DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
To be honest, I've never been to the Congo or even Africa, and after watching the made for television movie Heart of Darkness, I do not think I'd want to. The movie completely shames the book to the highest level possible. Though the book was not the best I have read, after watching the movie, I seemed to appreciate the book a hundred times more. Nicolas Roeg, the director of the movie, did a horrible job portraying Joseph Conrad's novella into a movie. I give Roeg some credit for trying to attempt the impossible by making the book into a movie, but this may not have been the job for him. The movie was unsuccessful to express any part of the novella other than the basics of the plot. The set and scenery also lacked the beauty Conrad portrayed of Africa in the book. In the book Marlow had seen so many great wonders, but in the movie you did not get that same experience. No, I'm not blaming everything on the director; the acting in the film was just terrible. All of the actors were dull and uninteresting. Throughout the whole movie I felt as if the actors were not putting forth any emotions, as if they were reading from the script the entire time. Tim Roth, who plays Marlow, did not portray Marlow's sense of adventure for his journey into the Congo well. Marlow's journey to find Kurtz was supposed to venturesome, but I didn't experience that in the movie. I would not recommend watching this movie, especially if you have read the book already. It does not come close to doing justice for Joseph Conrad's novella. Conrad's words capture the reader and take them on the journey with Marlow, on his quest to find Mr. Kurtz, where as the film did not. A great novella, but a very poor film. Heart of Darkness, the movie, is based on the book written by Joseph Conrad also called Heart of Darkness.

Sentiment: negative
James Cagney plays Richard Gargan (nicknamed "Patsy"!), a former gangster now overseeing the surly lads as the new superintendent of a state-run reform school. Tepid genre entry wherein Cagney's the whole show; he dominates the picture, but only because there's not much else of interest going on. Jimmy gives just what's expected from his hard-boiled persona, which can be satisfying if you're in for a quick fix. The direction (by Archie Mayo, though Michael Curtiz was said to have helped) is straightforward without being particularly gripping, although the narrative slips in the second-half, grinding the film down to a messy conclusion (with even Cagney's Patsy getting lost in the shuffle). Remade in 1938 as "Crime School" and again in 1939 as "Hell's Kitchen". ** from ****

Sentiment: negative
Indian cinema typifies cops of two broad categories: they are either the honest type or the bad guys. The honest guys always shout at the top of their voice and fight the system while the bad cops enjoy for most part but suffer at the end.

This movie at least breaks this usual formula and gives a refreshing view of cops and their lives. The direction takes an inside look at the life of a young ambitious cop who. The music is interesting and the editing is a trend setter as far as Indian cinema goes.

The movie is slow at times and the dilemma which Anbu faces when it comes to Maya is overplayed at times. But I would still give this one 9/10 simply because it has many firsts to its credit.

Sentiment: positive
If you are under 13 or above 13 and pretty intoxicated, you'll enjoy D-war. If you are a seriously dedicated fan of all kinds of brainless action films, you'll enjoy D-war. Otherwise, don't bother! I saw the movie today with my nephews and 3 of their friends. They really loved it and that made me feel good. After the movie was over, all the kids(my nephews and their friends)could not stop thanking me for taking them to the theater.

The CG is good. Acting and directing are horrible. Storyline is extremely simple. But, since the half of the audience was kids, they were screaming, shouting and cheering every time the dragons appeared on the screen. This made the viewing experience far more exciting than it should have been.

It's a good movie to take your kids to, but except for the final battle sequence, D-War is disappointing. I give this film 7 out of 10 mainly because the kids loved it so much.

Sentiment: positive
After being bitten by a bat in a cave,a doctor named John Beck undergoes an accelerating transformation into a man-bat creature.His wife assures him that there's nothing wrong with him,it's all just due to rabies or the anti-rabies drugs he's taking.The local cop thinks that John is responsible for several gruesome murders."The Bat People" by Jerry Jameson is one hell of a horrible film.The script is deadly dull and there is no gore nor nudity.This pointless piece of crap is so mind-numbingly boring that you'll scratch your head in a total disbelief after suffering through it.Even the design of a man-bat creature by a young Stan Winston is completely pathetic and unmemorable.Avoid this stinker like the plague.2 out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
*****I reveal two 'twists' at the end of the film. Do not read if you want to watch this movie for some reason*****

Oh my, this is bad. And for some reason, Sean Bean, one of the greatest present day actors, has sold his soul and appears in it. The only consolation is that the scriptwriters must have realised that someone as ultimately pathetic as Steve Guttenberg could never in his life aspire to kill someone as cool as Sean Bean. Instead, he is killed in what must have seemed like a marvellous twist at the end, by the good guy who was meant to be be killed by Bean, but was actually his boss and faked his own death. Don't worry. I haven't ruined anything for you. The acting itself is spectacularly apalling, with Guttenberg's patented "Hey-look-I-can-pull-a-Chuck-Norris-face" hard man stare dominating most of the two hours of hell on earth. Added to a plot that I could have written whilst being tortured and hung upside down with both hands cut off, there is also a completely nonsensical critical error in the fact that one moment the virus will escape if they so much as look at it wrong, while another moment, Steve Guttenberg is bravely running around with it, throwing, catching bashing and generally abusing this 'virus' which has the distinct look of a collection of those little balls of soap you put in your bath. My final word? If you are suicidally depressed and feel like you want to laugh manically at something that should be a bad comedy but even worse isn't, tape it next time it's on channel 5 at midnight, then burn it when you realise that I am indeed telling the truth.

