DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
The only reason I know this film exists is because I wanted to see what Nancy McKeon had been up to since The Facts of Life ended. When I searched her name, up came this relatively new TV movie. After much investigation I managed to locate a copy & was thoroughly disappointed with what I viewed. D Grade acting, poor script, terrible FX - it was like watching a toned down, more stupefied version of Day After Tomorrow that went for 3 hours. Despite the long running time the characters remain fairly under-developed, we do not care about them in the slightest & in most cases are longing for their demise. Combine that with terrible lighting & cinematography & you have a real disaster of a film. How they con-viced so many "name" actors (i.e Dianne Weist, Randy Quaid, Brian Dennehy) to appear in such trash is mind-blowing. In summary - I want those 3 hours of my life back!!!

Sentiment: negative
Eaten Alive follows a young woman (Janet Agren) who searches for her lost sister. Turns out her sister have joined a sect that has disappeared into the jungles of Borneo. With Vietnam veteran Mark at her side she sets off to find her sister.

As per usual, the acting isn't of the highest quality but you do get cannibal flick poster girl Me Me Lai spending most of the time on screen with her breast bare, female lead Janet Agren covered in gold paint and abused with a dildo dipped in snake blood among other things. Now that's gotta count for something! 

But, I must say that I find it bit hard to recommend this title. If you are fan of the genre, you will most likely recognize every gore scene in the movie bar a select few. And I mean that literally. A lot of the gore scenes are lifted straight out other Cannibal movies, like MAN FROM DEEP RIVER and LAST CANNIBAL WORLD. There's probably more movies stuck in there.

Ultimately, this is one for die-hard fans to check off their list. If you haven't seen any Italian jungle movies, you'd be better off watching CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST and if you're an avid fan, you have seen most of the gore scenes in other movies.

Sentiment: negative
Jim McKay has made one of the best films you will see all year.The quiet simplicity of this film draws you in from the opening shot and never lets go.There is not one false note in the entire film.Not one.Everything works.The hand-held camera is never distracting and always where it should be.The three young ladies whose lives we follow are always real.There isn't a single beat where the audience is reminded we are looking at actresses performing a role.These are just real girls trying to find themselves.There is no political agenda,hidden or otherwise.This is cinema at its most basic,and although it will probably only be seen by a handful of movie-goers,it deserves a much wider release.A special hats off to Hugh Hefner for providing the film-makers with the grant money needed to get this important film made.I can't wait to see what Mr. McKay does next.

Sentiment: positive
The title of this obscure and (almost righteously) forgotten 80's slasher inevitably reminds me of The Cure's mega-smash-monster hit song with the same title, hence a piece of the lyrics in the title-section of this user comment. Also, I didn't have anything else to say that was useful, anyway. But hey, "The Forest" isn't totally hopeless and not even *that* bad, actually. If nothing else, at least it obeys the, admittedly unwritten, first rule of 80's slasher: kill someone within the first 10 minutes of playtime. Sure you've heard about the basic premise of this film a dozen times before, but don't let that discourage you from watching it, as "The Forest" has a couple of things more to offer than just an appealingly sinister cover image. It's actually a bit of an atypical 80's slasher! The main characters aren't ordinary brainless teenagers and the script has solid ambitions towards supernaturalism. The concept isn't always successful, let alone plausible, but it's more than interesting enough to hold your attention and there are even are a couple of surprisingly strong moments of tension and plot twists to enjoy. Two married couples decide to go camping in the most isolated woods of California, but due to a stupid bet the wives travel separately from their husbands. Barely set up for the night, they receive uncanny visits from a mother looking for her two children, the children themselves and finally the father who's out hunting for human flesh. The demented family may be real or imaginary, but the women are definitely in danger and by the time their husbands arrive, they have already vanished. The men too encounter the family, and they find out more about the slightly dysfunction background. "The Forest" is a weird and unusual film, to say the least. It's not exactly a masterpiece of plotting, but the thoroughly strange atmosphere will certainly appeal to open-minded fans of 80's horror. The murders are fairly gruesome and will-filmed, including a slit throat and a painful saw-massacre, and the filming locations are stunningly beautiful. The more you contemplate about the story and its abrupt twists, the less it makes any sense, so my advice would just be to enjoy this odd viewing experience for as long as it lasts and not a minute longer. The acting performances are just above average, the music is okay and at least director Donald Jones (also responsible for the 70's exploitation-sickie "Schoolgirls in Chains") tried to be a little more creative that the majority of 80's horror films. Too bad it ultimately fails.

Sentiment: negative
While the film has one redeeming feature, namely some striking shots e.g. the shot of the sheep hanging from the tree, the scene of the funeral procession on the raft, or the scene of the boats leaving the village (which seemed influenced by the scene when the warships approach in the fantastic "Fellini Satyricon"), these were more photographic than cinematographic, and would have been better appreciated hung on a wall in an art gallery than embedded in a painfully slow-paced film that comes in at a whopping 162 minutes and suffers from terrible dialogue, extremely poor character development, over-acting, uninspired symbolism and heavy stylisation. This is the first film I have seen by Angelopoulos, and his reputation having preceded him, I expected a lot better, but can honestly say that this is one of the worst films I've ever seen, and I won't go out of my way to watch any of the director's other work in the future. The four friends I went to see it with agree.

