DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
It is apparent that director, writers and everyone else knows nothing about their own religion or the people who practice it. This movie is endlessly flawed and overall a complete crock.

For instance, there is a scene where the rabbi enters the woman's ritual bath while a naked woman is bathing, puts his hand on the head of a woman there and blesses her. This is complete mockery of the laws, in this scene alone some of the laws broken include: Modesty, a rabbi would never enter a ritual bath house while there are woman in it.

Improper contact, a rabbi would never put his hand on a woman's head, not to mention that it is not the way a blessing is given.

The woman from the ritual bath is dunking a naked woman by pushing her head under the water, the laws regarding ritual bathing require the entire body to make direct contact with the bath water; this means nobody should be in contact with the person bathing, certainly not pushing them under!

There was more just in that scene alone, like dunking 13 times (where does that concept even come from?) not to mention the rest of the movie was a total fallacy. It is scary what ignorance can concoct!

Sentiment: negative
An awful B movie at best with video quality similar to Dead Alive. I challenge anyone who is a "Aliens (James Cameron 1986)" Movie fan to count how many times either lines or almost entire sequences were ripped off from the first two Alien movies to make this classic piece of garbage.

Cast members such as R. Lee Ermey and Ray Wise were the only two actors with any talent and the lead "Jack Scalia" was really absolutely horrible. I think they cast him for his massive cleft chin. I was also annoyed with the stereotyping of the only black male on the set John Toles-Bey who must look at this movie and just wonder. Look him up sometime as he has done a lot of interesting movies.

But on this movie: The script as I said earlier was a rip-off of Aliens tweaked and turned into a submarine "thriller". It included such lines as "I got a bad feeling about this" and "Kill me" as one crew member is infected by one of the mutants and his belly starts doing the "alien hop" just before it pops out of his stomach. There is also a rip-off of the classic "get some!" via Bill Paxton. We also have a bunch of navy grunts running through caves with creepy crawlies popping out of walls. Even the explosions of the mutated creatures is very similar to the popping of aliens as they charge marines in the movie "Aliens". And the kicker is that some of the mutants spit acid (as opposed to having acid for blood). There are many more major examples. So if you want to see this script done well watch the first two classics Alien and Aliens (With Sigourney Weaver). You'll have a more enjoyable time.

The plot could have been interesting and done better if not for confusing sequences in the start of the movie and generally poor editing. Camera shots were pretty dull and honestly it wasn't very hard to stop watching it and walk around the room to get a snack or check email. Many of the interactions between characters made little or no sense and went nowhere more often than not. The whole command structure between crew and Capt. was poorly done. I'm not even sure if there are Captains in the military that have full control over nuclear subs. In general this just shows that there was little research done for background information to make the movie seem at least a little respectable and there are many other similar examples (like dive depth etc..).

If you like horrible movies or are a big fan of Alien and Aliens and want something to just laugh and shake your head at then this movie may be for you. As for me this one is going back on the shelf...permanently.

Sentiment: negative
I think everyone was quite disappointed with this sci-fi flick. For one thing, it was directed by Tim Burton. Another thing, it's a remake of what is supposed to be a classic. I found it boring, gross, and ridiculous. If you've seen it, you know what I mean. Just about everyone at Imdb say it's crap and boy, are they right! If you haven't, avoid it. It's a snorer. 1 out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
I wish I could have met Ida Lupino. When people ask who you if you could have 6 extraordinary 20th century persons over for dinner, well, for me one person would be her. I think she is now one of the great unsung and unprofiled personalities in the film industry. Her life story would make a great tele movie (Hey, Mr Bogdanovich........). Ida Lupino has been the driving force in many fascinating noir films of the 40s and 50s. I can remember being saddened at seeing her reduced to a horrible part in a ghastly AIP film is the late 70s. She was bitten by a big worm at the kitchen sink. Ugh. I should have contacted her then as she died not long after.. more from the part than the worm too. From High Sierra, Roadhouse and the extraordinary RKO thriller On Dangerous Ground, Ida Lupino was often the producer and the lead actress. Later, with her husband Howard Duff they produced many now timeless noir dramas that are still very engrossing today. One of them is JENNIFER which I think is the last film with a Monogram Pictures copyright. Monogram changed the company name formally to Allied Artists in 1953 and JENNIFER has both company names on the opening credits. This is a superior haunted house thriller equally as scary as both The Innocents and The Haunting made 8 years later. Really chilling and very creepy, this tiny film is exactly the sort of really good film Ida Lupino made and was responsible for. Try and find it...you will always remember it and as I feel, much admiration for this great and almost forgotten actress/producer.

Sentiment: positive
Film noir meets anime... brilliant! This was one of the highlights of the surprisingly creative Animatrix shorts. This was one of my favorites if not my favorite (I also loved World Record). This is basically a reference to those classic film noir detective stories and movies of the 40s, except it's animated and involves the Matrix. But by being animated, it is able to take the extreme camera angles, the detective life style, the shadows, and everything film noir to an entirely new level. The Femme Fatale? Trinity. The detective in this story seems to be living in the 40s in his mind but stuck in a modern world, and everything becomes too much for him when his case suddenly involves science fiction and agents when a mysterious woman in black walks into his office...