Sentiment: negative
Most of the films I really like are art-house fare and seldom appear on the box-office top-ten lists. That said, I found "Northfork" utterly incomprehensible. I have no idea what it was even about. Writing in the New York Times about a different film, Stephen Holden once observed that some people seem to think they can throw just anything up on the screen and have it work as a fairy tale. I thought of that review several times while watching "Northfork".

On a scale of one to ten, I gave it a two.

Sentiment: negative
After the death of all senior officers, Commander Craig-Scott, of the Laundry and Morale Corps, finds himself promoted to command of an intergalactic spaceship owned by Starcups Corporation. Its chief mission is to search for inhabitable planets and, of course, long-term coffee markets.

Craig-Scott and his second in command, Chief Blather, find themselves ill-prepared for command, except insofar as they are fully able to keep the crew's undies clean--which is not to diminish the importance of clean undies, especially when incompetent commanders cause those same undies to be, well, soiled on a regular basis.

The episodes are presented as a series of short, 2-3 minutes reports by the Commander to Earth. The humor is a mix of wry deadpan and outrageous physical comedy. Think Yes Minister meets Red Dwarf, but on a shoe-string budget. All the usual plot devices of sci-fi are here--aliens, nuclear weapons, computer malfunctions--but each is improved by the fresh lemony scent of high-grade laundry detergent.

Commander's Log is definitely low-budget, but the somewhat cheesy effects and props fit the absurd premise of the show. Remember those hilarious hockey helmets they wore on the old Battlestar Galactica? With the "Jofa" brand-name still visible? Okay, there's a lot of that in Commander's Log, but it's cute.

Commander's Log ain't high-art, but that's not what it's trying to be. It's just a little bit of off-kilter fun. It does a good job of being that.

Sentiment: positive
Mixing small town sheriffs, high-school students, fake rock music, and some weirdo who kills for, well, no reason in particular, this film is essentially a re-make of "The Giant Gila Monster" - except without the gila monster, of course.

Now, anyone who has actually seen "Giant Gila Monster", knows that it is one of the worst made films of all time, frequently so slow, it's not even funny. And I can't believe that by 1967, "Giant Gila Monster" had earned such a reputation that young directors were just dying to get to work on a sequel, let alone a remake. So will someone please explain to me why this film was made?! The dance sequence, by the way, is historically interesting, although about three years out of date; but even that's spoiled, since it goes on... and on... and... on....

Sentiment: negative
Two qualifiers right up front: I actually think Joe Don Baker can be good or even great with the right material and the right director (the "Cape Fear" remake, a small role in "Goldeneye", "Walking Tall"). And I even liked Baker in "Mitchell", because he was playing an anti-hero who was SUPPOSED to be unlikeable. Yes, MST3K's coverage was hilarious, but they took a lot of cheap shots at Baker - that he didn't deserve - to keep things lively and entertaining - he was appropriate to the level and tone of the movie, and he was the best part of the movie.

"Final Justice" seems to be more of the same, but in spite of the exotic locations and the "cowboy frontier justice" theme, it is quite a bit weaker than "Mitchell". And the main reason is that Baker's character, as written, is an idiot. The movie has the conceit that because Baker embodies old style frontier machismo, he challenges his opponents to old style mano-a-mano quick-draw contests. And because he's so tough and macho, he always wins, even when he's hurt, wounded, outnumbered, etc.

That's a conceit with a lot of potential (it worked for Gary Cooper), even if it condemns the film to "B" movie status. But Baker is so frigging stupid and obsessive that he needlessly challenges three of the bad guy's henchman to a showdown in a public market, with civilians all over the place. He COULD have simply shadowed them to the chief bad guy's headquarters (which was why he was following them in the first place) and they never would have noticed. Or he could have gotten the drop on them and forced them to surrender, and gotten one of the henchmen to take him to headquarters at gun point. But no, he has to be a bush league hot dog and a macho blockhead, and so he gets a child taken as a hostage in the ensuing shootout! 

This is a guy we are supposed to admire? 

The whole movie is basically like this. Most of the supporting actors are somewhere between OK (the henchmen) to pretty good (the chief bad guy and his father, who are two well known European actors - they just go through the motions, but they are pros and even hamming it up they are decent). But through it all, Baker's character pulls silly , unproductive stunts and mistakes that get at least two relatively innocent people killed, plus a couple of bad guys who might have been taken alive without the use of deadly force.

On the positive side, since 90% of the movie is set on Malta or in the Mediterranean, you get to see lots of pretty scenery and lots of nice and exotic looking extras. And really, Baker himself may be on the heavy side and slightly dyspeptic, but he isn't that bad...certainly not the tub o' lard that this films critics (including Mike and the Bots in their hilarious coverage) seem to think.

