DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Every American who thinks he or she understands World War Two should see this movie. Few Hollywood films about the war have defied the stereotype of Japanese soldiers as emotionless brutes obeying orders without thinking. We like to think that every Japanese man was ready and able to fight to the death, right up to the day we bombed Nagasaki. "Fires on the Plain" shows a different reality: troops pathetically undersupplied, demoralized and starved to the point of cannibalism. They euphemistically refer to human flesh as "monkey meat." The movie and novel on which it was based also put to death the myth that Japanese soldiers all preferred death to surrender: They had good reason to believe that their enemies were in no mood to take prisoners. To me it raises a question most Americans would rather avoid: If the Japanese military was so beaten down at this point in the war, why was it necessary to nuke Hiroshima?

Sentiment: positive
As I am always looking for something new and unique, I watched this film online. I thought that it would be just another "B" rate movie but I was amazed at the acting by the two main characters. All of the actors in this film were very capable and well directed. The plot was wonderful and unique as well with an excellent moral to the story.

This movie is definitely not for someone looking for a sex romp, "Dumb and Dumber" or blood and guts. This is a wonderfully poignant film showing some grim realities of life coupled with the kindness of the human heart and just enough frivolity to keep it interesting.

I would prefer this movie to many "A" rate movies I have seen even a great number with high box office earnings.

I highly recommend this movie.

Sentiment: positive
After seeing this DVD, I was floored. It is SO wonderful. Not only does it capture Led Zeppelin during convented performances, they span a few years. This only shows the growth of the band, and the growth of their GREAT music. This DVD is a MUST HAVE! The DVD is over 5 hours long, with extras. The extras are also great pieces, some are of the band performing in Denmark, and other various promo spots. This contains footage that was once thought lost, thankfully recovered, and carefully restored to 5.1 Dolby Digital, under direct supervision of Jimmy Page himself! Includes many timeless classics, such as, Stairway To Heaven, Going To California, What Is And What Should Never Be, Moby Dick, and so many more. Great acoustic songs are also included. This will correct any forethought that Jimmy Page isn't a supreme guitar legend!

Sentiment: positive
I thought the movie was OK but very disappointed that they didn't capture the true image of his life. I was so anticipating to see his mother being an actual Jamaican, that it's driving me crazy. Just watching the beginning of the movie told me that the movie was not accurate. Which I completely lost interest just a matter of seconds from the beginning of the movie. I'm very disappointed, that's like watching a biography story on Mark Anthony and having Arnold play the part. I don't know what the writer was thinking missing a valuable piece of the movie which I'm sure his mother played a huge role in his life. I will say the movie was OK besides the major Fla!!!!!!

Sentiment: negative
I saw Saving Grace right after it came out on video. Since then it's become one of my favorites! The plot isn't particularly complex but it doesn't take away from the entertainment. It's chuck full of comedic moments and has a very endearing quality to it. The characters are what makes the movie so good. They each have their own quirky qualities which adds to the humor, the two old ladies played by Linda Kerr Scott and Phyllida Law leaps to mind. Superb acting was done by all, particularly Brenda Blythen. She and Craig Ferguson were great together in pulling off some of the funnier moments. If you're looking for a good comedy I'd definately recommend this movie!

Sentiment: positive
So I caught this one afternoon as "What Lies Above" and actually watched it because the beginning was somewhat promising. The heroine, Diana Pennington, is a mountain climbing expert...but that doesn't help her when her fiancé Brian gets hurt on a climb. When she goes off to get help and returns, he disappears from the mountain, never to be seen again.

Two years later, Diana is still a climber...but she won't go near Snowman's Pass. That is, until Curt Seaver appears and tells her that he can find the body of her lost fiancé with a new satellite program. She agrees and they take off up the mountain with Curt's two assistants: His "bodyguard" Hugo and the computer whiz Tyler. From the start, you know that there's some ulterior motive going on, but unfortunately the twists aren't good and lead to a laughably bad chase sequence that makes up the last 20 or 30 minutes of the movie.

The major disappointments are the red herrings, most of which have supernatural undertones that never come to fruition. The object from the sky that fell into the mountains (which turns out to be not so supernatural), the story of how Snowman's Pass came to be, and the most memorable one of them all: Diana's dream sequence halfway through the movie. But what disappointed me most is where they dropped the ball. The majority of the movie revolves around the search for Brian, that's why I can't for the life of me begin to understand why the mystery of what exactly happened to him and where he was is never solved through the course of the movie. This was the major plot. This was how the movie STARTED! How do you NOT wrap that up?

I wouldn't tell too many people to bother with this one...

Sentiment: negative
They made me watch this in school and it was terrible. The movie is outdated. The episodes become confusing because fact is combined with fiction to make the story more interesting.The teachers talked about it as a treat but really it was a painfully boring experience.I have read that very few people who appear in this are actors, but most of them them do what they do in the movie in real life.This accounts for cheesy acting very often. Also, very often the story becomes mildly outrageous and far-fetched. I don't like the way some of the lines were written and wish they had more meaning to them. Though, it was written to be educational, funny, suspenseful, and hip, It ended up being boring, dry, far-fetched, and old. I hope no one takes time to watch this movie because you would be just fine not seeing it.