Sentiment: negative
This film has special effects which for it's time are very impressive. Some if it is easily explainable with the scenes played backwards but the overlay of moving images on an object on film is surprisingly well done given that this film was made more than 94 years ago.

Sentiment: positive
This can hardly be called a good movie, actually it's not even close. But I have to say, that there was a few things that made me... not laugh, not giggle, but something like that. The Resovoir Dogs parody was one of them. The rest are not important enough to be remembered.

To be honest, I was a little disappointed by this movie. The plot sounded like an idea, but it quickly fell to the ground. The whole thing was just to messy and the actors where not good for the characters; most of them simply overacted. There was also a whole lot of unessecary sequences, that was a total waste of film. I do realize that it would make the movie about 20 min shorter, but it would only make it better.

Now, with the good and the bad things lined up, let's go to the conclusion: two out of six toilet seats up for this one.

Sentiment: negative
I happened to rent this movie with my sister in hopes of watching a great entertaining movie, that was humorous, however my expectations were let down. This movie was beyond disgusting and revolting for a PG-13 movie, this should have been rated R for the many mature references that went on in this movie. I wouldn't recommend allowing a 13 year old teen see this.

Even if no one under the age of 17 is watching this movie, beware of a truly stupid movie, there's no humor in the movie, just a bunch of disgusting sexual references including a small touch of pedophilia, something that shouldn't even be joked about. 

I would like to know what happened to PG-13 movies, that were actually safe for actual a 13 year old? This is beyond a deplorable movie and should be re-rated.

Sentiment: negative
There is no real story the film seems more like a fly on the wall drama-documentary than a proper film so this piece may in itself be a spoiler. Teen drama about 3 young Singaporean kids (very similar to UK chavs) who play truant from school, run with gangs, get into fights, insult people on the street, get tattoos, hang about doing nothing, etc. etc, They generally imagine themselves to be hard and every so often shout challenging rap chants into the camera. Filmed in MTV style, fast cuts, crazy camera angles, tight close ups and animation interludes. The dialogue might have been crisper in the original languages of Mandarin and Hokkien than in the subtitles and I have no doubt that some of the contemporary Singapore references will slip over Western heads as well as the cultural and political context unless of course you are familiar with Singapore. This kind of teen film may be a first for Singapore but it has been done before and done better in other Western countries, La Haine (1995) for example.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is not so good as I thought it would be. There is no story whatsoever, no characters and some dialog would have been nice. The gore effects are good and it gets quite bloody at times but nothing over the top. It starts with an autopsy on a man and when that is over the scene with the girl starts. The music is a classic score and fits the movie very well. They should have made a 90 minutes version in which they could have had some time for character development so we can feel sorry for the person on the autopsy table. And some more info about the morticians would have made this movie far scarier than it is. Don't expect a scary movie but a nice, gory special effects reel.

Sentiment: negative
...now please move on because that's getting on my nerves.

Seriously, the man behind brilliant pieces like "My Own Private Idaho" and "To Die For" (and others not so brilliant movies, i.e. the unnecessary "Psycho" remake) started an experimental phase with "Gerry", which reached its peak with the thought-provoking "Elephant". "Last Days" had some interesting aspects but was very uneven, while "Paranoid Park", his new film, also has good-looking 15 year-olds walking around... and not much else. Some cool references to Fellini (the soundtrack reuses some beautiful pieces by Nino Rota) and the elegant cinematography by the legendary Christopher Doyle ("In the Mood for Love") are the highlights, but the movie is just too artsy-fartsy and meaningless for its own doom. We've had much better coming of age stories, and "Paranoid Park" brings nothing new. I don't see anything artistic about seeing excessive shots of Gabe Nevins in his underwear or showering. Or when Nevins and 13 year-old Taylor Momsen (the little girl from "How the Grinch Stole Christmas"), who plays his cheerleading girlfriend, have sex for the first time, just because she felt like they had to do it and after they're done, she calls her friend to say how amazing it was (and you can say from Nevins' face how traumatic it was). Everybody knows that they're starting earlier and earlier nowadays, movies like "Thirteen" and even "Elephant" itself (which shows how lost their minds are in general, not only when it comes to sexuality) have done a better portrayal of that. Gus tries to be minimalist and artistic, but the final result is just boring and uninteresting. His next project, "Milk", a biopic about Harvey Milk starring Sean Penn, will, hopefully, bring the good old Gus back, because, frankly, this obsession over underage kids is almost... creepy. 4.5/10.

Sentiment: negative
Frownland is like one of those intensely embarrassing situations where you end up laughing out loud at exactly the wrong time; and just at the moment you realize you shouldn't be laughing, you've already reached the pinnacle of voice resoundness; and as you look around you at the ghostly white faces with their gaping wide-open mouths and glazen eyes, you feel a piercing ache beginning in the pit of your stomach and suddenly rushing up your throat and... well, you get the point.