In short, this movie is good for video wallpaper, but the viewer should not pay any attention to it.

Sentiment: negative
Roger Spottiswoode isn't the worst director, and he did a good job on the underrated sci-fi thriller "The Sixth Day" (a.k.a. "The Box Office Downfall of Mr. Schwarzenegger"). However, "Air America" has to be one of his most inept projects.

It comes across as an amalgamation between drama, comedy and war film - it's not a very convincing mix. In fact, I found it to be overbearing.

Robert Downey, Jr. (during his heyday) stars as a pilot recruited into a top secret CIA organization operating during Laos in the Vietnam era. Mel Gibson plays his co-pilot and he stumbles upon the knowledge that they're trafficking drugs, and what not.

The movie was hyped on release because it starred two famous faces and Aerosmith had re-recorded the Doors classic "Love Me Two Times" for the soundtrack.

The redo of the song is pretty poor, which suits the film.

Sentiment: negative
There are so many incorrect statements in this so-called "documentary" that I found myself shouting at the television.

Bart Sibrel might be able to produce a flashy looking DVD, but he is sadly lacking at looking at the science behind his claims.

He relies on either being inaccurate, not telling the full story, or the old favourite "government always lies to us" innuendos, and people believing what is told to them and not checking on the accuracy or details behind the claims.

What's more, his "exclusive" or "unreleased" footage is freely available over the internet from various sites.

Further reading about the circumstances regarding the filming of this production shows that he used false pretenses to gain interviews, and has used creative editing of the responses in order to promote his own opinions.

All of the claims made by Mr Sibrel about "inaccuracies", "mistakes", or "whistleblowing" in the Apollo programme have been thoroughly disproven.

How do I get that 40-odd minutes of my life back?

Sentiment: negative
This film is shockingly underrated on IMDb. Like so many films, this isn't Shawshank. But it's a reasonably good, if predictable, dance competition / personal growth film. If you want to spend an hour and a half watching a sort of 8 Mile for a female step dancer, than I think you'll like it.

Judging from the IMDb ratings, my guess is that this movie was approaching the top 250, and was "vote bombed" with many 1s, as happens to so many films that aren't about the mob, don't have special effects, or include non-white or non-straight characters.

It's an American film, but it's not a US film. Set mostly in Toronto the cues are subtle, and some audiences may think it's set entirely in the US just because the final competition is in the border city of Detroit.

I liked the music. I liked the dance (but not convinced it's worth $50,000 ... but what do I know). The characters were easy on the eyes.

I do agree the title sucks. I don't remember anyone in the film saying those words, and it should have an "s". (No, it's not a foreign language).

There's not a lot to hate about this film (and let's be honest, a vote of 1 means you hated it) so I can only assume that it's an expression of hate for the kind of people in it, and that's sad.

Sentiment: positive
"The Duke" is a film based in the heart of the British aristocracy where an old Duke (John Neville) dies and to avoid his large property and the vast riches to be taken from him after death by 2 devious aristocrats (Oliver Muirhead and Sophie Heyman); he passes his Dukeship down to his dog. The dog's "best friend", an American girl named Charlotte (played by Courtnee Draper) whose parents die becomes orphaned by the former Duke due to him being her great uncle. A young chef named Florian arrives, with him and Charlotte instantly connecting creating a romantic sub-plot which in its own way, acts as the under tone for the main plot line being the activities of Hubert, The 'Duke' and his many activities and love interests with other dogs. All this is watched over by James Doohan who plays a Butler who is determined to try and serve his old Duke by doing his best to serve his new master, Hubert. Doohan acts as the older character there to comfort and advise the younger ones whilst he over looks and performs various ridiculous tasks under his new master. A fine comedic performance mixed with elements of drama to end the career of a fine and influential actor.

Though from the technical viewpoint, I dislike this film as I only watched upon discovering James Doohan's role. Though the plot is good, elements of the writing and directing have to be obscured. Ignoring the absurdity of a "Doggie Duke", I personally dislike the over use of comedic and outrageous jokes upon the 'bad' characters due to their ludicrousness. The dependence on hygiene related humour as you like is much too apparent and general silliness of many characters doesn't appeal to me. The director, Phillip Spink uses mid-long shots too often with either an overdubbed voice or affecting the overall sound quality. Plus, the acting of Muirhead and Heyman, whilst good at the dramatic and romantic sequences, fall drastically short fulfilling the wholesale requirements regarding the role.

But, as a mature movie fan, I find it easy to be over critical of a simple family film designed to make you laugh. I can admit I found certain bits funny and other bits touching along with a plot that may be far-fetched, but has definite connections. I do not recommend this film to mature movie fans but I do highly recommend it to Dog lovers, families who wish to enjoy a funny film for their child and James Doohan fans who wish to see 'Scotty' in his final role.

Sentiment: negative
I think Charlotte Gainsbourg is one of the best performers in the world. I can't understand why some people say she's not. Boring....??? Maybe the one who said she's boring is because he/she is boring. She's a great actress and the movie was excellent. It has lots of wonderful ideas and very good performers. The direction was great. I imaging myself in the French environment with all the sophistication and perfume, flowers, churches, problems, etc. When she goes to the sister's shop is simply amazing. Everything's great. We have a very good actress, wonderful, for long time. Alain Chabat and Bernadette Lafont are perfect. I like him more than in his next movie LA SCIENCE DES RÊVES. And Eric Lartigau did a very good work.