Sentiment: negative
This movie is not very good.In fact, it is the worst Elvis movie I have seen.It has very little plot,mostly partying,beer drinking and fighting. Burgess Meredith and Thomas Gomez are wasted. I don't know why they did this movie.You could say Elvis was wasted as well,he is much,much better in "Follow That Dream."

Sentiment: negative
Will Farmer (Lanter) plays a computer game that simulates a terrorist attack, and Ripley, the super government computer, designed to profile potential terrorists, tracks him because Will borrowed (by hacking) some money from his next door neighbor's bank account to pay for a class trip to play chess in Philadelphia. The next door neighbor whose computer Will was fixing, has relatives in the mid-east who thru their bank send money to the neighbor's bank , and Ripley sees a terrorist connection. Ripley has the power to call up missile strikes. Oh, oh!

This version of War Games has a much faster pace and more aggressiveness than the War Games movie in the early 1980s. Well, the electronic industry has so much more to work with these days. Makes sense. So the movie dazzles us with fantastic CGI on computer screens, and once Joshua, the forerunner to Ripley, is found operational, we are left with watching computer against computer and the humans are cringing, hoping, praying.sort of, oh-oh-ing, OMG-ing, and more cringing hoping things will go their way. In other words we are now experiencing a made-for-TV type movie, and it's Oh Hum Time. Go back to the 1980s and watch the original War Games movie. It's much better. 

But, we really have to ask ourselves: are we making computers too intelligent where one day, in time, they will rule us? Hmmm..

Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: No.

Sentiment: negative
One of the worst movies I've ever seen. When I was trying to watch this I had flu and i was pretty open minded for any brainless entertainment. Unfortunately this was too much. How, so many totally ungifted actors can be in one movie? This movie makes porn look like European art-movie. Cast just speaks out their lines without any emotions; special thanks to Charlie Snows (Baldwin) soon-to-be-ex-wife who talks about her divorce like the rest of us talk about the weather. Just horrible (and funny).

With lots of booze and friends this might just make it as a background entertainment and few laughs, just like Ed Wood-movies. The plot is a joke and soundtrack straight from some cheeky soap-opera.

Hopefully nobody paid to see this movie.



Sentiment: negative
After growing up in the gritty streets of Detroit, MI, and having friends who traveled to New York balls, I fell into the lifestyle of being a House member. I joined the House of Theieves. We adapted the same rules as most houses, but we were professional crooks that would boost and commit credit card fraud to obtain the fabulous jewels and clothes we desired. I even learned how to profess the making of checks and driver's license and cash them in over seventeen states, until a jealous queen called the Secret Service on me and I went to Federal prison. But, I learned a lot from these queens in this movie and I highly recommend you watch it yourself. You can even read about how I grew up in the houses here in Detroit and the criminal activity we indulged in. My book, Identity Schemes is available on sale at Amazon dot com or at Identity Schemes dot com. But trust me, It is a lot better than Paris is Burning, because its a 2005 make.

Sentiment: positive
This is an oft-used line, but it really sums up this movie..."If this is the current state of gay cinema, then we're in real trouble". I saw this film at SIFF because of the high IMDb rating (7.6) and if there was ever a case of vote stacking on IMDb, then this is it. Just watch the number fall over the release weeks of the film.

Easy plot...Boy finds out his high school ex (boyfriend) is getting married to a female friend of theirs so he goes back to his old hometown (still carrying a 10 year old torch) to see what happened.

First off, I liked "Latter Days", the director's last feature, despite its cookie cutter characters and plot contrivances, but you're supposed to become a better director with each subsequent release. I don't know how you get horrible supporting performances out of so many TV veterans (Robert Foxworth, Joanna Cassidy, Tori Spelling), but somehow he managed to. The writing was Lifetime Network quality (way back when they were REALLY bad) and the situations were unbelievable AND uncomfortably hard to watch. I kept reaching for a non-existent remote control to fast forward, but ultimately made myself stay to the end, hoping for a decent ending. Ugh...no. Even the gratuitous male nudity that popped up during the movie was so blatantly gratuitous that it seemed to be there to keep people in their seats. 

To be fair...the 2 leads, especially in the gratuitous nude scenes, were gorgeous. There was also a real sweetness between them during their rekindling friendship as they uncovered how they went separate ways. And the film looked great...good quality and color saturation for an independent film.

How is it that network TV can give week after week of great, entertaining weekly episodes (Like "Ugly Betty", "Desp. Housewives", etc.), but so many feature releases in similar genres can be as bad as this?

