DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
I have seen this film 3 times. Mostly because I kept thinking while watching it, "have I missed something here?". Is there some reason this film was made? Was it trying to say something and I just missed it? Well after 3 viewings I failed to come up with an answer.

I guess the worst thing I can say about any film is that it bored me, and I did not finish it. I will admit there is plenty of eye candy and fast editing and hip music to keep my attention all the way through but is that all a movie should be? 

I am not against extreme violence, it is almost non-stop, but it seems there should be some sort of inspiration. Something that is highlighted by it. The word gratuitous comes to mind but it is worse then that somehow. In the first part of the film we are all given insights into the motivations of the characters. And yes the 3 principles are very good in their roles. But the roles are completely unbelievable. So in the first part we get to know the characters, and in the second part most of em die and use sadistic glee in killing others. That seems to be the whole movie. And the first part has nothing to do with the second.

For example. How could a nice smart guy like Zed agree to join a bunch of junkies and amateurs to do a job like this? It makes no sense. He is portrayed as smart, yet he goes ahead with this suicide mission. The fact that he survives is totally inconsistent with the rest of the hyper-real violence and mayhem. So what are we watching here a Hollywood romance with a happy ending or a super real, super violent blood bath? I recall having the same reaction to two other films this director was involved with: True Romance and Reservior Dogs.

Needless dreck!

Sentiment: negative
I went along to this movie with some trepidation; the original is a masterpiece of both writing and acting and unfortunately my fears were realized. This is a humorless piece of work and I sat in the theater waiting for the wit and humor to begin- I'm still waiting, it seems. Updating the storyline to the present time just didn't work and the altering of characters an absolute travesty- why did they introduce Bette Midler's character when she disappeared just as quickly as she arrived; the related character in the 1939 original was an integral part of the plot. The women in the cinema laughed a few times but nothing touched me as being funny with the exception of a line from Meg Ryan talking to her mother about her situation and telling her that 'it's not like a 1930's movie'- I sorely wished I was viewing the 1930's version. It was all too touchy feely 'sisters stick together' and really needing some of the acerbic wit and clever dialog from the original play- I still watch the original movie and pick up a line that I have never caught before. There is no sense of closure to this new version, and whilst the 1939 movie is politically incorrect by todays standards, each thread was tied up and when the movie ended- it did so strongly. This remake should be labeled with a warning for any viewers- if you know the original, don't bother: I felt cheated by losing part of my life in a cinema watching this unmemorable piece of fluff. Bring on the Jungle Red!!

Sentiment: negative
Very possibly one of the funniest movies in the world. Oscar material. Trey Parker and Matt Stone are hilarious and before you see this I suggest you see "South Park" one of the funniest cartoons created. Buy it, you will laugh every time you see it. Pure stroke of genius. If you don't think its funny then you have no soul or sense of humor. 10 out of 10.

Sentiment: positive
It's really too bad that John Candy wasted his skills on so many horrible films (Delirious, Wagons East, Who's Harry Crumb?, etc.. This one has maybe a few chuckles, but it's mostly just really bad one-liners and dumb physical stuff. Let's honor this comedian's memory by remembering things like Planes, Trains & Automobiles and Uncle Buck.

Sentiment: negative
I really enjoyed this episode. Seeing The Flash, Cyborg, Green Arrow, and Aquaman (even though all he did was swim) made my eyes widen. To see most of the founders of the Justice League trying to bring down Lex Luthor is what i've been waiting for. This sounds a bit off topic, but making a live action Justice League show would definitely make me have a reason to shove everything that i usually do during the week down the drain just to watch one episode. This is the thrill i got from watching this episode. I wish they had made this episode a little longer, like a two hour special, because i felt that one hour of the Justice League wasn't enough. Now before i bore you (unless i already have with my rambling) i just want to say, Smallville is cool again. It sort of lost its touch when the show started focusing on Lana. But i'm sure the writers will just fall back into that loop hole. :( So enjoy this episode. Who knows when another good one's going to come out. Catch it again this Thursday, Feb. 22, if you missed the first airing.