Ana

Sentiment: positive
I have just finished watching this film for the first time, and I must say that I am very impressed.

How bleak. How full of despair. How nightmarish. Incredible.

Visually stunning, several scenes are embedded in my mind...the first appearance of the phantom carriage...the soul of David Holm as it rises from his corpse...his spirit on his knees, pleading.

This film takes a simple story-that of the ghostly driver of the phantom carriage, doomed to collect the souls of the dead for a year-brings it into the present setting of the film and then uses flashbacks as a means to explain how David Holm ends up in his predicament.

I would love to see this released on DVD so that more might see it. Everyone should.

Sentiment: positive
I really wanted to see this film - I thought the plot was really unique and intriguing. A cop (Andy Garcia) has a son who is dying and needs bone marrow replacement in order to live. The only match is a convicted serial killer, who escapes from jail. To save his son he has to track down the killer.

Michael Keaton plays the convict in one of many disappointing aspects of the film. Keaton is a great actor at times but here he is pretty much boring. It's over-the-top to the point where you just stop caring.

Garcia is better but tries too hard for a film that isn't up to par. Barbet Schroeder (at one time such a promising director with films like "Barfly" that amounted to pretty much nothing in the American market) directs well enough - I honestly thought the script was the culprit here...it's just a big mess.

The film ultimately wastes a lot of good material, good actors and a good director - all because of a faulty script. What should have been a tense and thought-provoking film is just a Hollywood action dud.

Sentiment: negative
The Beatles had just done 'Magical Mystery Tour.' There was the general feel that performance, peace and drugs went together naturally. In LA, there was a film subculture that knew something was up. Nicholson was in several of these gangs.

Before he decided to seriously become an actor, before 'Easy Rider,' before 'Pink Flamingos,' before 'Day for Night,' there were several experiments with what to do about this. An important one is 'Saragossa Manuscript.' This is another.

Jack writes. He plays with circular narrative, self-reference, film reference, performance self-loathing, the pain of creation, all on the outskirts of safe kiddiepop. You must see this, if only to know something about Jack.

Certain actors act by digging into themselves. It is a common technique. Some dig deep, but after a while, they become boring because they are incredibly shallow people. There isn't just enough stuff in there to sustain a career. Think of DeNiro and Hackman.

Others are pretty interesting people, who seem to become more interesting over time. When they dig into the barrel, they put stuff back in because of the pain of the digging. Think Sean Penn and Jack. At the bottom of Jack's barrel, at the end of the thread he spins, as the base of every character is this experimental, risky writer/filmmaker.

Who cares if it is a bad movie? It is bad because it took risks. Watch when a tear is wiped from Annette's cheek by the director. It is a loving goof on the whole Brando thing, something that I heard Marlon laughed about. That is one of the richest moments in Hollywood film history.

There's another reason to watch this. Music in film is has a strong root in dance. Revolution in film often relies on music. Whole cultures are thus swept along.

An unsung giantess in inventing how billions now dance is Toni Basil. She was as influential in pop choreography as the Beatles were in music. She was already well into her career when called upon to work on this. But this is one of her earliest screen appearances. You can see her work throughout and she herself in the pretty cool 'Daddy's Girl' segment, over one of Nilsson's better songs. (Followed by the Frank Zappa cameo.) McCartney would reference this scene in his TeeVee special years later.

A third reason to watch is early (about 6 1/2 minutes) in the film: a character named 'Lady Pleasure' kisses each Monkey in a long continuous shot and then dismissively departs. She is credited as I. J. Jefferson but is really Mimi Manchu, Nicholson's lover at the time and LSD partner. Red hair, psychedelic demeanor. Lovely. That scene says it all for me, about how Jack feels about the boys.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

Sentiment: positive
Well acted drama based on a novel by Arthur Miller. Something as simple as a pair of glasses becomes life altering. Lawrence Newman(William H. Macy)is a man that has chosen to be satisfied with his mundane life; the same job for twenty years and still living with his mother. He is told by his boss to correct his vision with a pair of glasses. Newman's life drastically changes and delves him into hell. The glasses he chose makes him look Jewish. He looses his job and becomes the object of heavy scrutiny by his Brooklyn neighborhood. Searching for a job, he encounters the attractive and outspoken Gertrude(Laura Dern), herself living with conflict because of her Jewish appearance. Soon the couple's new life together becomes a nightmare filled with humiliation and bigotry driven attacks. A very apt cast that features: Joseph Ziegler, Peter Oldring, Kay Hawtrey and of musical fame, Meat Loaf.

Sentiment: positive
Although it was released way back in 1967, IN COLD BLOOD still remains the benchmark by which all true-crime films are matched. Veteran writer/director Richard Brooks (ELMER GANTRY) adapted Truman Capote's non-fiction book into a chilling docudrama that retains a disturbing power even today, thirty-five years later.