Sentiment: negative
Carl Brashear (Cuba Gooding, Jr.) was born to sharecroppers in the deep south. He joins the navy, whereupon he tells his father he will be back. The father gives him an old radio, and Brashear leaves on the navy bus. The Most valuable thing his unemotional father taught him was, "Never quit". After a recommendation from a white commander Powers Boothe), who admires his drive and guts, he gets sent to Navy diving school at Bayonne, NJ. He endures harassment from his pals in uniform and from his trainer, Chief Navy Master Diver, Billy Sunday (Robert De Niro), and from the commanding officer, called pappy, (Hal Holbrook, who "has almost as many loose screws as an old car". They all want to make him drop out, and the prejudice is quite fierce.The dangers of diving prove a further setback when he loses a leg due to an accident on board ship. Despite this setback, he tells his wife that he will train and achieve his objective, and with the help of Billy Sunday, (now both joined in commiseration in their sufferings), they train and he is able to become the first black Navy diver with his artificial limb despite the skepticism of a highly mocking and doubtful captain at the Navy Department hearing in Washington, DC to determine if he meets the criteria. An inspirational movie, showing that determination can overcome all odds.

Sentiment: positive
This is a movie that should be viewed and treated as a piece of art. This is an oblivious labour of love by the Schrader brothers about the life of Yukio Mishima that is full truly artistic elements. The movie jumps from color to black and white, past to present, fictional works by Mishima to him. All without being confusing in the least bit. The only thing that gets me is that the entire movie, with the exception of the narrator's spoken parts is in Japanese. Still a masterpiece that deserves an audience but hasn't found won. Criterion, if you are reading this, this is a film that should be released under your imprint with as much extras as possible. This film truley deserves more. 10/10

Sentiment: positive
It's a bit difficult to believe that this came from the same director that gave us HELLRAISER. Where's the style, the foreboding, and the charm? I mean, HELLRAISER is not a great horror film, but at least it had something. NIGHTBREED is like a large ball of bad ideas poorly executed. From the opening there is a problem with subtlety: the monsters are shown in the first shot! The opening dream sequence shows too much for too long. Our hero doesn't display professional acting skills (but no one expected that from this bastard genre). There are killings that one wishes were more interesting. Then we have David Cronenberg. The man was never really meant to be an actor. He fills the role of the creepy psychiatrist adequately, but what he should have done was step behind the camera and save this disaster. Then we come to Midian, a creepy fake graveyard with an over-creepy fake gate. This thing is not a huge improvement over the cemetery in PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. It gets worse when we meet the creatures in it. There is nothing really wrong with the character design and make-up effects here (well... except for the guy with no scalp, the guy with a pointy chin and forehead, and the fat guy with dark circles around his eyes), the problem is the way they act and the terrible dialogue that is given them. Barker's photography of the subterranean city is tired and this part of the story could have been made much better. Some might call what follows SPOILERS. After our hero dies and becomes "nightbreed" we wait around to see what he'll turn into (there's talk of things that fly and werewolves), but when the time comes for him to change they appearantly thought their hero too pretty to give a decent creature design. With the turn in Cronenberg's "character" the story just gets less interesting until the battle of freaks vs. norms (which is just bad). Barker's mythology failed him here. There is no genius and little originality behind any of NIGHTBREED. The picture could have used a larger budget, a serious script, and character design that doesn't leave you saying "oh...oh, how lame." What a waste. Not scary, not cool, not even very dark, just weak.

Sentiment: negative
If you enjoy sitting in the dark, both literally and figuratively, for ninety minutes then this is the movie for you.

A waste of actors, resources and audience time. Ultimately a waste of space. Don't be tempted by the resume. There is nothing of any further substance beyond it. The film lacks all of the basics that you might expect from the genre; plot, character, development, denouement. The cast may perhaps take heart from the knowledge that in this instance their efforts will be entirely forgettable and, given time, their careers may perhaps improve.

Absolute tripe.

Sentiment: negative
I suppose this is not the best film ever made but I voted it at 10 stars all the same. Mainly because of my feelings at the end. I and all the people around me were simply touched. This is something you don't often feel . We are all getting a bit cynical and fed up with over sentimentality, lazy manipulation or preaching in modern films. The story of the film centres around Jane a young woman in the last stages of MND and the friendship that grows between her and Richard, a man on the verge of a breakdown. This could have so easily been a dull and worthy piece but it is so humorous, humane and lacking in sentimentality that it wins you over completely and against the odds is a feel good movie. 

The acting from Branagh and Bonham-Carter is superb especially the latter who is always believable and strong in her role. The chemistry between the two also lifts the movie. 

The title comes from Richards masterpiece, a plane made of junk and his old paintings. Flying here is a symbol for both Richards and Janes living life to the full so that one can carry on and the other can face the end. 

A beautiful and funny movie that I would recommend to anyone. don't let the subject matter put you off.

Sentiment: positive
In ten words or less to describe this film, Barbara Stanwyck is too appealing and it is great! The film is wonderful, except for the perhaps tacked-on ending, but I love happy endings anyway. Barbara Stanwyck, however, as the platinum-blonde gold-digger is amazing. She knows what she wants and goes after it! This film is sexy and excellent!