My grade: 9/10

Sentiment: positive
The premise of the movie had much going for it, however, despite the novelty of models selling off someone else's furniture to live the high life, this movie has nothing going for it. The characters are cardboard. The dialog is so painfully scripted, it's hard to sit through, and if there were any jokes in the movie, I missed them. Marilyn Monroe's walking into walls because she doesn't want to wear glasses is completely unbelievable & not funny. Grable's stupidity is also too ham-fisted to be believed. Bacall's gold-digging is so forced, it's annoying to listen to. Why anyone would want to sit through this is beyond me.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is never going to be on a list of the top 50 films of all time, but if you're compiling a list of "fun films", this isn't a bad place to start. Liv Tyler is amazing, captivating and luscious, and everyone else is dead-on right for their parts. It's a 21st century counterpart to "Tom Jones" -- in other words; just good, bawdy fun. I think that this may be Tyler's breakthrough film on her way to major stardom. With no nudity she oozes sex in this film. It's no wonder all the boys give her toys. How could they help but do that for a helpless, innocent such as Liv's Jewel?

Sentiment: positive
The screenplay is the worst part of this film, as it lurches from one premise to the next, missing all the important bits that would have made a number of different stories possible. (This film is confusing, because the audience doesn't know what the story is.) I had no problem with the low-production values and the acting wasn't great, but this is telly, so it was fine. I don't mind if some scenes looked like they were done in one take. But having such a non-sensical screenplay is completely unnecessary. Did any executive actually read it before forking out the cash? Avoid this at all costs.

The prologue in particular was so poorly written, it needed a voice-over to fill in all the details that had been left out. The prologue was rushed, it wasn't clear what was happening, ie. The Russian Revolution was reduced to "Some riots are happening in Petersburg", with the next scene being soldiers arresting them. I know the basic history of the Revolution, so I could fill in the details, "those pesky Communists". The prologue is best ignored.

This could have been a thoughtful study of a person who is confused about who she is. It sets up this premise in the asylum. It could then have her struggling to identify herself for the rest of the film. No. Gone. The film assumes she is who she says she is (even though there is still no empirical evidence.) It sets up a melodramatic romance, a love so strong, it'll believe anything she says. Okay, a soppy romance. No, because it makes no sense. The love interest seems like a crazed (and incidentally, sleazy) lunatic, bursting out in wild gestures. This also doesn't work, because the film stupidly decides to tell the truth in the monologue at the end. They never got married and she returned to America. The love story collapses. Despite there being plenty of love scenes, I was never convinced of the reason that they were in love. I find rom-com romances more convincing, despite there only being one or two scenes which establish that they've even spent any time with each other.

It could have been a thriller-type thing where the film assumes she is who she says she is, and she struggles to prove her identity. No, the court case is summed up rather than dealt with. The bizarre voice over comes back, again to fill in the details of a better film.

The funniest thing to consider is what really happened. Anna Anderson was a loony who went to America and married another loony and they did crazy things together. Throughout her life, she had bouts of lunatic behaviour. None of this in the film either. There's a really annoying character in the asylum who crops up from nowhere and announces herself as a 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Next/'Twelve Monkeys'-type informant. Thankfully, she vanishes, having brought nothing to the story.

Sentiment: negative
I saw the biopic of Ed Wood many years ago. Tim Burton payed loving homage to this extremely untalented but yet enthusiastic filmmaker.

Then I saw Plan 9 and it actually tickled me to no end. A silly story, kind of bad production values but still entertaining and even funny.

Then this. What can you make of it. Well, since Wood has been reported as being a cross-dresser it is startling to see a movie that deals with it like a cartoon. Yes, there are some stabs at teaching the audience something about the subject but mostly this is some kind of really twisted self-parody.

One of it's problems is that it has a hundred points of view. On one hand it is a plea for tolerance. Another portrays transvestism as a disease. And finally, it tells the audience: "Okay, if you are schocked now, then wait until you see this!" The problem must have been that Wood had to compromise in order for the film to be made. You can almost sense it when you see the opening title from the producer: Personally supervised by... So, where are we. This is neither a serious subject movie or an all-out schocker.

The entertainment value is practically nil. The wooden voice-over is mildly amusing but only because it sounds so misguided. This was made in the 50s though, so one can argue that was brave making a film that even mentioned the word transvestites. It all comes down to what the film itself is trying to advocate against. Schock. The rape scene, while mild is there simply to do that.

So, sorry. This is a misfire but the discredit is not Wood's alone.

Sentiment: negative
haha! you have to just smile and smile if you actually made it all the way through this movie. it like says something about myself i guess. the movie itself was created i think as some sort of psychological test, or like some sort of drug, to take you to a place you have never been before. When Wittgenstein wrote his famous first philosophical piece the tractacus (sp?) he said it was meaningless and useless, but if you read it, after you were done, it would take you to a new level, like a ladder, and then you could throw away the work and see things with clarity and true understanding. this movie is the same i think.