Sentiment: positive
After enjoying this show for years, I use to dream of being able to see them all again and share them with my grandchildren. I am so happy to pay a small amount for the memories that I have found recorded on DVD. Florida was a caring mother with a loving hard working husband, one spoiled beautiful daughter and two sons as different as day and night. Michael, the baby son is a freedom walker and JJ is a clown. I know many Afro-Americans disliked this show, but I know many can relate and should have accepted it as it was. My heart was sad when I learned that Ester Rolle had passed. Tyler Perry is now the leading writer actor of today and I support his work, but not as much since he made such cruel mocking of Rolle in one of his plays. No one should have to hear ugly things about physical appearance. The show started getting less interesting when Daddy James died. It picked up a bit when Florida remarried, but slumped when she took an absence from the show. In all, the show was great and again I am pleased to own copies of part of my past. I do try to keep up with the work of the former stars of Good Times, and I must say, they are one group who has not been wiped up and down with rumors. I think children of today will enjoy this show and I have no problem sitting and watching with children. Congrats to the writer, crew, and stars for years of renewed memories of a time that I can once again enjoy without having to skip scenes.

OK so I watch the shows over and over. Lately I have noticed thing that has made me rethink the series, but not dislike them. I think Florida was a bit harsh when it came to money that the children made. Not that the children did not need supervision, but it was done in a way that makes Florida's mothering different. The scenes where Florida had to speak about how other people were not very good looking bothers me now. When James was alive, the show made a big thing out of James wanting his own Fix-it shop, but never lived to see his family out of the projects, but Florida marries someone who owns a fix-it shop. A bit of a slap in the face to an actor who should have ended his time on Good Times showing that he accomplished all he strove for. Lastly, As I watch the shows, I see the series going in to overtime and being renamed "JJ". To be truthful, after James left everything mostly centered around JJ. Not a bad thing, just a noticeable thing. I would not trade my DVD's for any amount of money, but time, maturity and experience began to guide your eyes after a while.

Sentiment: positive
This was a marvelously funny comedy with a great cast. John Ritter and Katey Sagal were perfectly cast as the parents, and the kids were great too. Kaley Cuoco was a good choice to play Bridget, who was sort of a toned-down version of Kelly Bundy from Married with Children. The writing and performances were both first-rate.

Sadly, John Ritter died during the series, and it put a damper on things. They had to scramble to change the show and bring in more cast members, and it was obviously an uncomfortable situation, but they handled it well. James Garner was a good addition. It could have lasted longer had Ritter lived.

I especially loved it when they brought in Ed O'Neill in a guest spot. That was great.

*** out of ****

Sentiment: positive
In 1993, with the success of the first season of Batman: The Animated Series, Warner Brothers commissioned the team responsible for the hit-show with producing a feature-length movie, originally slated for Direct-To-Video, but bumped up to theatrical status. It would become known as Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. Ten years after Phantasm, we have had an additional three feature-films released from the boys at the WB, Sub-Zero, Return of the Joker, and now, Mystery of the Batwoman joins the family.

The plot is basic and in many ways similar to Mask of the Phantasm: A new female vigilante modeling herself after Batman has begun targeting operations run by Gotham mob boss Rupert Thorne and Oswald Cobblepot AKA The Penguin. Now, Batman must attempt to unravel the mystery of the Batwoman before she crosses the line.

The animation is the sleeker, futuristic style that was utilized for Batman: The Animated Series' fifth and sixth seasons (AKA The New Batman Adventures). , it's quite nicely done, and just as sleek as Return of the Joker's animation. There is also some use of CGI, but it's minor compared to the overabundance of it in Sub-Zero. The music was alright. Different and exotic and similar to the Justice League score, although the points in the score when the old animated Batman theme comes up will be sure to send waves of nostalgia through the older fans' rodent-shaped hearts.

Kevin Conroy, as always, does a wonderful job as Bruce Wayne and Batman. It's also great to have the old Batman: The Animated Series alumni back; that includes Bob Hastings (Commissioner Gordon), Robert Costanzo (Detective Bullock), Tara Strong (Barbara Gordon/Batgirl; her cameo hints at the romantic-relationship between her and Bruce that was mentioned in Batman Beyond), and Efrem Zimbalist Jr.(Alfred).

Villains were also great - especially given that Rupert Thorne, the old mob boss from the original series, appears for the first time since the fourth season.

Overall, while not quite reaching the standard set by Mask of the Phantasm ten years ago, MOTB carries on the torch quite nicely for the animated Batman films. And if you have the DVD and are a hardcore fan, you will love the five-minute short Chase Me.

Sentiment: positive
Dr. Stephens (Michael Harvey), head of a seriously understaffed institute for the insane, takes a 'progressive' approach towards the treatment of his patients, even allowing his loonies complete freedom of the building, day and night; he pays the price for his forward thinking, however, when he rather stupidly prescribes chopping wood with an axe as therapy for one of his patients and consequently gets his neck mistaken for a log (serves him right for not suggesting basket weaving).