Sentiment: positive
Exceptionally horrible tale that I can barely put into words. The best part of the movie was when one of the murder victims turns up at the end, alive and well, only to be massacred again. There is the chance that I missed some crucial plot elements since I may have been in a slight coma during the time this baby was on. The box that the movie comes in shows scenes that are never even in the film. I was lured in by the crude images of bondage torture and promises of a 'Euro-trash, sexy horror flick.' I get the feeling this was the budget version and about one quarter of the film was left out. All the good stuff more than likely. I got the PG-13 addition that made about as much sense as the end to the new 'Planet of the Apes' movie. Watch this one with a friend and a bottle of the hard stuff. You'll need it.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this when it was in the theater, it started out so strong I mean back in 1980 this was a bold movie and the special effects were excellent AT THE time. Now you would have to of been at least 30 or so in 1980 to really understand this point because studying film historically misses the mind set at the time the expectations, and other related psychological factors. Now as I said the movie was engaging suspenseful and very entertaining. It builds to an excellent climax then.... IT ends I mean the person that described it as having a water balloon break in your hand before throwing it, besides being a very poetic description. In my experience, it was just not strong enough. My wife and I were well... how can I say this? We were upset, I mean we paid money, invested the time to watch the movie which was excellent. "We both felt we were robbed with an ending that convinced us both the production company must of run out of money and could not raise enough to finish it correctly. In fact my wife said it best, it did not end, IT JUST STOPPED!

Sentiment: negative
This movie was packed pull of endless surprises! Just when you thought it couldn't get worse, they added more joints and more pink fuzzy-lined vans with raunchy sex scenes. As you can guess, I was a victim of the original version. We were tricked into watching it thinking it was Supervan, the host box which promised lasars, jail breaks, and much more. Who would have thought a Dollar Store Christmas present could have been so much fun!

Sentiment: negative
I'm never much for classic films. Movies like Patton, Going My Way, How Green was My Valley, The Godfather, Casablanca, Annie Hall, Gone with the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, and Citizen Kane bore me. However, I would much rather watch any one of those films 3,469 times while being tied up on a chair than watch An American in Paris once in the most luxurious suite ever. If I did the latter, I'd probably be sleeping the entire time.

The color art direction and the music didn't interest me, Gershwin or non-Gershwin. The dancing and the singing could help an insomniac fall to sleep. The dialogue doesn't match up to Singin' in the Rain. Basically, this movie is boring. The only other film that I fell asleep while watching was Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. But you can't blame me. I only slept 5 minutes the night before.

1 star/10 (Too bad we can't give zeroes.)

Sentiment: negative
Banned as a 'Video Nasty' in the UK, Unhinged has naturally gained quite a bit of notoriety. However, the most shocking thing I found about the film was its amateurishness in all departments. The bloodletting I could handle: the terrible acting, shoddy editing, awful direction, lousy script and abysmal soundtrack were much harder to take.

Three girls on their way to a music festival crash into a ravine during a storm. They are rescued by a friendly stranger who takes them to a nearby house. The owner of the house, a batty old lady, and her spinster daughter, welcome the girls in, allowing them to stay for a few days in order to recuperate. However, someone doesn't want the girls to leaveever! One by one they fall victim to an unseen assailant.

Taking a long time to get going and featuring some of the worst performances ever in a horror film (and that takes some doing), Unhinged is a truly awful film. The music is a total mess (it sounds like a three year old has been let loose on a synthesiser) and as such, it complements the movie perfectly. Only a couple of bloody scenes towards the end and a bit of gratuitous nudity save Unhinged from getting the lowest possible score.

If you are a horror completist (and unfortunately, I am), you will want to see this in order to tick it off the Video Nasty watch-list. But be warnedit is really, really bad.

Sentiment: negative
I saw this movie with my mother, and I loved it! It was such a sweet story, (Not to mention funny because of the supporting cast!) They never make movies like this...ever! My favorite part is when Grace(Minnie Driver) finds out about her boyfriend's wife's death, and that she has the deceased wife's heart and she screams, "WHAT WAS GOD THINKING?" I do believe everyone(No matter who you believe in) has thoughts like that once in awhile. But while it's very sappy, it just might make you believe in true love and destiny for once and for all.(Sigh)

The comedic timing between Bonnie Hunt and Jim Belushi will just make you crack up(especially in the aforementioned scene, it's terrible, and yet so funny!). They make a good pair, and I hope to see them again in something soon. 10/10 Stars

Sentiment: positive
Before watching this film (at a screening attended by the director herself) we were informed this had won the short film prize at the Galway Film Fleadh. Surely this result will give filmmakers hope, anyone can do better than this!

How anyone cannot notice the flagrant rip-off of Donnie Darko in this I'll never know. The film is pure drivel, the acting cardboard, the dialogue ridiculous & the ending just flat! The only crumb of comfort we enjoyed after seeing this rubbish was to loudly comment on how dreadful it was, in front of the director! Yes that was mean, but liberating!

At least Irish film-making can't sink any lower!

Sentiment: negative
Oh dear, oh dear...

For JM fans, this was the nail in the coffin as far as her A-list Hollywood career was concerned. After solid turns in Girl Can't Help It, Wayward Bus, The Burglar and Rock Hunter it seemed Jayne was well on the way to becoming one of Tinsel Town's hottest stars. However, an obsession with racy publicity and an appearance in this clunker relegated Mansfield to the sidelines, namely cheap Euro loan-outs until Fox could drop her contract at the earliest opportunity.