But for all its unpleasantness and punches in the face, Frownland, really is a remarkable piece of work that, after viewing the inarticulate mess of a main character and all his pathetic troubles and mishaps, makes you want to scratch your own eyes out and at the same time, you feel sickenly sorry for him.

It would have been a lot easier for me to simply walk out of Ronald Bronstein's film, but for some insane reason, I felt an unwavering determination to stay the course and experience all the grainy irritation the film has to offer. If someone sets you on fire, you typically want to put it out: Stop! Drop! And Roll! But with this film, you want to watch the flame slowly engulf your entire body. You endure the pain--perhaps out of spite, or some unknown masochistic curiosity I can't even begin to attempt to explain.

Unfortunately, mainstream cinema will never let this film come to a theater near you. But if you get a chance to catch it, prepare yourself: bring a doggie bag.

Sentiment: positive
Into a happy household comes the gypsy girl, played by Myrna Loy. With her amazingly wild hair and voice that sounds very high-pitched and weird, it's hard to believe this is Loy!! She bears no similarity whatsoever to the refined and funny character Nora Charles who she played in the Thin Man movies. Instead, she overacts so badly that you'd almost expect her to be in an Ed Wood movie. What a huge difference a few years made in the quality films she got as well as her acting ability!! On top of the horrendously silly character, the film also fails because it just isn't interesting or exciting--just very, very stagy and stupid. The only thing good about it is the Vitaphone sound system--making the sound quality of this turkey about the best I have heard from 1929. Heck, it was even better than most 1930 films, so the sound technician at least has something to be proud of--all others, forget it.

This is a movie that even the host of Turner Classic Movies referred to as a "guilty pleasure" because the movie is so bad! And, after having seen it I disagree...slightly. The movie is simply bad.

Sentiment: negative
86 wasted minutes of my life. I fell asleep the first time I attempted watching it, and I must say I'm not one to ever fall asleep in the cinema.

I have never seen such a pointless plot acted in such a stilted and forced manner, and can only surmise that the actors were as hard-up as the protagonist writer allegedly was in the film itself.

Everything in this dire adaptation is overacted. And if it isn't the wooden acting, almost as though you can see the teleprompter, then the set itself, which is overlit and interfering in utterly unnecessary ways, and overdressed to an unimaginable extent, is enough to put you off the entire farce.

As to the supposed shock of a detective under disguise, any person who does not see that - as well as the entire rest of this ludicrous plot - telegraphed light years in advance, should check their eyesight immediately.

Bad acting, and from two very decent actors, coupled with the hyper-coddled Branagh trademark overdirection, is enough to make you want to use real bullets rather than blanks yourself.

On top of it all, there is a completely risible undertone of homoerotica in this, heightened towards the end of it. All I can hope for is that this was such a flop that people shan't try to emulate this level of cinema ever again.

Sentiment: negative
Ah, here it is! A movie, which is said by people to remind me of the epic "Trainspotting". OUCH, was I a fool to believe that, and OUCH, how my buttocks hurt after having forced myself to watch this c**p from beginning to end. After the first 10-15 minutes I just wanted it all to end, or at least they could've put some nudity or action or cool acid house music into it to make it worth the time... But no, when I was through with it, i put it into my CD shelf and I hope I will never have to pick it out again just to show it to some friend who is so anxious to see it that he/she don't want to listen to my warnings.

Sentiment: negative
*** REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SOME SPOILERS *** I'll make this review short and sweet. I bought this movie from Best Buy because it sounded interested and had some top actors in it like Kevin Spacey and Morgan Freeman. How bad could it be, right? Well, it's pretty bad. Justin Timberlake plays Pollack, a wannabe journalist who stumbles across a case that may lead to corrupt cops at Edison's Police Force. LL Cool J is Deed, a cop within the force on a special force team called F.R.A.T. (First Response Assault Tactics). He's teamed with an "on-the-edge" bad cop named Lazerov (Dylan McDermott). In the opening scene we see Lazerov & Deed taking on some bank robbers, but at night they are busting a couple of guys doing drugs. I don't want to give to much away, but things turn bad for the guys doing the drugs. Pollack, who works for Ashford (Morgan Freeman) goes to a trial involving Deeds & Lazerov. He suspect foul play and with the help of Ashford, does some investigate that turns ugly. Wallace (Kevin Spacey) who is all within the F.R.A.T. team joins with Ashford to try to bring the corrupt cops to justice.

You can tell from the beginning that Freeman and Spacey's performance are pretty lackluster. The only person that give a all out performance is Dylan McDermott. He is a complete nut case in this movie and made a believer out of me. LL Cool J is terrible in this film. He says every line the same way and shows pretty much the same emotion. He was much better in movies like Deep Blue Sea & Any Given Sunday. The film starts off with some nice action but then drags it feet through the rest of the film. The ending is far from satisfying.