As a movie it is without a doubt, the worst movie i have seen in a long long time in such a unique way. first of all, this is snipes. i loved watching this guy kick ass in various movies. and i have suffered through a few weak ones. however, although you know the movie might suck, you would never suspect that it could be as bad as it actually was. which is the fun of it. i mean this is snipes. you know it might be good, but it will be alright, right? smile.

so this thing on every level is pure boredom, pure unoriginality. the reference to the professional is both dead on and obvious, yet so poorly done as to be comical. there is not one character in this movie that is interesting, in the least. and to make the whole thing more surreal, they have a soundtrack that sort of sounds like parts to various Bourne identity type movies, only isn't quite right. in fact, although it seems close to action movie background music, it just so happens it is done in a manner that will grate on you fantastically.

then all the scenes in the total pitch black, where honestly since the characters are so flat, you don't really care whats going to happen, but regardless, after it happens and someone is killed, you just say to yourself, was i supposed to see that? what else? how about scenes with blinding, obnoxious flashing at a strobe lights pace, for a period of time that is too long to bear. sure let's throw that in. how bout this though. when you are straining and your eyes cant handle it any longer, do some more of these in the dark kills where you really don't see what happened. and on top of that, lets face it you don't care. you were past bored way from the beginning.

so i drifted in and out a couple times, but i caught almost all of this movie. and it becomes something you can watch, without something that engages your mind on any level, therefore, it becomes something you can effectively zone out with, and begin to think about your life, where its going, where its been, what we are as people.

and that... that is the true magic of this film.

Sentiment: negative
My brother is an avid DVD collector. He took one look at the cover (two models on toilets) and had to add it to his collection. I stayed up with him to watch what turned out to be likely the most cringeable movie (I use that term loosely) I've felt obligated to sit through. I dared not make eye contact with my brother, quite certain he must have been cursing the receipt in his clenched fist. The biggest name in the whole movie is Michael Clark Duncan who appears in one scene, which the "filmmaker" decided to show every take of (about four total) throughout the movie. In fact, the whole movie pretty much follows this suit. The fact that the DVD contained deleted footage was a shock. (I went to bed without viewing it, however). To no surprise at all, I found this disc without its case behind the TV about a week later.

Sentiment: negative
Cujo is a giant, lovable, gentle and affectionate St. Bernard owned by the Camber family, during the opening sequence Cujo chases a rabbit over fields and through a local wood somewhere in Castle Rock, Maine. The rabbit disappears into a burrow and Cujo sticks his head into the entrance hole. The rabbit vanishes from Cujo's sight, angry Cujo starts to bark and in doing so inadvertently wakes up and annoy a colony of bats, one of which bites him on the nose. Donna Trenton (Dee Wallace-Stone as Dee Wallace) is having an affair with Steve Kemp (Christopher Stone, Dee Wallace's real life husband) which her husband Vic (Daniel Hugh Kelly) who works in advertising, discovers. Obviously their relationship becomes strained. Happily oblivious to all of this is their young son Tad (Danny Pintauro). Joe Camber (Ed Lauter) fixes cars for a living out of his barn on his farmhouse. Joe is planning a guys weekend with one of his friends Gary Pervier (Mills Watson) when his wife Charity (Kaiulani Lee) wins $5,000 on the lottery and decides to take their young boy Brett (Billy Jayne as Billy Jacoby) with her on a trip to see her parents. Arriving at Gary's house to pick him up Joe finds him dead on the floor, he goes into the kitchen to call for help and his dog Cujo who is now rabid attacks and kills him. Donna and Tad drive to the Camber's farmhouse to try and get her car repaired. The place is deserted except for Cujo who is now completely rabid, foaming at the mouth, his fur stained red with blood and maddened by pain. Cujo attacks the car to try and get at Donna and Tad, luckily for them the windows hold firm, at least for the time being anyway. Donna tries to start the car but it has completely broken down, they are both trapped with nothing but the hope that someone will come and rescue them. Cujo lies in wait, ready to attack and kill anyone who crosses his path. Directed by Lewis Teague I thought the film was a bit slow for my tastes. The first half plods along, the second half builds up a head of steam but I still felt it was a little underwhelming and unexciting. The acting is fine by everyone involved, I've no complaints there. Technically the film is OK, photography, music, special effects, editing and it's generally well made. The big problem is the script by Don Carlos Dunaway and Lauren Currier and in particular it's first half, most of which appears to be padding to stretch the run time out. Clocking in at just under the 90 minute mark it felt longer. It's also a little predictable as well. Cujo as a monster never really scared me either, I just don't find slobbering overweight St. Bernards scary I guess. I suppose there's nothing really wrong with it, but I don't think I'd be in a hurry to see it again. Average, not too bad if you can find a copy going cheap or catch it on T.V. for free.