This movie really is a diabolical waste of everyone's time with the exception of Suzy Parker who is the only thing in this movie bad enough for the material. Many people blame poor Jayne and her grating performance for this film's poor returns at the box office and while she is a pain in this film, she can only do her best with the material. After all, Cary hardly sets the screen on fire does he? After a handful of very good dramatic and comedy turns Jayne takes 10 steps back in her pursuit as a serious actress by agreeing (simply for the sake of appearing with Grant) to portray this squealing, idiotic menace. Her character of Alice is a complete cartoon bimbo and although she looks good enough to eat in a boiler suit, her every appearance in the film jangles your nerves. We all know Jayne could do so much better than this dross and yet here she is parading around like a prize pudding. A real shame.

Steer clear of this so-called comedy. It's more depressing than funny.

Sentiment: negative
If you're going to spoof James Bond it's a brilliant idea to find a leading man who resembles BOTH Sean Connery and Leonard Rossiter so step forward Jean Dujardin who captures perfectly the Connery sneer that masquerades as a smile plus the self-delusion of Rossiter thinking he is suave. Dujardin plays it like a Clouseau who can hold his own at karate. The plot has him looking for Our Man In Schtook who has disappeared mysteriously and includes such improbabilities as a Nazi cell concealed inside a pyramid. If there is a jarring note it is the leading lady, Berenice Bejo who has all the sensuality of a suet pudding and is eclipsed - but only just - by Aure Atika. It's good for one viewing but that's about it.

Sentiment: positive
When I was a kid in the 50's and 60's anything connected with Disney was by definition great. What happened? They are able to get any actors and actresses they want, the best of their time. But somehow Disney manages to screw things up in spite of their abundant resources.

Disney can afford the best writers, the best producers and directors, but still...they screw things up! This movie is crap. The sad thing is that I suspect Disney in their arrogance does not even know when a movie is good or bad.

It is only due to the talent of the actors that I can even give it a 3 of 10.

Sentiment: negative
The spoiler warning is for those people who want to see for themselves what animals and landscapes pass before their eyes, although I don't mention it in great detail.

"Earth" is an approx. 90 minute cinema version based on "Planet earth" which I watched all on BBC TV.The TV version was narrated by David Attenborough, a captivating commentator, who I had wished had also done it for "Earth" but it is Patrick Stewart, Star Trek's Captain Picard. There are regularly shots of the Earth from space so that's may be appropriate. In any case he has a nice enough and calm voice for it. There are 12 chapters in which we follow animal life on earth from North Pole to Antarctica. 3 animal families, polar bear, elephant and whale, appear in more than one of these parts. Each "chapter" starts with an indication how far from north pole or equator it is. We see something of each kind of animal, but only mammals and birds, and some fish, and some beautiful shots of vegetation, mountains, waterfalls, deserts and jungle, a near perfect presentation of the variety of life and landscapes and climates on earth. You get the impression that our planet is only inhabited by animals: people or villages or cities aren't in the film, so it's a typical nature documentary, but breathtakingly shot and accompanied by delightful music. When the film opened I already knew it would end far too soon for me. It is a family film, so no brutal killings of any animals. When one is caught by his hunter the shot ends and in other cases where we see the prey being caught it's shot in slow-motion which makes it less violent and watchable for young children (age limit 6 in The Netherlands). No blood is shed. Some scenes (newly born animals) are really cute and will be adored by kids. It looks like an ordinary nature film but when you know how many shooting days it took (4000) and how much money it has cost it becomes an even more astonishing piece of beauty. It had it's Dutch premiere yesterday, a month before the actual release, in a cinema of 500 seats, of which 15 were taken. True beauty is rarely interesting for cinema goers, it seems. As I knew the TV-series I was of course very curious if my favourite scenes would make it into this movie. Some didn't, but the most impressive shots (big waterfalls) did, luckily. It was the first time I ever cried in a nature film.

Sentiment: positive
It's a bad movie, it seems like there is only 5 police in HK, they were not using there gun and this makes me feel like a Jacky Chan's movie. All the time they were using their gun to point at the suspect only. When they finally use their gun is when they kill each other, what a funny movie. In The movie, it's like all the good guys died without a reason.

They story line of the movie also sucks, the story jump here and there and bored people. But if you wanted to see a bloody movie, I think this is only a OK type of movie, I think U.S. made zombie movie is more bloodier than this one

Sentiment: negative
I recommend watching this film with your significant other if you're planning a romantic evening with him/her. The chemistry between Johnny Weissmuller and Maureen O'Sullivan as Tarzan and Jane is so steamy it could fog up your screen.

After the original film, we begin to see how Tarzan and Jane have adapted to the jungle and to each other. Jane's skimpy jungle wear and Tarzan's protest when Jane covers up for their visitors illuminates that they are not just romantically, but also quite sexually in love.

One's imagination can supplement the constant touching and love talk between Tarzan & Jane to portray how much Jane is actually teaching Tarzan about love emotionally, romantically and sexually. And Jane's student is not only embracing but also thriving with his previously untapped sexuality.