Don't waste your time with this film. I'm putting it on Ebay this weekend.

Sentiment: negative
First time I ever felt I needed to write a review.

I have seen thousands of movies in my life and I like a wide range of movies. I am reasonably opened minded, and can easily say I enjoyed a movie while still saying "yeah it was not good but I enjoyed it". I can appreciate the mastery of great movies like The Shaw shank redemption, the godfather, and American history X. I can like good movies in a genre like horror, or comedy, even if the movie might not be that great. I can even enjoy a bad movie that just happens to entertain me (Bloodsport). I also will try to rate movie fairly even if I did not like it. City lights by Charlie Chapin was not a movie I enjoyed, but I can appreciate the acting and story lines for the time.

I think some people when they go on this site instead of randomly click a rating, should take a few ideas into account. Try to rate the movie based on how good it actually was. Do not let your personal bias affect the rating. Also look at other moves you rated and compare the movie you are going to rate.

This "movie" was the worst piece of trash I have ever seen. 2 hours of my life where just stolen. The acting was awful, across the board. The scenes where choppy at best. However the real disgrace was the story. The first 20 minutes we actually had a story that tried to make sense and take the viewer from point A to B. However after that it was a nightmare. They kept trying to add new elements but nothing was every explained. Nothing really ever made sense, was steward dead, is he alive, did he hit by lighting, was it really lighting, was it aliens, is he an alien, etc. The ending tied nothing together and really did not answer any questions. The only positive was nobody cared we where just happy to leave the theater.

6.5/10??? What is wrong with some of you? I will admit that the 8 of us where so mad about seeing this, we did think "what would make it better?", and we decide to tell a few of our friends that this movie was good so they would have to suffer and see this movie. What can I say misery loves company. That is really the only reason I can see for a 6.5 rating.

Do not waste your life!

Sentiment: negative
One of the movies i just DIDN'T want to see. I got it in the sneak-preview, but damn, the acting was very bad! At the end of the movie (i still am surprised i watched the whole movie..) i wondered why i watched the movie.

Also here in the netherlands, the writer of this movie (it's filmed from a book of Giphart) thought it was very bad, and was disappointed that his movie came out like this. Next time he wants a role in choosing people for the cast.

Sentiment: negative
Kazuo Komizu strikes again with "Entrails of a Beautiful Woman", the sequel to "Entrails of a Virgin". This time around the story is based around a psychologist (Megumi Ozawa) who decides to take on the Yakuza to avenge the suicide of a doped-up and raped patient that winds up on her doorstep one day. When she gets over her head and the Yakuza capture her, she learns their insidious plat of doping up girls and selling them into slavery. It apparently ends badly when she overdoses from the cocaine. But she soon melds with another body to be disposed of to becomedum, dum, dum  "Super Slime Hermaphrodite Zord"! This he, she = it makes mince meat out of the yakuza and saves the daynot really.

Well it is better than "Entrails of a Virgin", but not by much. Most of the film (a whopping 67 minutes) consists of rape and sex with fogging and the usual ho-hum stuff. Almost towards the end we finally get our gore groove on with a few cool sequence (like an Alien-inspired penis-monster through the stomach scene and a gooey asphyxiation) but it still suffers from a hyper low budget feel that makes it fun but can't elevate it from z-grade soft horror-core fare.

Sentiment: positive
This is one of the many Techno-phobic movies that sprouted like mushrooms in the mid-90s, after the Internet went mainstream.

Hollywood movies have always had their way in "beautifying" the depicted ongoings, to make them look better and more appealing. The same happens when Hollywood tries to show us some hi-tech. The outcome of such attempts varies from being very far-fetched and ridiculous (see Hackers (1995), Johnny Mnemonic (1995), etc.) to being quite realistic (see Sneakers (1992)).

"The Net" lies somewhere between those extremes. By nitpicking, one can end up with quite a lot of technical inconsistencies, and a lot of cases where the ongoings seem to be much more "sexy" and graphical than the way things are in real life (as usually happens in movies).

However, by simply overlooking those, the viewer ends up with a quite solid, entertaining movie. The characters and acting are convincing, and the movie does a good job in keeping you in your seat till the end of it. The plot is okay (a fairly standard one, really -- based on the good ol' paranoiac design, but with a hi-tech edge this time), and quite convincing (again, when disregarding technical issues). The development of the plot is a bit sluggish, though, and occasionally you can anticipate some supposedly surprising turns in the plot.

The bonus here is cutie-pie Sandra Bullock, which besides being cute (something she does quite easily, apparently), also portrays a solid act. You can really feel her character -- her despair, her emotions.

In the bottom line, the movie is entertaining and interesting, rates about 7 from 10 in my scale. It's worth renting from the video library, or even watching in the cinema. Whether to buy it or not is up to you.

Sentiment: positive
This picture reminds me of a Keneth More picture from 1957 called The Admirable Crighton" whilst on the boat he was a servant and on the island he became the master and upon being saved reverted back to servant. Madonna did OK in some movies however this one doesn't fire. If there is any picture that show Madonna can't act it is this one.