Shortly after this tragic incident, nurse Charlotte Beale (Rosie Holotik) arrives at the hospital to take up position as the doctor's assistant, and discovers that the facility is now being run by the much sterner Dr. Geraldine Masters (Annabelle Weenick). Despite being unaware of her deceased predecessor's decision to employ Ms Beale, and not particularly eager to take on new staff, Dr. Masters agrees to let the pretty nurse begin work, but following several harrowing experiences at the hospital, Charlotte begins to wonder whether it might have been better if she had been turned away.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what is actually happening at the hospital, the 'lunatics have taken over the asylum' schtick being a premise that should be familiar to most seasoned horror fans, but S.F. Brownrigg's Don't Look In The Basement still proves to be an entertaining piece of drive-in fun thanks to its well defined collection of nutters: lobotomised, popsicle-sucking Sam (Bill McGhee); Judge Oliver W. Cameron (Gene Ross), who continuously mumbles courtroom phrases; old Mrs. Callingham (Rhea MacAdams), who recites William Allingham's creepy poem The Fairies and warns Charlotte of impending doom; cackling loon Danny (Jessie Kirby), who delights in teasing the other patients; Harriet (Camilla Carr), who thinks her doll is a real baby; army nut Sergeant Jaffee (Hugh Feagin); and best of all, Allyson King (Betty Chandler), whose rejection by a series of men has left her with a craving for love (ie., she tries to jump any man who goes near her).

This convincingly crazy set of characters, plus a bit of gore and nudity, reasonable direction from Brownrigg (who also gave us the impressive white trash horror Scum of the Earth), and a solid turn from Playboy covergirl Holotik, all go to turn an otherwise rather predictable, low budget piece of exploitation into a very watchable psycho shocker.

Sentiment: positive
I was surprised to catch this on TV Friday, and I enjoyed it. Between the presence of Bobbie Phillips and the numerous references to everything that could be considered "cyberpunk", this was a fun movie to watch. I enjoyed the story, which reminded me of a book I've read ("Earth", David Brin), and was fun to see on TV. Bobbie looks great, but I also enjoyed her performance as Kam because she did seem different from everyone else. But the greatest thing about this movie was the atmosphere that has been described in books by Gibson, Sterling, and others. It was just fun to see it on TV.

Sentiment: positive
I have seen this movie many times and each time i watch it i can't help but be entertained by it. Gunga Din is one of those Classic movies made in Hollywoods Golden Years when the actors themselves had to draw the audience into a movie without relying on fantastic special effects and man made "monsters" to carry a scene. The onscreen charisma and comraderie demonstrated by Cary Grant, Victor McLaglen and Douglas Fairbanks Jr. is suberb and very entertaining to watch. The tongue and cheek attitude in which the three actors play their roles works beutifully and flawlessly. Some might consider it "corny" but i consider it "classic" filmaking and acting at its best. One must remember when watching this film that Europe was involved in a War with Germany and audiences went to the movies to escape from the horrors of war and to be entertained and taken away to a place where people were larger than life and did heroic deeds and good would always conquer over evil. Gunga Din accomplishes this perfectly by letting the audience laugh at and with the actors during their harrowing escapades. In short, its a classic film that doesnt take itself too seriously and doesnt want the audience to either.

Sentiment: positive
Pauline Kael gave this movie a good review but it is terrible. It is very outdated , the humour is silly and the music is forgetable.In fact it is so silly it is almost embarrassing. It might have been some fun in 1938 but I can not imagine anyone enjoying it in 2003.

Sentiment: negative
After I first saw this, I thought, "Wow, this is the most spectacular movie, visually-speaking, I've ever seen." Since that time, I've seen some that topped it but it still ranks as one of the best in that department. I'm just disgusted the long-awaited DVD was so poorly done, the quality of this transfer hardly better than the VHS tape.

The jungle scenes are filmed in Cameroon, and "lush" is the best adjective to describe what you see. Except for jungle sounds, "seeing" is certainly almost everything in the beginning as there is almost no "hearing," no dialog until Tarzan (Christopher Lambert) befriends Ian Holm and vice-versa....so be ready for that, if you haven't watched this film. 

Story-wise, all I'll say is this is not the Tarzan many of us came to know in Johnny Weismuller films.....but that's not a complaint. For those craving action, and don't care about cinematography as I do, you just have to get past that silent introduction period 

In this Tarzan version, our hero goes back to Scotland (his roots), adapts to that environment (for the most part....and a little too quickly for credibility, frankly) and then returns to the jungle without Jane. This is supposedly more true to the Tarzan books, written by Edgar Rice Burroughs.