The skin show in this film is off the charts. In addition to Jane's two-piece sexy midriff, leg, and hip baring costume, she also has an underwater nude swim with Tarzan. (although it is not O'Sullivan, but Olympic swimmer Josephine McKim who doubles for her in this scene) Weissmuller, also reveals a tremendous body and perfect pectorals in his barely there loincloth. The ladies will delight when Weissmuller emerges from the water after his lengthy fight with the giant crocodile and sounds his yell - with his water soaked loincloth practically falling off his hips.

It's a shame that the over-protective censors toned down the adult nature of the Tarzan films after this entry. Although the Weissmuller Tarzan films would still prosper in the years to come, they would rarely approach the sex appeal of this movie.

Sentiment: positive
Wow, my first review of this movie was so negative that it was not excepted. I will try to tone this one down. Lets be real!!! No one wants to see a Chuck Norris movie where HE is not the main character.There was a good fight scene at the end, but the rest of the movie stank. I have to wonder if old Chuck just can't hang with the best any more. Has he slowed down so much that he has to turn out junk like this and hope that his reputation will carry him through the entire movie? Chuck is an awesome martial artist, and as we have seen from Walker, Texas Ranger, a fairly good actor, but the trick is to combine both of these qualities in his movies, and this one does not. Very Disappointing for us Norris fans. Chuck, stay as the main character in your movies, because this does not work for you...Gary

Sentiment: negative
What a great film it is. The notion of nations sending people fighting each other with giant robots is tacky. The ending is not just a fitting one, it's more inspirational.

But I am intrigued by the characters. It is a pity we never see the relationship of Achilles and Athena more developed beyond just a couple of kisses and Athena's fear for Achilles's safety. Their romance is very enjoyable.



Sentiment: positive
I like Errol Flynn; I like biographies and I like action movies. This featured all three of these....but I didn't like this film. It just went on too long although the last 20 minutes was excellent, especially in the photography with some great low- angle shots. However, I seemed like it took six hour to get to that point, and I really can't say why I feel this way. 

The action is interesting, Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland are fine. In fact, it was refreshing to see de Havilland actually be supportive of Flynn instead of her normal role as antagonist to him. Yet something is lacking in this movie.

The film has been roundly criticized for its historical inaccuracy but I don't hear that same criticism for a lot of other films which have done the same. In fact, its RARE when a film is historically accurate. For some reason, this revisionist history offended most critics. If the film had made General Custer a lot worse than he really was, they would have probably liked it. Well, too bad. In their twisted way, critics prefer villains to heroes. 

I really wish I could have enjoyed this more but I'll take a lot of other Flynn adventures over this one.

Sentiment: negative
Why is Guy working for Buddy? Probably because Ari was not around in 1995. Why does Dawn want to be with Guy? For access to Buddy. Why does she stay with Guy? I am not sure.

There are bunch of things about this movie that I am not sure about. But, Kevin Spacey is an excellent, verbal tsunami as Buddy Ackerman  and totally believable because he is a great actor.

Frank Whaley's Guy is certainly out of his element working for Buddy  he wants to write and make meaningful movies, not be a gofer that is verbally abused for getting Equal instead of Sweet & Low. 

Michelle Forbes' Dawn, who also wants to make meaningful movies, seems way out of Guy's league.

The ending leaves a lot to be desired.

Sentiment: negative
The movie had a lot of potential, unfortunately, it came apart because of a weak/implausible story line, miscasting, and general lack of content/substance. One of the very obvious flaws was that Sean Connery, who played an Arab man, didn't know how to pronounce his own Arab name! This may seem a small flaw but it points to the seeming lack of effort in paying attention to details. The quality of acting was uniformly well below average. 

Movie's solitary saving grace was the twist in the plot at the very end; and a french song (I don't recall the title). Overall, it was a pretty bad movie where Sean Connery was visibly miscast.

Sentiment: negative
One of the worst shows of all time. The show would begin with smart ass ed comments to each other that would be totally off the wall and uncalled for. The fat computer geek was unbelievable, the bible thumper, the bad-ass girl, who are these actors??? Never heard of any of them except Cole who was totally unbelievable in the part. Every time he opened his mouth you expect to hear, "you see kids..." Pulling the plug was a mercy killing for this horrible show. The stories were as unbelievable as the actors. Lame would be the best way to describe it. Somehow this show makes a slug like Ice-T more believable as a cop, and he wrote the worst song about cops ever recorded.

Sentiment: negative
This movie got off to an interesting start. Down the road however, the story gets convoluted with a poor illustration of ancient black magic rituals. The male lead was very good , even though he gets the worst end of the stick in the climax. In comparison, this is "Boomerang" meets "Extremities".



Sentiment: negative
bad acting , combats are very awful , 3-4 second between each text , bad music , bad effect and always the same plan during the movie. if you want laugh go it 2/10 ( for the fool laugh)

Sentiment: negative
This movie was terrible. You couldn't fast forward fast enough to get to the end of this movie. It came down to the last 20 minutes of the film and I literally hit the eject button right in the middle of the scene. It was one of the worst movies I have ever experienced. Worse than all Dean Cain films combined. To start, the acting was terrible. I realize that the main actors were from the cast of survivor, but one would think that any TV experience would have given them a little more talent. The movies other main problem was the campy visual effects and the poor film quality. In the movies defense, the theme of the show was well intentioned and the story was all right.