Sentiment: negative
While it's true that the movie is somewhat interesting, the execution leaves a lot to be desired (much like Blood Orgy of the Leather Girls, I Spit on Your Grave, and Born in Flames, all superior). I don't think it's not porn, but porn is in the eye of the beholder: if it functions as porn for somebody, who am I to say that he/she is wrong? I was rather puzzled by the statement in Winkimation's generally thoughtful review ("Such a Shame") that "for once we actually see men's faces when they come." A few years ago I did occasional freelance reviews for an adult mag and I recall seeing plenty of men's faces when they came. I think this is probably more common when the film features on of the few male porn "stars" (and especially when that male is the director). Though I unsurprisingly can't refer to any specific titles, I know that there are some instances in Ron Jeremy's, uh, work. I also don't know that I'd agree that a man is necessarily showing vulnerability in his face when coming.

Sentiment: negative
This film was screen as part of the 2007 Sydney Mardi Gras Film Festival. I had no expectation of the film as someone else choose it for me.

I actually like films that take time to develop, films that allow the characters to unfold and lets the story flow. Stillness is good. But this film though was just plain slow.

Credit must go to the two main actors. There was a sense of tension between them as two totally different people, misfits really, come together in a very awkward way. There were tender moments and sadness as we learned more about them.

I also liked the setting and the way it was shot. It was claustrophobic and monochrome and it added to the film's intimacy and reinforces the oddness of the characters.

I just don't understand the ending. What was the point of it all?

Sentiment: negative
We all want to fall in love... The experience makes us feel completely alive, where every sense is heightened, every emotion is magnified... It may only last a moment, an hour, an afternoon, but that doesn't reduce its value, because we are left with memories that we treasure for the rest of our lives...

I love watching people fall in love... It must have something to do with the excellent chemistry between the main characters...

Mark Elliott, a charming sensitive American war correspondent, arrives in Hong Kong at the dawn of the Korean war... He finds in Han Suyin an awesome beauty of true grace...

Han Suyin, a lovely Eurasian doctor is captivated by Mark's tenderness and insight...

It was instant attraction when they first met... The two commence a passionate affair, leading them to fall deeply in love...

Their love is so strong, so wonderfully expressed that highlights Elliot's married status, and the difficulties of the troubled time of the Korean War, communism and race relations... 

Holden is an inspired choice for the role... Not only does he have an imposing screen presence, but he brings the perfect mix of enlightenment, compassion and emotion to the part...

Opposite him Oscar Winner Jennifer Jones, perfect in her oriental look, radiantly beautiful in that traditional and modern Asian-inspired Cheongsam... Jones floods her role with personal emotion giving her character a charismatic life of its own... She delivers a heartfelt performance turning her character into a woman who undergoes a spiritual and emotional awakening...

Her scene in that verdant hill where she takes refuge is exquisitely touching specially when we heard Mark's voice whispering: "We have not missed you and I... that many-splendored thing."

Henry King - who has established himself as a masterful director of romances - spreads the theme tune (by Alfred Newman) in the air above the cosmopolitan harbor... His film is colorful, elegant, with excellent cinematography and set design...

Nominated for eight Academy Awards, this beautiful and sensitive motion picture won three: Best Costume Design; Best Music and Best Score...

Sentiment: positive
Picture the scene: A bored student with an empty day ahead, A video shop with a special offer of 5 video for a week rentals. This ex-student usually just grabbed a pile of videos of dubious quality for the most arbitrary of reasons (The Turning anybody?). Occasionally the odd undiscovered gem did make it into his VCR - this being the case with this film. Everything about the film is good, but much more than this the parts all mesh to provide something all too rare - a cracking good film. Why this never got a UK cinema release is beyond me, especially when we consider the crap that we have to wade through at the multiplex week on week. Whilst I'll happily accept this isn't Oscar material (but neither was sodding Titanic - schmaltzy cgi-tinged bollocks) it is a an extremely enjoyable film. I was trying to think of a way to describe how best this film should be appreciated/accepted - The perfect film to watch while bonding with your Dad, after a coming home for the holidays, after a large Sunday lunch.

Sentiment: positive
I initially gained interest in this film after reading a review saying this movie reminded the reviewer of Silent Hill.

Being a huge Silent Hill fan, and disappointed with it's movie debut, I thought I would give this one a chance. Mind, Fearnet only lists this movie as "Dark Floors", not by it's full name. So when I saw the name "Mr. Lordi" in the credits I immediately thought of the band (I had a few friends in college that like them) but didn't think it was important and quickly pushed the thought aside.

The film starts out strong. Despite the fact "creepy little girl" has been done to DEATH, the good use of audio and sense of isolation really started to piece the the story together. The tense atmosphere built rapidly, and every indication pointed to the film being excellent. As monsters are the true stars of horror, I couldn't wait to see what was lurking in the halls of the hospital the main characters had found themselves trapped in...