Robert Blake and Scott Wilson portray Perry Smith and Dick Hickock, two ex-cons who, on a tip from Hicock's old cellmate Floyd Wells, broke into the Holcomb, Kansas home of Herbert Clutter, looking for a wall safe supposedly containing $10,000. But no safe was ever found, and the two men instead wound up killing Mr. Clutter, his wife, and their two children, getting away with only a radio, a pair of binoculars, and a lousy forty dollars. Two months on the run, including an aimless "vacation" in northern Mexico, ended in Las Vegas when cops caught them in a stolen car. But it eventually comes out, after merciless grilling by Kansas law enforcement officials, that these two men committed that heinous crime in Holcomb. Tried and convicted on four counts of murder, they stew in jail over a five-year period of appeals and denials until both are hanged to death on April 14, 1965.

Blake and Smith are absolutely chilling as the two dispassionate killers who show no remorse for what they've done but are concerned about getting caught. John Forsythe also does a good turn as Alvin Dewey, the chief detective investigating the crime, as does Gerald S. O'Laughlin as his assistant. In a tactic that is both faithful to Capote's book and a good artistic gambit all around, Brooks does not show the murders at the beginning; instead, he shows the two killers pulling up to the Clutter house as the last light goes out, then cuts to the next morning and the horrifying discovery of the bodies. Only during the ride back to Kansas, when Blake is questioned by Forsythe and narrates the story, do we see the true horror of what happened that night. We don't see that much blood being spilled in these scenes, but we don't need to. The shotgun blasts and the horrified look on the Clutters' faces as they know they are about to die are more than disturbing enough, so there is no need to resort to explicitly bloody slasher-film violence.

Brooks wisely filmed IN COLD BLOOD in stark black-and-white, and the results are excellent thanks to Conrad Hall's expertise. The chilling jazz score by Quincy Jones is the capper. The end result is one of the most unsettling films of any kind ever made, devastating in its own low-key fashion. It is a 134-minute study of a crime that shook an entire state and indeed an entire nation, and should be seen, though viewer discretion is advised; the 'R' rating is there for a reason.

Sentiment: positive
Talk about a dream cast - just two of the most wonderful actors who ever appeared anywhere - Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith - together - in "Hot Millions," a funny, quirky comedy also starring Karl Malden, Robert Morley, and Bob Newhart. Ustinov is an ex-con embezzler who gets the resume of a talented computer programmer (Morley) and takes a position in a firm run by Malden - with the goal of embezzlement in mind. It's not smooth sailing; he has attracted the attention of his competitor at the company, played by Newhart, and his neighbor, Maggie Smith (who knows him at their place of residence under another name), becomes his secretary for a brief period. She can't keep a job and she is seen throughout the film in a variety of employment - all ending with her being fired. When Newhart makes advances to her, she invites Ustinov over to her flat for curry as a cover-up, but the two soon decide they're made for each other. Of course, she doesn't know Ustinov is a crook.

This is such a good movie - you can't help but love Ustinov and Smith and be fascinated by Ustinov's machinations, his genius, and the ways he slithers out of trouble. But there's a twist ending that will show you who really has the brains. Don't miss this movie, set in '60s London. It's worth if it only to hear Maggie Smith whine, "I've been sacked."

Sentiment: positive
On the night of his bachelor party, Paul Coleman (Jason Lee) meets the gorgeous dancer Becky (Julia Stiles) in the bar, they drink a lot together and in the next morning, he wakes up with her on the bed. His future mother-in-law calls him and informs that his fiancée Karen (Selma Blair) might be arriving in his apartment, and he desperately asks Becky to leave his place in a hurry. Sooner, he finds that her has crabs, and later, in the preparation of his wedding dinner party, he realizes that Becky is the cousin of Karen. This is the beginning of a very funny comedy, with hilarious situations. The first attraction of this movie certainly is the central trio of actresses and actor. Julia Stiles and Selma Blair, who are excellent actresses and extremely gorgeous, and Jason Lee, who is amazingly funny, have good performances. I laughed a lot along the story, but there are some scenes that are really hilarious. For example, when Paul finds Becky in his bed; when he finds her paints; his imagination in many situations; in the drugstore, trying to buy and get explanations about the crab medicine; most of the scenes of his neighbor, the minister; when Karen calls the department store; or when the police finds a suspect of assaulting Paul. I could number many other scenes, but better off the reader rent or buy this movie and have lots of fun. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil):"Louco Por Elas" ("Crazy For Them")

Sentiment: positive
*review may contain spoilers*

predictable, campy, bad special effects. it has a TV-movie feeling to it. the idea of the UN as being taken over by Satan is an interesting twist to the end of the world according to the bible. the premise is interesting, but its excution falls waaaay short. if you want to convert people to Christianity with a film like this, at least make it a quality one! i was seriously checking my watch while watching this piece of dreck. can't say much else about this film since i saw it over a year ago, and there isn't really much to say about this film other than.....skip it!

