such dumb powers? Poison girl shows her leg then kisses you to death. Man, that's some great power for you. And the other girl, can create bugs from this yellow dust that she rubs on her hands. The other woman, one of the star crossed lovers, has the power of a hypnotic stare. Wow.

I sort of made it to the end of the film, by fast forwarding it, and did see a bit more tragedy than I expected. Some people are comparing this to "House of Flying Daggers" and "Hero." Don't make that mistake. They may share similar endings, but that's where the similarities end. "Shinobi" is made by an amateur - the other films are made by an experienced filmmaker.

I would say avoid this film unless you're 12 to 18 years old.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is almost unknown, but it is very good. In a lonely Danish town, two old sisters live remembering a far youths, when, due to a strict puritan education, they had to reject happiness. Lonely, then, the live in a dignified austerity, until Babette, who flies from Paris, frightened by the horror of the war, arrives. In few time, she will be able to turn the goodness and love she received when she arrived. A good lottery prize lets her organize a great banquet, following the best rules of French gastronomy. All neighbourhoods are invited (all fanatically puritans). They accept, but they pact to not show any trace of pleasure or enjoyment, as it would be a sin. However, the seductive force of the delicious meal they eat, that they become seduced by the sensuality of French gastronomy. The banquet end in a very felt, though quietly, happiness. The love between humans has awaken. The miracle of rise the human kindness due to the pleasure of the sense has begun. The movie is surprisingly good, but it is not for all tastes. During most of the movie, nothing happens, all is so quiet and so peaceful, that during many minutes, you can only see the life of the inhabitants of the town. But, as the movie develops, it becomes more precious, when Babette wins the lottery prize (after 30min movie), the show begins. The author is able, with a perfect directing, to show us how Babette prepares the banquet, how she mixes all the ingredients with the most wonderful one (Love), all told in a quiet delicious way, with a perfect knowledge of photography and acting. Then, as the banquet goes by, the quality in showing us how the mood of all eaters changes due to the meal, only with first shots, with impressively filmed scenes one after another is simply astonishing. In addition, the tact with the colours and the photography is also superb, almost every scene of the movie is like a picture, so work is involved there. If you are able to admire good cinema and are able to realize that sometimes the way on telling you something rather than what is told is more important, this is your movie. If you happen to like good meals and just love the good gastronomy, probably, you'll feel amused, as most feelings of the movie will be familiar to you. An Oscar totally deserved. The only problem is its slowness at setting up the story, but, I can forgive it (I hope everyone too)

Sentiment: positive
Diane and I saw this fabulous film today in Fremantle and we both agreed that of the pastiche movies it was head and shoulders above the rest. I say that because we were entranced by the brief, five to ten minute segments that composed the film and the fact that this film had a theme around which each piece was composed and of course that theme was love in its many forms.

Ostensibly the film took place in the various Parisian arrondisments thus giving a particular flavour to each segment. Having only been in Paris several times, I was not knowledgeable enough to readily recognize the locations but I am sure Europeans and particularly French people could easily recognize the city's locations. In any event, the viewer is immediately pulled into each story because of their production excellence so these city locations fade into in-consequence.

The film moves quickly and the viewer is left absorbing one scenario while the new one is on the screen. The stories themselves are not graphic like some pulp Hollywood nonsense, they are subtle and thought provoking and gentle as with most of life without the media swath that buries so much of life's beauty under the nearest dung heap just to sell, sell. sell ...

Go with someone you care for and allow this magical little film to bathe you like a spa treatment and when you leave my guess is you will feel renewed.

Sentiment: positive
It may not have had the big budgets, celebrities or endorsements of Scream, Urban Legend or I Know What You Did Last Summer, but Campfire Tales had one thing these three movies lacked: true horror.

This film tackled the subject of urban legends a year before the aptly titled and less than enthralling Urban Legend did. It was intriguing, masterfully scripted and logical in a way I Know What You Did Last Summer could only dream of. Finally, it held its focus and finished with a flurry while Scream fizzled and died.

What's most exciting about the film is the variety of horror that the writers and directors achieved. The overarching story of teenagers around a campfire was classic dread at the unknown (but certainly expected) doom that awaited them in the forest, but the tales themselves are where the movie really shined.

The opening sequence is pure, fast-paced urban myth. It's based on a popular legend, and the director plays on this with the style and pace of the action, making it more enthralling because we know what's going to happen.

The first campfire tale is a straight-forward thriller. Based on another popular myth, we don't actually realize this until the end, both because it blends so well into the story and because the action keeps our attention. Being the thriller of the trilogy, this one plays off our fear of the unknown and includes several well-done "jump" sequences that don't feel nearly as cheap or contrite as those in movies like Scream or Urban Legend.

The second tale is more suspense. This time, though the characters still don't know what's going on, we do, and this provides the horror. No need for cheap thrills here.

The final tale contains elements of the supernatural and uses a creepy/trippy atmosphere to scare the viewer. Because we can relate so easily to the characters and their situation, our fear comes from their intensity and what they can't explain. This is the true ghost story of the trio.

I didn't expect to enjoy Campfire Tales when I rented it. I figured that if I didn't like its more acclaimed, bigger-budget counterparts, how could I like it?

The truth is, though, this film succeeds where the others fell far short of the mark.

Sentiment: positive
Conquerer of Shamballa shows what happens when creators of an Anime fail to understand what their fans want. I as a fan did not want a 1920's Evil Nazi movie. What I would have liked to see is a real final showdown between Ed and Dante, as we don't REALLY know what became of her. I also would have liked to get Ed back to his world much sooner and have him stay there, to finally get a chance to be normal. You know, raise a family with a certain blonde mechanic, that sort of thing. No, instead I got a convoluted plot involving Nazi mystics, Fritz Lang and about ten minutes of Al, a joke of a Cameo by Roy Mustang and only one Armstrong joke, one short joke and no Winry hitting Ed with a wrench. Above all, it just didn't feel like Fullmetal Alchemist to me.

Sentiment: negative