And then the first monster showed up, and I found myself greatly underwhelmed. By the time the second appeared, I boggled at the fact it looked like it had just come from a Megadeth concert, and the silliness turned me off completely.

Over the course of the movie the atmosphere did remain intact, and the story left you wondering just what was going on, but the scares were pretty much non-existent. However, I held out hope that the end would make it all worthwhile. Unfortunately that was not to be the case. By the time the movie had reached it's climax, I was in utter disbelief, and I immediately recognized the big bad in his final reveal... The lead singer of Lordi? Seriously? 

Was that what the movie all boiled down to? A bunch of poor souls being chased around a hospital by Lordi band members? The silly monster design suddenly made sense. If you're going to be that corny, may as well through the members of Marilyn Manson, or even KISS in there too. Not to mention the fact that I'm pretty sure I saw the ending in one of Lordi's music videos a few years ago. They had to go and make an entire movie off of it? 

Worst of all, when I found out what really had been going on, all I could manage was a yawn. I'm not going to "ruin" it for you, but I can safely say it's probably a plot device you've seen before. Most likely more then once.

So, unless you're a huge Lordi fan, stay away from this. It's not scary, it doesn't bring anything new to the table (although it does a decent job of borrowing from other horror movies, mainly Silent Hill). And, I can't stress this enough, LORDI is the antagonist. LORDI. Talk about a buzzkill. 

Really, you'd be better off trying to scare yourself watching Slipknot music videos. In other words, it's just not possible.

Sentiment: negative
Legendary pop star Steve Alaimo ("Don't Let the Sun Catch You Crying") stars as an unlikable stock car racer whose career has hit the skids (ha ha) because he constantly crashes his car (or as he laments, "I'm tired of being run down by every grease monkey that gets behind the wheel"). He falls into a bad crowd of humorously inept Nazi bikers, improbably named Jeeter, Banjo, Fats, and, er, Linda. Fats is the most likable of the bunch; he took a surfboard to the back of the skull and now only communicates through grunts, sort of a Harley Davidson Leatherface.

Anyway, Steve is fooled by the cops into catching the dastardly crooks in the middle of one of their bank robberies. The gang only robs banks for "kicks, man". I guess they give the money to charity. Steve fails constantly, the bikers get greasier, and the whole thing never comes off as daring because it's so dull. This movie looks like it was filmed through a grease-soaked paper towel. Not since "Necromantic" has a movie so trampled my soul.

The guy who played Fats went on to direct "Deranged", the Ed Gein biopic starring Robert Blossom.

Anyway, in summary: Wild Rebels: Hilarious on MST3K, dreadful everywhere else.

Sentiment: negative
I thought this was a wonderful movie. It touches every fiber of a human being. The love in the film is very intense. I thought it was Will's best performance to date. Great directing. Liked the editing. Music was great. Good use of flashback. This is the kind of movie everyone should go see. I hope people will get something wonderful from this. Overall, excellent movie. I think Hollywood should make more movies with substance. Even action films can have a caring story. I like the fact that Will was very subtle in his acting. He had a purpose and a dedication that is rare to see. I would suggest watching this alone or with someone that you really care about. For me, I found that the world stopped and my only focus was on the film. The outside world was suspended for a moment. It was a nice feeling with all this chaos going on in this world. And with this me generation it was great to see something(someone) that cared about other people more than himself.

Sentiment: positive
Be warned, the next time you see "Richard Kelly" involved in any production, run away. Fast.

Kelly proved to the world after his last movie, "Southland Tales", that he is one pretentious director. It was indulgent and convoluted. In "The Box", not much has changed.

I can picture what his pitch to Warner Bros must have been, and I bet the executives at the studio ate it right up: a full-feature film based on one of Richard "Twilight Zone" Matheson's old short stories.

Big mistake! Do not read any further unless you want this movie COMPLETELY spoiled for you: 

Norma (Cameron Diaz) pushes the button. 

Turns out that Arlington Steward (Frank Langella) has an Alien using his body as a vessel to conduct "experiments" in which the fate of mankind rests. His face is scarred because he was struck by Alien lightening, which killed him, but then brought him back to life to do all of this red button testing. Obviously since Norma pushes the button, knowing full well that someone may die, she must suffer the consequences for failing to consider someone else's life instead of her own. In the end she and her husband (James Marsden) choose to kill Norma instead of having their son grow up deaf and blind.

Kelly dances around his film's "message", trying to make the audience figure out what the moral of the story is. Obviously, any person with a brain is saying at the beginning, "What if I was the person who dies?". Richard Kelly doesn't even let his character's have this normal, HUMAN conversation. In fact, they avoid it all together. They appear to both be educated, working at a prestigious school and also for NASA, so why wouldn't they both have a better ability to LOOK OUTSIDE OF THE BOX???

If he had the main characters actually have this conversation, the entire movie could have ended right there! Instead, we have to watch weddings go on forever, NASA and the NSA be complacent to Arlington Stewart taking over these government programs, teleportation to show Marsden life beyond our world so it will be "easier" to kill his wife, and drone's controlled by Steward which can be anywhere and nowhere, at any time.