Sentiment: negative
Boyle Heights, Los Angeles: legendary South American goat-sucking vampire, El Chupacabra, is on the loose, feeding on anyone unlucky enough to cross its path. Animal control officer Navarro (Eric Alegria) and Chupacabra expert/author Starlina Divide (Elina Madison) attempt to track down the creature, but find their progress hampered by a pair of dumb cops, money hungry locals keen to capture the beast for a fat reward, and a couple of nefarious scientists who want the monster for their experiments.

Stinking higher than a two-week-old taco, El Chupacabra is an incredibly bad horror movie that even fans of incredibly bad horror movies might struggle to sit through. With its dreadful script, awful direction (by not one, but two talentless hacksBrennon Jones and Paul Wynne), laughable dialogue, and some of the worst acting this side of a porn flick, I recommend this film about as much as I do drinking the tap water in Mexico.

As Navarro and Starlina proceed with their investigations, viewers are treated to some incredibly weak gore, the worst designed book jacket in history, the most unconvincing dead person I've seen since the blinking corpse in Dr. Butcher MD, and a high-tech computerised security system consisting of a keyboard nailed to a post.

To be fair, for a guy in a rubber suit, the monster itself is fairly creepy (hairy, with big claws, and a face like a particularly ugly bat), but its appearances are few and far between, with more screen time spent on the tedious trials and tribulations of whiney Officer Navarro than on the killer antics of the titular creature (just how many times is it necessary to see Navarro handing in paperwork to his bitchy boss?).

If, like me, you make the mistake of wasting your hard-earned cash on this dreadful latino bilge (in my case, it was a whole 50p), consider using the disc as a coaster for your tequila rather than actually watching it.

Sentiment: negative
In the third entry of the Phantasm series, Mike and Reggie continue chasing the Tall Man, assisted by a trigger-happy 9 year old, a black G.I. Jane and the spirit of Mike's deceased brother (he died in the original Phantasm). Number 3 is a rather disappointing sequel, since the gore and black comedy is a lot less inspired and exciting as it was in Phantasm II. I got the feeling the stress was merely laid on Reggie's incompetence as a lover and his talent as stand-up comedian. The humor in the previous film was a lot more dry and oppressed, which fits a story like this better. Also, the settings aren't as macabre here, plus the constant presence of the Tall Man (Agnus Schrim) isn't as obvious There still is plenty of gore but not half as satisfying this time. By the way, beware for the severely cut version as it shows most delightful killings off-screen. The entire Phantasm series is the lifetime achievement of Don Coscarelli, who wrote and directed 4 episodes so farthe fifth being in production. The first one is a semi-cult classic, the second is a horror-feast of gore and violence and the rest can easily be skipped. A. Michael Baldwin returns as Mike, even though James LeGros portrayed his character a lot better in Phantasm II.

Sentiment: negative
OK, maybe it doesn't deserve an Oscar. Or a Golden Globe. Or any award, for that matter. The acting isn't outstanding, there's no reason to give credits to the directing, and its really just another semi-gory 21st century slasher flick that MOST people will consider just decent. Or maybe even dreadful. But in my opinion, all of this doesn't matter a bit. And thats because i had a great time watching this movie.

Sure, the first 40 minutes are pretty slow, but as the movie progresses, something in it you will like, if you are like I was, and anybody else should be when watching this movie. And that is: looking for 2 hours of fun, mindless violence. (And a kick-ass ending, which i won't spoil.) Yes, there are many flaws in this movie, but don't let the cast list on the front cover fool you. Hilton delivers a decent performance that nobody saw coming. Even her greatest haters like me and my friends had to agree that she surprised us greatly with her barely believable acting skills and a strip-tease that wasn't as nasty as anything an online pop-up would promise of her, but still not so unbearable as to fast-forward or turn off the DVD.

The violence in this surprised me; nobody at school or on the horror board was talking about it like they were about "these new movies called 'Saw' and 'Hostel'" but I could safely say that "Wax" was more graphic than Saw, and some death scenes were actually quite disturbing.

In conclusion, I'm not surprised House of Wax didn't make a place on the IMDb Top 250, but it is definitely worth a look.

Sentiment: positive
You will marvel at the incredibly sophisticated computer animation, and the novelty probably won't wear off on the first, second or third viewing, but you?ll be drawn in by the characters which are so simple yet intriguing, that you may find yourself actually caring for them in an unexpected way, which may or may not make you feel a little childish due to the medium.

Disney continues to firmly hold the title of "Greatest Animation in the World", with "A Bug?s Life" standing as one of their greatest achievements. One of the innovative attachments being the delightful "out-takes" added to the end of the film. The DVD has two sets of these out-takes where as I?m told the VHS cassette has one alternating version per tape. The DVD also features "Gerry?s Game" which is a delightful little PIXAR short that was also shown prior to the film in theaters.

This is by far the superior insect-film in comparison to Dreamworks? "Antz", which in all fairness is pretty good, but lacks something in the animation and in the story development and characters. If you look at the star voices of both films, "Antz" is largely cast with big name "movie" stars with a few familiar "TV" star voices, where "A Bug?s Life" is just the opposite, loaded with "TV" stars with Kevin Spacey as the only stand out exception. But the difference in quality is distinct and obvious.