I am not sure whether this was a subtle copy of "The Admirable Crighton" but it sure looks like it and if thats the case then Hollywood must be running out of ideas and that is sad. to provide a platform for actors to improve their career profile and just on that this fails in every corner and detail.

The plot is loose and the acting is mediocre. The script should have been put thru the shredder before taking it on location. While many here have canned Madoona for all her acting I think that in films like "A League of Their own" was quite good and enjoyable and "Who's That Girl" showed a quirkiness of Madonna's style not shown before or afterwards. Other Madonna films are not as enjoyable and I would have liked a to see a Madonna Animation series with the character from "Who's That Girl" I like the music from these two films however "Swept away" remains at the bottom of the pile here and will remain so.

everyone has a bomb right?

Sentiment: negative
Dirty Harry goes to Atlanta is what Burt called this fantastic, first-rate detective thriller that borrows some of its plot from the venerable Dana Andrews movie "Laura." Not only does Burt Reynolds star in this superb saga but he also helmed it and he doesn't make a single mistake either staging the action or with his casting of characters. Not a bad performance in the movie and Reynolds does an outstanding job of directing it. Henry Silva is truly icy as a hit-man.

Detective Tom Sharky (Burt Reynolds) is on a narcotics case in underground Atlanta when everything goes wrong. He winds up chasing a suspect and shooting it out with the gunman on a bus. During the melee, an innocent bystander dies. John Woo's "The Killer" replicates this scene. Anyway, the Atlanta Police Department busts Burt down to Vice and he takes orders from a new boss, Frisco (Charles Durning of "Oh, Brother, Where Art Thou?") in the basement. Sharky winds up in a real cesspool of crime. Sharky and his fellow detectives Arch (Bernie Casey) and Papa (Brian Keith) set up surveillance on a high-priced call girl Dominoe (Rachel Ward of "After Dark, My Sweet")who has a luxurious apartment that she shares with another girl.

Dominoe is seeing a local politician Hotchkins (Earl Holliman of "Police Woman") on the side who is campaigning for governor but the chief villain, Victor (Vittorio Gassman of "The Dirty Game") wants him to end the affair. Hotchkins is reluctant to accommodate Victor, so Victor has cocaine snorting Billy Score (Henry Silva of "Wipeout")terminate Dominoe. Billy blasts a hole the size of a twelve inch pizza in the door of Dominoe's apartment and kills her.

Sharky has done the unthinkable. During the surveillance, he has grown fond of Dominoe to the point that he becomes hopelessly infatuated with her. Sharky's mission in life now is to bust Victor, but he learns that Victor has an informant inside the Atlanta Police Department. The plot really heats up when Sharky discovers later that Billy shot the wrong girl and that Dominoe is still alive! Sharky takes her into protective custody and things grow even more complicated. He assembles his "Machine" of the title to deal with Victor and his hoods.

William Fraker's widescreen lensing of the action is immaculate. Unfortunately, this vastly underrated classic is available only as a full-frame film. Fraker definitely contributes to the atmosphere of the picture, especially during the mutilation scene on the boat when the villain's cut off one of Sharky's fingers. This is a rather gruesome scene.

Burt never made a movie that surpassed "Sharky's Machine."

Sentiment: positive
There were only two redeeming features about this movie; the beauty of Bucharest and its architecture, and the way they depicted the transformation from human form to wolf form. Forget about the plot or storyline from the book - they're completely absent from this movie. In fact, about the only things carried over from the book are the names of the main players. Even then you'll barely recognize the characterizations. If the film makers had made a good movie, even though unrelated to the book, I wouldn't have been so disappointed. Unfortunately, they did not. The plot and storyline are typical of low budget horror flicks, the acting is wooden, and the directorial efforts mundane. Oh yes, the way the loup garou bow to their leader is pure hoke. I suppose a nod of recognition is due for the animal handlers. The wolves were beautiful animals and well managed in their roles.

Sentiment: negative
Having just recently re-viewed "Lipstick" for the first time in a few decades, I backed it with "Descent" even though I have heard more negative comments than good from other film friends with tastes as varied as mine.

It's interesting to contrast how the unique niche of the Rape Revenge movie has evolved in the past 32 years, from the full-on gore of "I Spit On Your Grave," to the tawdry sensationalism of "Lipstick," to the tasteful handling of the issue in "The Accused." But "Descent," though making some important points, never really offers us anything truly new in terms of revelatory meaning. No, "Descent" is so poorly made in terms of picture and sound quality that it detracts from any significant message it could hope to make --- a message that, when examined closely, isn't that groundbreaking.

I pretty much knew the plot going in. What I wanted to see *was* the "descent" or degeneration of Dawson's character. Being a big fan of Rosario's, I was anxious to see the layers being stripped away and her psyche being slowly twisted...you know, the kind of portrayal DeNiro brings to "Taxi Driver." Unfortunately, the script and the director/writer's choices don't provide any sort of believable transition.