The most painful part of this movie is the pacing. Nothing really happens. Its a muddled mish-mash of ideas that are laughable.

It is insufferable how this film is being marketed. The commercials make it look like "Saw" and even use the music from those films to sell it. In reality what you get is a slow, dull, laughable (yes, half the theater was laughing at the acting and visual effects), and messy film which is neither imaginative, interesting, nor cohesive. At one point, Cameron Diaz and her son are abducted and then suddenly, she is back in the NSA's big black car with her husband on the way home. Where did she go? Why did they take her? Do we really care? Not anymore you won't.

By the end you really won't care what happens to any of the characters. You will be rooting for all of them to die so the film will just end. Go see anything else that's playing. Don't waste your time, or money.

Sentiment: negative
This is a great movie that I don't think gets enough credit as Saturday Night Fever or Grease in John Travolta's career. He plays a man who is in love with a girl but is too pig headed to admit his feelings to her. Instead, he wants to engage in mechanical bull riding because he thinks it will show his manhood. Even though it was made in 1980, it is still timely today. The great country music soundtrack is terrific. 10/10

Sentiment: positive
A pig-tailed Linnea Quigley drinks milk, strips and kills her sister and her sister's boyfriend after they have sex. She goes to an asylum, makes a best friend out of Amy (Karen Russell) and the two blackmail their way out of a mental institution by sleeping with their psychologists (one is played by "Carol Burnett Show" regular Lyle Waggoner). On the outside, these two man-hating mafia princesses (!) stop taking their medication and invite six slimeball ex-boyfriends over to their large country home for a party where they're systematically slaughtered in very gory ways by a gloved, leather-clad mystery killer.

The hideous David Barton FX are so bloody, but so unrealistic that they take on a sort-of surrealistic quality. Same goes for the movie. The dialogue is so strange and stilted, the film so ineptly paced and edited and the acting so other-worldly, you'll start to doubt your own sanity. This film actually attempts to have a plot and three-dimensional characters, but it's all so poorly handled it's almost like what would happen if Ed Wood did a rewrite of an Ingmar Bergman script! And like any good Bergman film, this has a mature moral to abide by--Any good party needs a proper guy/girl "ratio," so there will be enough chicks to "tickle your lizard." See it for yourself... or don't!

Linnea (the only reason I was even interested in watching this to begin with) is very amusing in this one, has a lot more dialogue than usual and has several eye-popping nude scenes. Unfortunately, she also completely disappears from the final third of this film and the movie suffers because of it.

Score: 3 out of 10

Sentiment: negative
The kids I took to this movie loved it (four children, ages 9 to 12 years; they would have given it 10 stars). Emma Roberts was adorable in the title role. (Expect to see more of this next-generation Roberts in the future.) After being over exposed to the likes of Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, and Paris Hilton, it was refreshing to see a girl who didn't look like she worked the streets. Also enjoyed seeing a supporting cast that included Tate Donovan, Rachel Leigh Cook, Barry Bostwick, and Monica Parker (with a cameo by Bruce Willis). Final takeaway: Cute film.

(Note: I did not read the book series, so my comments are based on the merits of the film alone.)

Sentiment: positive
A repressed housewife (an annoying lisping Angie Dickinson, whose body double treats/horrifies us with an extreme closeup of her delicates) is sexually bored by her husband and decides to branch-out. This directly results in a string of murders that soon involve a high-class prostitute (Nancy Allen, clearly I am in the wrong business if SHE can bring home $600 a night) and her psychologist (Michael Caine). If you are going to watch De Palma rip off (excuse me, "pay homage to") Hitchcock, watch "Sisters" instead of this. "Dressed to Kill," while loaded with style and technical skill, is one of the tackiest thrillers I have had the displeasure of sitting through. The plot is absurd and tired. It does feature some surprisingly effective jump scares and nasty graphic murder sequences that should please any horror fan, as long as they can get past the silly story line, that must have been dated even in 1980.

Sentiment: negative
I went into this movie with an open mind. I had been too lazy to go to the video store to pick out a movie, and my friend returned with this. I promised him I wouldn't laugh at his choice, but within the first five minutes I told him I would have to take back my promise. We kept watching, just hoping it would get better, but no; a continual mind-rape followed.

This "movie" was probably one of the worse ever committed to film, and surely deserves a place on the IMDb Bottom 100. I really don't know how this got distributed. The lighting was poor. I have seen better acting in elementary school plays. There is really nothing positive to say about it.

Sentiment: negative
Where to begin? 

#1 Amitabh's son, played by Akshaye Khanna, is 30.

Amitabh's been in prison for 33+ years... he

A) Telepathically transmitted the sperm home?

B) Asked a nice Pakistani guard to mail it for him?

C) They allow conjugal visits in secret Pakistani Jails

D) All of the above

E) The producers were having a little too much bhang at

the time they approved the script?