Dreamworks can?t be blamed or surprised though, when you go head to head with Disney, you have your work cut out for you. This is the kind of film that almost makes me wish I had children to share it with. Don?t think for a second that this is just a movie for kids, though.

Sentiment: positive
Martin Ritt seems to be a director who was always interested in social issues (as the son of immigrants, he had every incentive to be so, especially since he was blacklisted in the '50s). "Conrack" is based on Pat Conroy's novel "The Water is Wide", about his own experience in 1969 teaching a school of impoverished black children about the outside world, much to the chagrin of the right-wing superintendent (Hume Cronyn). What added to the movie's strength was the cultural and historical context: Conroy (Jon Voight) frustratedly tells another teacher how many of the children don't know about Paul Newman, Sidney Poitier, the Vietnam War, or even where Vietnam is. He proceeds to enlighten them about all these factors.

Somewhere, I read a complaint that when Conroy played music for the children, he only played white music. The truth is, you can't blame the movie for that; it was based on Conroy's real experience. Either way, the movie's a real gem.

Sentiment: positive
NYC model Alison Parker (Cristina Raines) rents a room in an old brownstone where she meets a few bizarre neighbors and experiences some creepy hallucinations. As lawyer boyfriend Michael Lerman (Chris Sarandon) goes about making inquiries on her behalf, she struggles to maintain her sanity (not to mention her will to live) as her experiences take a toll on her physical, mental, and emotional health.

I don't want to spoil the better moments in this psychological horror film for those unfamiliar with it. The story is interesting and entertaining, but the film doesn't really offer much in terms of real scares. Or, for that matter, any atmosphere. It is sort of quietly sinister, but it's not like the traditional horror film. It's more of a story about a troubled woman's attempts to deal with the increasing unreality in her life. On that level, it works, but it's not quite powerful enough.

What "The Sentinel" *does* offer are some eye-catching set pieces (in particular, the fascinating, fabulously creepy climax, and there's a scene with Beverly D'Angelo that must be seen to be believed). There's also some gore to be seen, but not very much. An ominous music score by Gil Melle adds to the menace.

No review of this film would be complete without an appraisal for the film-makers in gathering such excellent actors for its ensemble cast. Some of them don't get to do too much, but to see all of them together is impressive. Eli Wallach and Burgess Meredith make the biggest impressions as, respectively, a hard-nosed detective and a solicitous neighbor. Other legendary names include Jose Ferrer, Arthur Kennedy, and Ava Gardner. Future stars like D'Angelo, Christopher Walken, Tom Berenger, Jeff Goldblum make brief appearances, and other familiar faces include Jerry Orbach, Sylvia Miles, William Hickey, and Martin Balsam. Whoever was the casting director for this film deserves some sort of prize.

Written for the screen by director Michael Winner, probably best known for the "Death Wish" series that he did with Charles Bronson, from the novel by Jeffrey Konvitz.

I wouldn't consider this a truly great horror thriller but it has its moments and is reasonably entertaining.

7/10

Sentiment: positive
This is the least scary film i have ever seen. How the blob manages to eat anyone is the biggest mystery of the film. The blob moves so slowly that an o.a.p in a zimmerframe could escape it. The blob has a large slice of luck coming across a typical horror film woman who instead of running away stands still for half an hour so that she can be eaten. If you havent seen this film i recommend you do, its far too funny to be taken seriously.

Sentiment: negative
black tar can't be snorted there's a documentary: dark end of the street about s.f. street punks and b.t. abuse - not bad - quite heavy. in wasted there's this stuff that looks like coke but should be something else... no big deal. black tar can't be snorted there's a documentary: dark end of the street about s.f. street punks and b.t. abuse - not bad - quite heavy. in wasted there's this stuff that looks like coke but should be something else... no big deal. black tar can't be snorted there's a documentary: dark end of the street about s.f. street punks and b.t. abuse - not bad - quite heavy. in wasted there's this stuff that looks like coke but should be something else... no big deal.

Sentiment: positive
This is a pretty interesting experiment to watch. It's the first ever, still existing attempt, to unite sight with sound. It features two men dancing to a violin player (possibly William K.L. Dickson himself), who is standing next to an Edison recording cylinder, that is capturing the sound.

The sound and images were not linked together as one yet. And it wasn't until recently that the sound and image have been added technically together. It's probably the reason why people hesitate to call this movie the first ever sound picture.

The movie is made by William K.L. Dickson, a assistant to Thomas Edison himself who ordered him to come up with a way to unite pictures and sound. The answer he provided was the Kinetophone, a Kinetoscope (basicly a large wooden box with a peephole in it, so people could watch the moving images) with a cylinder phonograph inside of it, for the sound. This is the first, that we know off, surviving movie-experiments that feature this technique. All of the later movies using this same technique were shot as silent movies and sound effects were recorded later and separately. So the Kinephone was not an attempt to synchronize sound and images but more an attempt to have images accompanied by sound. In some cases, people could even choose from three sound cylinders, featuring 3 different orchestral performances to accompany the images. Only 45 Kinetophones were ever made so you could hardly call the Kinephone a success. Also after this experiment, focus went off to other cinema techniques, mainly regarding movie-projectors.