The biggest point of failure is the second act. It became obvious what the filmmaker's intentions were for this segment of club-hopping, drug use, and obsession with big black stallion Adrian (every white boy's nightmare, natch) from a Q&A on the DVD, but this excursion into Dawson's character is never believably rendered. We don't know exactly what the hell she's doing half the time, what she's after, or why she's doing it. The poor quality of the audio/video again don't help, but the sequence is just too damn long and pointless. It destroys any momentum and investment in the lead character set up during the otherwise exceptionally well-done first act. By the time we get to the finale, our interest has already waned.

One point of success that Dawson does point out in the Q&A is that by the end "revenge" scene we are pumped for retribution, then realize just how drawn-out and ugly the reality is. While that's certainly valid, it doesn't make the scene any more intriguing.

If you have the DVD, check out the deleted "classroom" scene. This is an excellent 8 minute plus outtake that crackles with energy and provocation (though all verbal) and really DOES show Dawson's slow crack-up materializing as she delightfully vivisects poor Francie Swift's prissy, condescending dorm counselor. If more expository scenes like this had been added and more of the middle third cut down, we might have an interesting psychological study of the impact of senseless acts of violence.

As the film stands in the final cut, though, all we get is what we've seen before, only in a more graphic rendering. So what?

Sentiment: negative
I think I should start this in saying that nearly any style of work can be entertaining in parts. The true test is whether it is good from start to finish, which is the reason I gave the analogical title for this review. Most of us would agree--even those like me, who enjoy reading many blogs--that blogs can't compare with good novel writing for a number of reasons. Likewise, FEM can't compare with good film making for a number of reasons, and I actually believe it's a poor example of independent filmography. From start to finish, FEM feels like a pieced together vlog. (Heck, even MySpace gets some pimping.) If I wanted to see an hour of lonelygirl15--I don't--I'd go watch it. FEM, while certainly grittier than the bubble gum atmosphere of the aforementioned media, is so personal that it is without an interesting story. It's like watching the mundaneness of life, which I think most would agree is very naturally boring. And yet the creators of FEM want us to applaud it, their very postmodern film about making a film. Cue my yawn.

Ultimately, I come away not caring the least bit about any of it. I'm shocked that I'm actually interested in taking time out to write this review, even. It's not that FEM is downright bad, because it isn't; it has a few moments where I crack a smile or think that maybe--just maybe--something of interest is about to happen. It's rather that it's just downright...mediocre. I feel so indifferent about it that it's almost fitting of an oxymoron: passionate indifference.

I hope the creators/"actors" in the film get out of debt from their efforts. They'll probably need it for when one of them moves out and moves on with life.

See this movie if you've got time to waste and nothing much you want to do; otherwise, pass it by, and don't worry that you've missed some great, undiscovered talent. You really haven't.

Sentiment: negative
Mary Haines (Meg Ryan) a rich woman discovers her husband is cheating on her with a younger woman (Eva Mendes). She doesn't know what to do and friends Sylvia Fowler (Annette Bening), Edie Cohen (Debra Messing) and Alex Fisher (Jad Pinkett Smith) try to help.

OK--there was no reason to redo the 1939 movie. That's a true classic and doesn't need to be updated and redone. Naturally it WAS done. This has gotten some of the worst reviews I've ever seen for a motion picture. I love the original and have seen it MANY times--I was constantly comparing it to that. Now this isn't a classic but it's not that bad.

**MINOR SPOILERS!!!** First the bad--the story is old and was (badly) updated. Really--a man cheating on his wife is hardly shocking today. Meg Ryan (a wonderful actress) is pretty terrible here. Her face seems unable to change expression! I couldn't believe how bad some of her scenes came over. Eva Mendes is bad too--but it's not entirely her fault. Her role is badly written and she has to compete with Joan Crawford from the original. Smith's character (a tough lesbian) goes to pieces in an operating room. It IS funny...but it's showing that a strong woman instantly goes to pieces when confronting an emergency. Also the script inserts some clumsy passages where Ryan talks to her daughter about being yourself. In those moments it seems more like a Lifetime movie than anything else.

Now the good--this movie retains the originals' decision to NEVER show a man on screen. This movie is about and for women--men aren't needed (BTW--I'm a man). Bening is just great as Fowler--whenever she's on screen the movie makes a great leap. Also Smith is just wonderful--she doesn't overplay (or underplay) her lesbian character too much. Messing is good too but she's not in this much. Bette Midler is just hysterical in a small role and Cloris Leachman pulls off the nothing role of a housekeeper. The direction is good too--especially during a fashion show sequence. I heard director Diane English purportedly had a lot of trouble directing her first full-length movie but it doesn't show in the final product. Also there are some clever references to the original (mostly certain lines) that were inserted with no fuss.