#2) Amrita Rao (Yummm!) wants Khanna - he's yum, yum, yummy... and apparently he wants her - who wouldn't, right?!... But, when her dad gets ratted out, and then killed (I hardly think this is a 'spoiler' as you'd have to be brain-dead and blind not to see this coming in the film) he's pretty emotionless towards this catastrophe and with the tip (metaphorically) of his hat, leaves her behind to save his dad, never mind her loss, and says (paraphrasing) "If god wills it, we'll meet again"... Basically meaning, "I'm gonna get my dad and MY job done, sorry for your loss - CYA! Buh Bye!" - callus beyond even low-life Hollywood standards...

#3) There are so many holes in this horrible waste of time called a movie, that you can drive all the jeeps, trucks camels and any extra stuff through it. Pass - really, complete and total waste of time - Oh! There is a great dance sequence (yes, only one - as in dance sequence - regardless of quality) great belly dancing - but NOT worth watching just for this.

Rent Veer-Zaara or Lakshya (will Hrithik Roshan ever take acting lessons?) for better Indo-Pak conflict movies... In fact, Veer-Zaara is pretty damned good - 7.5/8 I'd say!

Sentiment: negative
BEWARE SPOILERS. This movie was okay. Goldie Hawn and Chris Sarandon were the best two in it. Okay, so the goofie foreign guy who (SPOILER HERE) trades with the biker for his clothes was funny. This guy's boss was good, too. But the movie really belonged to Sarandon and Hawn. These two should have had a lot more time on screen together. They're chemistry was great. The bathroom scene-WOW! Romantic, sweet, yummy.

Hawn is a goofy cocktail waitress who saves a foreign man and ends up at the whitehouse in the middle of a plot due to the greed of politicians. To talk about Sarandon would be to give a lot away. SPOILERS This is a rather untypical romantic/political comedy, and it satisfies both somewhat-the political side a whole lot more than the romantic. It touches on political issues, and just barely skims on romantic areas.



Sentiment: positive
This is the greatest movie ever. If you have written it off with out ever seeing it. You must give it a second try.

Sentiment: positive
i think dirty dancing was a great movie, they tried to make another one havana nights which was good but it was nothing like dirty dancing. i would like to see another dirty dancing with the same people. without them i think it would be a mess. a lot of times movies are made then when they try to add on more they start to change the people an make the movies go down hill. i would love to see dirty dancing have another one to see what happened after they were able to be together. patrick an Jennifer did so well together. this movie was made in 1997 its time to make another one. but this time start where it left off an keep the same people in it.

Sentiment: positive
It's not surprising that the majority of higher-rated votes were submitted by females aged 45+. This is the timeframe in women's lives when they become the caretakers of aged and ill parents. I lost my mother, from complications of cancer, in June, and went through most of the same emotions portrayed by Zellweger in this film. Yes, it made me cry, but the tears were real, the characters were real, and the plot development extremely accurate. Kudos to the entire cast and crew for a wonderful portrayal of life and death, and the promises of tomorrow.

Sentiment: positive
THAT'S certainly a strange way to promote a film upon which a great deal rested. And it seems like plain suicide on the part of the studio, given that (1) The feuds between the cast were well known long before the movie's release. (2) The feud between the Producer(Robert Fryer) and Director ( Michael Sarne) was also common knowledge. (3) The cast made no secret of their contempt for the film and made it public at every opportunity, with daily bulletins from the set gleefully reported by gossip columnists everywhere.

And (4) The author, Gore Vidal hated it practically from day one. Nevertheless, that tagline just about sums it up. Raquel Welch does 

give a decent performance as Myra, and she looks lovely besides. John Huston is very funny as Buck Loner, the ex-Cowboy Star who runs a phony acting academy. Mae West, (in her first screen appearance since 1943) naturally rewrote her part to suit herself, and she is great as ''oversexed'' (and that's putting it mildly) ''Talent Agent'' Leticia Van Allen. Still, she must have wondered (after waiting so long for a good vehicle in which to return) how she ever ended up in this mess.

Tom Selleck (in his film debut) is one of her ''clients''. John Carradine and Jim Backus, as Doctors, also amble in briefly. Rex Reed as Myron, Farrah Fawcett and Roger Herren, as the victims of Myra/Myron's sexual passion, are neither here nor there. The same goes for the script, which not only fails to focus on the basic plot of the book, but seems to head in at least three different directions at once. Although West's part was originally larger, she was reduced to a cameo role by the time Sarne was through with the editing. And, partly because of this, she seems to be in a different movie. Apparently, at some point, the Producers realized that Mae was going to be the film's big draw, and, unable to replace most of her cut footage, they rushed her back to the set at the end of filming for the second of her two songs, both of which come out of nowhere. The device Sarne used of throwing in old film clips of bygone stars to emphasize whatever points he was making, doesn't work at all. By the time the movie concludes, all a weary spectator can do is wonder what in the hell it was all about. Not surprisingly, just about everyone connected with the production felt the same way, and it died at the box office. A technically flawless DVD includes, (among other extras) separate commentaries from both Welch and Sarne, each of whom have completely opposite opinions of just what went wrong.No doubt it's home video re-release was prompted by a 2001'' Vanity Fair'' piece, which attempted (in great detail) to do the same thing. True, the structure of the novel made a screen adaptation a dubious undertaking, but, with Sarne at the helm of what was obviously a ''troubled'' production, it really never had a chance.