So the experiment itself obviously did not become a success, also since it took over 30 more years before the first movies with sound were made and commercially released. They just couldn't yet technically synchronize and put the sound and the images together yet at the time and even if they could and techniques would had been available, it would had been a very expensive job to do so. It therefor really isn't the most influential or historically important movies out of cinematic history but it's very interesting to watch, how people constantly tried to improve the quality and techniques of early cinema and movie-making.

8/10

Sentiment: positive
Better than the typical made-for-tv movie, INVITATION TO HELL is blessed with excellent casting (Urich, Lucci, Cassidy, McCarthy, pre-Murphy Brown Joe Regalbuto, Soleil Moon-Frye) and a high concept update to the familiar Faustian plot. Urich is likable as always and Lucci is particularly fetching and devilishly over the top in the mother of all femme fatale roles. Kind of a hybrid version of STEPFORD WIVES and THEY LIVE, the movie commits early to its apocalyptic Miltonesque vision and horror fans will likely not have many complaints until the soppy, maudlin denoument. 7/10

Sentiment: positive
Clouzot followed Le Corbeau, where no one knew who was penning the poison thus everyone was suspected, with another masterpiece, Quai des Orfevres four years later in which we know from the outset (or think we do) whodunnit. Top-billed Louis Jouvet doesn't appear for forty minutes by which time Clouzot has established a rich milieu of Music Hall, music publishers, etc and a fine cast of colourful characters; Angela Lansbury lookalike (Lansbury appeared in Woman of Paris that same year) Suzy Delair scores as the chanteuse whose desire to improve her lot inspires the jealousy of her husband/accompanist Bernard Blier who follows her to the home of an elderly letch only to find he is already dead. From here things go seriously wrong, his car is stolen before he leaves the premises so his pre-arranged alibi is out the window whilst meanwhile, unknown to him, his wife confesses to the murder to the photographer neighbour, a closet lesbian in love with her, who volunteers to return to the crime scene and retrieve Delair's scarf and as long as she's there,thoughtfully wipes her prints of the murder weapon, a champagne bottle. At this point investigator Jouvet gets involved and from then on it's a case of keeping the plates spinning in the air. Clouzot's output was relatively small but virtually all of it was, as Spencer Tracey said in another context, 'cherce', with Le Salaire de peur and Les Diaboliques still to come. In short this is a must for French cinema buffs.

Sentiment: positive
one of my favorite lines in Shakespeare.

i.e. *we're not finished with you by a long shot* so not only does Shylock not get his pound of flesh, or the 3,000 or the 6,000 or the 36,000 (each of the 6 parts were a ducat) ducats, in a matter of minutes he is ruined by having to forfeit all his possessions. and his daughter has long abandoned him already.

vengeance is a dish best served cold. but Shylock's attempt at revenge totally backfires. 

I suspect this play was and is popular because it caters to the wish we have for justice. but the hard reality is the world is engulfed in injustice and most of it stands. a few big names get tossed in jail, sme gang punks lose their turf to the 'good guys' but in reality most of the time it's the other way around.

but not in this play. the long howls of racism and antisemitism forgets that it could well have been any other social outcast group that gets the comeuppance, it's just that the money lenders of the time were Jews and therefore the needs of the story line puts Shylock the Jew into the role of villain.

Merchant of Venice is my 3rd favorite work by Shakespeare, 1 and 2 being Hamlet and Macbeth. this production gives excellent treatment of the moral of the story. the scenes with the suitors alone is worth watching. also the awkwardness of the new husbands squirming and minimizing the fact they let the rings so easily slip away that they had sworn to keep forever. in real life, this trick is the thing that spouses coyly use to remind their better half that promises MUST mean something and not be made frivolously. there is far deeper significance to this play than just the comedy/dramatic aspect. it is about loyalty, commitment, and love.

well worth watching over and over.

Sentiment: positive
I was blown away when I saw "The Best Years of Our Lives". The acting, script, and Master William Wyler's Direction(winner of Best Director in 1946)is Brilliant.

This film is about three WWII veterans who come home from the war and are reunited with their loved ones, but have to deal with the hardships of coming home from the war.

The first man Al Stephenson(Played by Fredric March in his Oscar winning role) comes home to find his wife Millie(played by Myrna Loy) and children Peggy and Rob(played by Teresa Wright and Michael Hall) are more grown up and different than before he left for the war.

The second man Fred Derry(played by Dana Andrews) has to find a good job and come home to a wife he had only been married to 20 days before he left for the war. He begins to find out that she is not the same.

Homer Parish(played by Harold Russell in his Oscar winning role)has lost his hands in the war and must deal with his family's and fiance' Wilma's(played by Cathy O'Donnell) reactions to the hooks he has instead of his hands.

All of these men and their families are reunited in the film in different scenes. The stories of these men are all interwoven beautifully together.

This film truly defines the meaning of a "Classic". This unforgettable drama(winner of best picture in 1946) is a film that everyone should see.

If I was asked to pick a favorite film this would be it!

Out of 10 I would give "The Best Years of Our Lives" An 10.

So next time you go to your local video store rent this movie you won't regret it!

NO objectionable material a good family film.

Sentiment: positive