I saw this in an audience full of women (there were a few guys but not many) and they loved it. The movie ends on an operating room sequence that had everybody howling. So--this wasn't needed but it's not the disaster people are saying it is. Also--people are saying we don't need a movie with all women. Well--why not? I see plenty of movies with all guys in the cast and no one complains about that! Ignore the complaints and bad reviews and see this. With a better performance by Ryan I might have given this an 8 or 9 but, as it is, I can only give it a 7.

Sentiment: positive
I enjoyed this movie and I had very low expectation due to all the negative reviews I read before going. I went because I was curious as to what all this fuss was about because some of the postings were so angry with this movie and with the Koreans. Oh and it's from Korea which has put out some of my favorite movies. I liked Host but not my absolute favorite. Some of my favorite sci-fi /fantasy movies so you can have a sense of my taste: Mirrormask, Stardust, Serenity, Gattaca, Willow, Matrix, Resident Evil series, LOTR, Stargate, Dark City.

It wasn't confusing like everyone said and the monsters looked good and the battles great. There are some holes in the story but didn't really matter. I sort of tune out stuff like that and stopped asking why long time ago when I see summer blockbusters. The Korean legend was interesting, the reincarnation stuff was different, and I thought the main characters suspiciously dressed like Korean actors in other shows. Ethan's(Behr)hair looked so Asian.

Yes, it could be better and I hope in the future that Korea, with its unusual quirky sense of life, intense emotions, and unexpected humor, can bring some diversity to the blockbuster genre. Maybe a combination of Host and Dragon Wars in the future?

Sentiment: positive
Awful, awful, awful.

A condescending remark at the start and a few nasty autopsy photos does not a good movie make. Once again I'm amazed at the determination and skill that some people have in achieving a movie production and yet they don't have the pride to realise that what they have made is an utter pile of crap.

I sat and tried to think of a redeeming feature so that I could at least balance my criticism but the only one I could think of was that the opening track by Pink was pretty good....I wonder if she has seen this?

Watch this at your peril, the boredom may kill you.

Sentiment: negative
Excellent Piece of work!

I am not a surfer nor a skate board fan, but work this good about sorting sock drawers would have been riveting. A must see!

There is a lot to enjoy here. Excellent Visuals. Great sound track mix. Huge body of documentary work both pictures and film.

The life work and love of the subject is captivating.

Sentiment: positive
I remember the trailer for this infamously weak spin-off of Conan. I saw the movie years later and laughed my head off. Unintentionally! Poor Briggite Nielson. Her career never had a chance thanks to Cobra and Red Sonja. The plot of the movie is this: Sonja(Brigitte Nielson) hails from a tribe of female warriors who were killed off by an evil queen Gedren(Sandahl Bergman). Queen Gedren steals the orb the female warriors were protecting and uses it to destroy each town she passes by. Sonja goes on a hunt for Queen Gedren and later finds out that Gedren killed her parents. On her quest she reluctantly joins Kalidor(Arnold Schwarzenegger), an arrogant prince named Tarn(Ernie Reyes Jr.) and his bumbling idiotic servant, Falkon(Paul L. Smith). Together they go on a hunt for Queen Gedren and the orb. The acting is sub par and the action scenes are soso. I mean Briggite Neilson looks so emotionally distant. For someone who lost her whole family as well as her female comrades, Sonja doesn't look fazed at all. Arnold is playing his usual stoic role and Ernie Reyes Jr.... what an annoying snot-nosed brat he was in this movie! The moronic manservant Falkon had more personality than these guys. The action scenes are the only redeeming moments of the movie even though sometimes they fall flat. The scene where they fight the mechanical sea creature made me laugh till my ribs ached. The dialog is a hoot also. Its as if the screenwriter thought that nobody was going to take the movie seriously so he gave everybody stupid lines to work with. I can only recommend this movie to you if you like your epic movies extra campy. Anyone else don't bother.

Sentiment: negative
This is the kind of movie that you rent when you are incredibly tired, or impaired in some other way... The acting in this movie is so bad it seems intentional, and to let you know how bad the special effects are, there is one scene when the puppets are coming alive where you can see most of a hand holding the puppet, moving it about. The movie looked as if it was filmed with a camcorder. When I saw this movie for the first time, a fistfight nearly erupted when my friends and I were calling each other names from this flick, that's how terrible it was. If you enjoy getting mad at movies, I recommend this to you, otherwise, flee as though your very life depended on it.

Sentiment: positive
I particularly enjoyed Delly's review of this film and agree that Howard is not the only "damaged" character. Howard is rather ruthlessly "set-up" by the script, but there is no evidence that his previous employer is actually dead or, if she is, that he murdered her. Howard doesn't know and neither do we. In terror and confusion at seeing the woman lying there, he bolts. However, he never actually harms Helen Gordon, no matter how enraged he is. Indeed, he reacts with horror at Helen's fainting spell and the fact that he is holding a pair of scissors...then he resumes his tidying up and greets the recovered Helen with the almost pathetic " I'm very tired now. I think I'll go home". Frankly, I don't think he's a psychopath. A sick puppy, certainly, but not a psychopath.