Sentiment: negative
This was the film that started that the cinematic love affair

between the Jaundiced Eye crew and Matthew Ferguson. His

ability to portray RELATIVELY normal characters like Birkoff in

"La Femme Nikita" is counter-balanced by his equally deft

handling of weirdos like "Kane." One wishes that he would only

be given more roles, bigger roles, and other, even more complex

roles to assay to push the limits of his abilities. There were

four or five memorable scenes in this film, and Matthew Ferguson

stole two of them from far more experienced actors. This film

itself is good, and it is worth watching on its own merits, but

Ferguson makes it a little extra special. His *ouevre* may

eventually show what the career of Anthony Perkins MIGHT have

been like if he hadn't been typecast as "Norman Bates" so long

ago. "Kane" isn't quite as whacked-out as Norman, and far fewer

people saw "Love and Human Remains than saw "Psycho," so we can

hope that Ferguson will show us some hint of what Perkins MIGHT

have been able to accomplish, had he been allowed to do so. . . .

Sentiment: positive
I am a HUGE Tenacious D fan, and I think this is not the funniest movie in the world, but the most entertaining. It's not laugh-a-minute but that's not what the D intended it to be. I went into the movie seeing all the HBO shows, memorized both albums, and that made it even more enjoyable. Plenty of inside jokes from past Tenacious D albums, and HBO shows. Since I knew the new album already, I knew 40 minutes of the movie because it is a musical comedy. I would say it has the best first 5 minutes of any movie and the best last 5 minutes of any movie. Hands Down.

See This Movie Now!

Sentiment: positive
This movie twists the facts of Anne and Mary's lives into something unrecognizable. To make Mary Boleyn, who in fact was a rather dim and foolish creature, and make her the "good" sister is just silly. It is Anne who was in fact the far more interesting character, and that is why it is her life, and not Mary's, that has been told so often.

In response to an earlier review, I fail to see how Anne's life was so "criminal"... to me it's Henry who was the real criminal. Whatever Anne's motives for winning the king and withholding her affections in order to gain a crown and husband has to be taken into context of the time in which these real-life events took place. Anne, in comparison to the majority of most of the courtiers in her time, was a relatively innocent figure. Most modern historians discount or have disproven most of the myths and slanders that this movie perpetuate about her, and I have never heard of anyone who actually believes the rumour than she slept with her brother. This movie is so sensational and false that it is maddening to think that someone, without knowing anything about this period in history, could walk away believing anything this movie has presented as "fact".

I won't even get into the weird filming of the movie... but I'm pretty sure that cameras weren't invented in the 16th century, so I don't understand why Anne and Mary are talking to one throughout the movie... it's a really bad plot devise and is jarring and annoying, to put it mildly.

Anne of the Thousand Days is not accurate either, but is infinitely more entertaining and at least comes closer to telling the story of one of the most intriguing women of history. Don't even think about renting this.. it's two hours you'll never get back!

Sentiment: negative
I recently saw Blind Spot in Coyoacan, where it drew a huge crowd and some pretty intense discussion. I really admired the story and visual approach. The action is frightening and the mood of loneliness that the film projects is amazing. There is much beauty in the melancholy that surrounds these three misfit heroes. Not just in the desert but in the city too. My best scene was after the boy discovers his friends in the apartment and then rides his skateboard through all the remarkable lights of the city. You really feel for this guy. I never heard of the actors before but I liked all three very much. I think they did a terrific job on their journey to self-discovery. All in all, this is an amazingly cool and suspenseful suspenseful film. I still carry many of the images in my mind.

Sentiment: positive
I saw this movie twice through a pentecostal church my family attended in Nanaimo BC in the 1970's. I was of the tender age of 6, my brother 4, then again when I was 8 my brother 6. This movie terrified my brother and I and shaped how we viewed the world with distrust. It wasn't just the movie, but it was also the philosophy that engulfs so many "christians" about the "mark of the beast"and the rapture. This movie, the church, and a volatile neglectful upbringing, lead to severe paranoia towards the future. For years, I lived under the delusional affects of the church and fear of being forgotten by Christ. I am now 40 years old. Went through years of counseling. I once explained to a psychiatrist this movie and the belief system of the church and family. I was pegged with a delusional disorder. I actually began to believe this, it was my brother who reminded me, that this cultic philosophy actually happened. I no longer fear the future, I have come to terms with the fear injected into it's members by the church. I have taken this experience to fulfill a purpose, I am nearing my licensure as a Psychologist specializing in childhood trauma.

Sentiment: negative