Sentiment: negative
This 60min film shows just how much fun filmmaking can be. It's all in good fun as it plays-out a no holds barred comedy assault on the Star Trek genre. In "Hick Trek - The Moovie", a group of good 'ol boys are on a mission to stop a group of renegade cats out to destroy the entire Redneck Federation.

Can Captain Jerk stop the villainous Fluffy with the power of the R.S.S. Bovine and it's Cow Ray?? She may have nine lives, but he has ten bullets! This cult classic (previously only seen at scifi conventions) is a party favorite. Lots of funny moments!

Sentiment: positive
Mario's first foray into the world of 3-dimensions is incredible. Miyamoto's masterpiece was reason enough to buy a Nintendo 64 when it was released in 1996 and it still holds all of it's charm today. This game is an instant classic that set the standard for 3D adventure/platform games.

Sentiment: positive
After the failure of "The Crusades" at the box office, Cecil B. DeMille stopped doing films about non-American history. His films for the next thirteen years were about our history from Jean Lafitte to World War II (Dr. Wassell). The first in order of production was this film, starring Gary Cooper as Wild Bill Hickok, with Jean Arthur as Calamity Jane. James Ellison was Buffalo Bill, John Miljan (not a villain as usual) was General George A. Custer, and Anthony Quinn was one of the Indians who fought at Little Big Horn. The villains were led by Charles Bickford (selling arms to the Indians) and Porter Hall as Jack McCall (who killed Wild Bill Hickok).

Basically the film takes up the history of the U.S. after the Civil War. Lincoln is shown at the start talking about what is the next step now that Lee has surrendered. Lincoln talks about the need to secure the west (more about this point later). Then he announces he has to go to the theater. That April 14th must have been very busy for Abe - in "Virginia City" he grants a pardon to Errol Flynn at the request of Miriam Hopkins on the same date.

Actually, while Lincoln was concerned about the West, his immediate thoughts on the last day of his Presidency were about reunifying the former Confederate states and it's citizens into the Union as soon as possible. It was Reconstruction that occupied his attention, not the west (except for the problems of Maximillian and his French controlled forces in Mexico against Juarez). But he had been involved in actual problems with the West. In 1862 he sent disgraced General John Pope, the loser at Second Manassas, to Minnesota to put down a serious Indian war by the Sioux (the subject of McKinley Kantor's novel, "Sprit Lake". Pope, incompetent against Lee and Jackson, turned out to be quite effective here, and the revolt was smashed.

However, with all Lincoln's actual attention to western problems, it is doubtful that he says (as Cooper repeats at least once), "The frontier should be secure." There is nothing to say he could not have said it, but it is hardly a profound pronouncement by a leading statesman. Like saying, Teddy Roosevelt said, "Eat a good breakfast every morning for your health." It is not a profound statement of policy. It is, at best, a statement of recognizable fact. Cooper turning it into a minor mantra, like Lincoln's version of the Monroe Doctrine, is ridiculous...typical of the way DeMille's scripts have really bad errors of common sense in them.

However, this is not a ruinous mistake. "The Plainsman" is an adventure film, and as such it has the full benefit of DeMille the film creator of spectacle. As such it is well worth watching. But not as a textbook on Lincoln's political ideas or his quotable legacy.

Sentiment: positive
Koen Wouters is a flemish singer and presenter. In the early ninety's he tried his hand on movies as well. But this unbelievable piece of junk ended his acting career once and for all. It also ended the acting career of dutch actress Nada van Nie who went on being a football-wife a TV presenter and program-maker. I actually did see this in an ( almost empty) theatre because I used to be a fan of the band of Koen Wouters, Clouseau. I so regret spending money on it. It looks cheap, it is a terrible story and it is executed bad in every possible way. Some people think it's so bad it's funny. I am not one of them. I just found it an incredible waste of time and money.

Sentiment: negative
first, i'd like to say that, while i know my share about star wars, i am not a fanatic. i do not know how many chromosomes a Wamp Rat has or the extended family of TK427. what i know is this: Star wars, all the movies(less so with episode 2 though), captured something magical. it's hard to say what, what button Lucas has found and boldly pressed, but it works. Star Wars is more than a movie. it's an idea.

How, may you ask? i shall explain. star wars touches on the most universal of stereotypes, good vs evil. it does this so obviously, so profoundly, that literally any person from any environment can understand. Episode VI does the very well, concluding the epic struggle between a son and his used and manipulated father, yet also, with the addition of the prequels, reveals even more to the hinted back story. suddenly, it's Darth Vader at the front, and viewers realize that it's the story about Anakin, not just Luke. but even before 1-3, there was amazing depth to it all. it felt real, as if capsule fell from the sky into Lucas's lap, detailing a historical account of a galaxy far, far away.