The problem with Howard is that he has no real male identity. He wanted to serve his country, but his mental condition denies him a place in the army. He is singularly rootless and isolated: no wife, no girl, no home (again, at least as far as we know). And, he does a woman's job - "Floor's are my speciality". Helen's niece ruthlessly strips away this pride in his thoroughness by exclaiming caustically that she would want a man with a real job. Also, although he finds himself strongly attracted to Helen, he is unable or unwilling to do more than scare her by making a strong sexual pass. He is remarkably powerless - can't fight, can't work, can't make love.

Helen is justifiably terrified, however. She tries to connect to him but, finding that he doesn't respond normally (i.e. way outside the comfort zone provided by her rose-tinted memories of husband Ned), unwittingly presses all Howard's buttons by lying to him in her attempt to escape.

Both characters, trapped in the house, trapped by fear, neuroses, rage and memory, deserve sympathy. I know the sudden ending has disappointed some reviewers, but I felt it fitted well, as it offered a kind of release to the characters. Helen is freed, I think, from the past. When Howard tries on her husband's army coat, Helen's disgusted reaction is highlighted. She no doubt feels that the "sacredness" of Ned's possessions has been violated but, hopefully, her need to keep everything "untouched" has been lost in the reality of her own struggle with danger. Perhaps she can move on.

Howard is also freed - from his endless cycle of anger, hurt and violence. Whether he moves on to treatment or to jail is debatable, but I hope it's the former.

Great performances from Ryan and Lupino. I prefer "On Dangerous Ground", but this is pretty good too.

Sentiment: positive
I'll be honest- the reason I rented this movie was because I am a huge fan of Kyle Chandler's (most notably from Early Edition). Since he usually plays the good guy, I wanted to see him as in a different role (out of curiosity). The plot itself also drew me in; a wanna-be hitman (Tony Greco- a.k.a. Mr. Chandler) must kill a person at random before he is trusted with the life- or, rather, the death- of a witness who will testify against someone in "the family". The movies was nothing like I expected. It was sick, I hated the end (if you saw it, you'd know why), and there were so many unnecessary parts. Basically- it was filthy, and made little sense. Yes, it was a mob movie, and yes the guns do go BOOM. But there's more to a movie than that. This film acted as if it didn't have the time to go into detail- just deal with it and understand it. The acting really made up for it- James Belushi was pretty amusing as "The Rose". Sheryl Lee made Angel seem as believable as she could get. She surprised me the most. And Kyle Chandler was equally convincing as an anxious newcomer to "the family". If only the script did justice to the actors.

Sentiment: negative
In director Eric Stanze's 'ISOYC, IPOYG', three men are subjected to torture at the the hands of a woman that they have all sexually abused. The first victim is forced to eat his own crap, before being axed to death. The next bloke ends up with a bullet in the crotch after refusing to have anal sex with the first guy's corpse. But it's the third man who gets it the worst: he has to watch the heavily tattooed 'star' Emily Haack get naked and masturbate with a broom handle (oh, he also gets the handle shoved up his butt too!).

And, unfortunately, so do we (get to see her masturbate, that isnot get a broom handle up our butts!).

Yes, 'ISOYC, IPOYG' is one harsh viewing experience, not because of its relentless violence, but because Haack, who is obviously under the misguided notion that she has the body of a goddess (as opposed to that of a roadie for Metallica) constantly gets buck naked for the camera. It ain't a pretty sight.

In addition to the non-stop nudity from an inked-up Haack, viewers also get to see dreadful direction from Stanze (who thinks that endless shots of tombstones and trees is entertaining stuff), some really bad acting, and a fat guy's penis.

Strangely enough, I give 'ISOYC, IPOYG' a rating of 3/10, which is actually slightly higher than its current 2.9 average. That's one point for the messy axe attack (which, being a gore-hound, I actually enjoyed); one point for the bit where the fat guy gets his face pushed in chocolate mousse masquerading as feces (hilarious); and one point for the sheer nerve to suggest that this film might somehow be a sequel to Meir Zarchi's superior exploitation classic I Spit On Your Grave.

Sentiment: negative
By no means is this movie as bad as 'Perfect Stranger', but it just wasn't funny. It couldn't stick to one type of comedy - it jumped from SNL, to Adam Sandler-esquire, to romantic, to little guy scores big, to slapstick, to 'Loser' (the movie) types of comedies. Although there were some pretty funny slapstick moments (the fall down the hill), no one was very particularly funny or outstanding in any way. 'Schindler's List' was funnier (and felt shorter). you never knew if Andy Samberg was supposed to be in high school, a college dropout, or just a loser living at home with his mother - Sissy Spacek, in her worst choice of roles. And poor Ian McShane, THE serious actor if I only had to name one, is given crap to read into the camera. The story drags and is completely predictable up to and including the end (no spoilers here in case Adam Samberg's mom wants to see it). Don't spend ANY money going to see this movie, and maybe Lorne Michaels will get the hint and start producing quality (Yes, Wayne's World and Tommy Boy are quality) movies.

Sentiment: negative