Star Wars is definitely something far above the norm, and i must admit, whenever i see them, particularly this one, i feel very small. i feel as though i've been thrust into a world where good and evil are so clearly defined. i get a tingling feeling when i see them, a feeling that something, somehow, has touched me more than any physical thing could ever hope.

Sentiment: positive
Forgive me for stating the obvious, but some films are good and some films are bad. Of course, there are extremes within those two broad categories. Films such as The Godfather, Saving Private Ryan, and Star Wars slot comfortably into the good category. At the other end of the spectrum there are those films that simply don't deserve to be mentioned by name. Occasionally however, someone produces a truly woeful film. A film that should be singled out as a demonstration of how awful a film can be. A film that is more than bad. Such a film is Maiden Voyage.

Briefly, Maiden Voyage is a story about a luxury cruise ship that is hijacked by a gang of evil criminals who demand a ransom from an equally evil, scheming ship's owner. Of course, there is an all American hero on board, complete with chiselled jaw and sculptured chest, who saves the day.

This is a production that plumbs new depths. Everything about it is bad. The acting, the direction and the so-called plot are breath-takingly poor. In short, it is an insult to the intelligence of any unfortunate viewer. Even an American viewer would be annoyed by its shortcomings.

Yes, it's that bad.

I will resist the temptation to compose a list of things that angered me about this film. However, its dumber-than-dumb conclusion should serve as an adequate example of what I mean.

Imagine in your mind that you are an evil hijacker and you are stood in an open lifeboat on a calm sea. You are in company with the hero who holds a ticking bomb. Said hero throws the bomb to you and dives overboard. What would you do? I don't know about you, but I would throw the bomb as far as I possibly could into the sea. Not this guy. He watches as our hero swims away and then he tries to disarm the bomb with unfortunate (for him) results. Enough said. Such a demise would merit a mention in the Darwin Awards website and might also be a suitably apt conclusion to the production team's lives.

Sentiment: negative
18 directors had the same task: tell stories of love set in Paris. Naturally, some of them turned out better than others, but the whole mosaic is pretty charming - besides, wouldn't it be boring if all of them had the same vision of love? Here's how I rank the segments (that might change on a second viewing):

1. "Quartier Latin", by Gérard Depardieu

One of the greatest French actors ever directed my favourite segment, featuring the always stunning Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara. Witty and delightful.

2. "Tour Eiffel", by Sylvain Chomet

Cute, visually stunning (thanks to the director of "The Triplets of Belleville") story of a little boy whose parents are mimes;

3. "Tuileries", by Ethan and Joel Coen

The Coen Brothers + Steve Buscemi = Hilarious

4. "Parc Monceau", by Alfonso Cuarón ("Y Tu Mamá También", "Children of Men"), feat. Nick Nolte and Ludivine Sagnier (funny);

5. "Place des Fêtes", by Oliver Schmitz, feat. Seydou Boro and Aissa Maiga (touching);

6. "14th Arrondissement", Alexander Payne's ("Election", "About Schmidt") wonderful look for the pathetic side of life is present here, feat. the underrated character actress Margo Martindale (Hilary Swank's mother in "Million Dollar Baby") as a lonely, middle-aged American woman on vacation;

7. "Faubourg Saint-Denis", Tom Tykwer's ("Run Lola Run") frantic style works in the story of a young actress (Natalie Portman) and a blind guy (Melchior Beslon) who fall in love;

8. "Père-Lachaise", by Wes Craven, feat. Emily Mortimer and Rufus Sewell (plus a curious cameo by Alexander Payne as...Oscar Wilde!);

9. "Loin du 16ème", by Walter Salles and Daniela Thomas (simple but moving story from the talented Brazilian directors, feat. Catalina Sandino Moreno);

10. "Quartier des Enfants Rouges", by Olivier Assayas ("Clean"), a sad story feat. the always fantastic Maggie Gyllenhaal;

11. "Le Marais", by Gus Van Sant, feat. Gaspard Ulliel, Elias McConnell and Marianne Faithful (simple, but funny);

12. "Quartier de la Madeleine", by Vincenzo Natali, feat. Elijah Wood and Olga Kurylenko;

13. "Quais de Seine", by Gurinder Chadha;

14. "Place des Victoires", by Nobuhiro Suwa, feat. Juliette Binoche and Willem Dafoe;

15. "Bastille", by Isabel Coixet (fabulous director of the underrated "My Life Without Me"), feat. Miranda Richardson, Sergio Castellitto, Javier Cámara and Leonor Watling;

16. "Pigalle", by Richard LaGravenese, feat. Bob Hoskins and Fanny Ardant;

17. "Montmartre", by and with Bruno Podalydès;

18. "Porte de Choisy", by Christopher Doyle, with Barbet Schroeder (mostly known as the director of "Barfly", "Reversal of Fortune" and "Single White Female").

I could classify some segments as brilliant and others as average (or even slightly boring), but not a single of them is plain bad. On the whole, I give "Paris, Je t'Aime" an 8.5/10 and recommend it for what it is: a lovely mosaic about love and other things in between.

Sentiment: positive