The special effects in here were done by Rick Baker, one of the best in the business. Sharp DVD or not, this is still a stunning film to view and very interesting throughout its 2 hours and 15 minutes.

Sentiment: positive
A patient escapes from a mental hospital, killing one of his keepers and then a University professor after he makes his way to the local college. Next semester, the late prof's replacement and a new group of students have to deal with a new batch of killings. The dialogue is so clichéd it is hard to believe that I was able to predict lines in quotes. This is one of those cheap movies that was thrown together in the middle of the slasher era of the '80's. Despite killing the heroine off, this is just substandard junk. Horrible acting, horrible script, horrible effects, horrible horrible horrible!! "Splatter University" is just gunk to put in your VCR when you have nothing better to do, although I suggest watching your head cleaner tape, that would be more entertaining. Skip it and rent "Girl's Nite Out" instead.

Rated R for Strong Graphic Violence, Profanity, Brief Nudity and Sexual Situations.

Sentiment: negative
This would've been a *great* silent film. The acting really is good, at least in a Look Ma, I'm Doing Really Big Acting! sort of way.

Everything is HUGE. Every line is PROFOUND! Every scene is SHATTERED BY HUMAN TRAGEDY!

Mostly, I felt like gagging. Yet, like any train wreck, I couldn't tear my eyes away. This dialogue might've worked on the stage, although I doubt it. On the screen, it was cluttered, haphazard, hackneyed and pretty much every other stereotypical negative adjective you can come up with to describe a really bad dramatic work.

If you enjoy your melodrama in huge, heaping doses, you *might* enjoy the movie. Be prepared to wait, however. For all that melodrama, this thing sure plods along at its own pace.

This script must've sounded a lot different when the actors involved were reading it to themselves. It simply doesn't work once they get around to delivering it in front of the camera.

IMDB does us a great disservice, at times, when it uses its goofy computer-controlled "weighted score". Curse of the Starving Class deserves less than a 1.

Character-driven fiction is great, but when you develop your characters by simply pushing them through hoops with no plausible explanation for their maturation or evolution, it isn't character development! Your characters must have a motivation. Being drunk for a while and waking up in a field is *not* character development. That's a plot contrivance.

Stay away from this movie. Or at the very least, watch it muted. Perhaps you'll get some amusement from all the arm-waving the characters do.

Oh, and word to the wise -- to prove that this is truly an artsy film, you see James Woods in all his dangly male "look-at-me, I'm-the-figurative-and-literal-representation-of-the-naked-vulnerability-of- man" glory.

Don't say you weren't warned.

Sentiment: negative
Not a bad martial arts film. Fight scenes were good. Michel Qissi did a good job directing his first film without Van Damme. Story worked without foul language and too much blood. Screenwriter Jeanette Francessca has a good line to the story that works. IT would be great to see something else from her in the same genre. She likes the art and having strong women promenant. IT was definitely worth watching. I recommend the film to all drama and martial arts lovers.

Sentiment: positive
Life in some future fascist or near fascist state which severely restricts personal freedoms is a recurrent theme both in modern literature and for film makers. Such works post us warnings about undesirable trends in our society to watch out for; but to be effective they must also be entertaining. Unfortunately most of the books are probably more effective in posting the warnings than in entertaining us enough to become really widely read; whilst with the films the problem is usually the other way round. The first such work to become really widely known was probably George Orwell's "1984" (first published in 1948), and this is still readily available both in the form of a book and as a film.

Watch or read it: and then, when you are feeling a little depressed by man's inhumanity to man, reach for Cinderella 2000. This is a feather light low budget film comedy based on the same theme which provides effortless but unrewarding viewing; and as with 1984 the calendar has now passed beyond its erstwhile period. Most of the comedy is laid on with a trowel although there are just a few genuinely funny moments. To exercise your mind in the long intervals between these you can focus it on the question of whether this film will gain a new extension of life by being released as a DVD or whether it will finally disappear into oblivion as existing tape copies deteriorate past redemption. There are many worse films appearing as DVD's these days, and frankly I do not care much what happens either way.

So far the best of the films of this genre has probably been "The Handmaiden's Tale", but I would very happily swap them all for a well made film of Jack London's towering novel "The Iron Heel". Ambitious as this would be, it still seems incredible that no modern film maker has yet dared to attempt it (IMDb only lists a B/W silent version made in Russia in 1919).

Sentiment: negative
This film reminded me so much of "A History of Violence" which pretended to be a close study of violence and violent behavior but ended up just being nothing short of a cheap action movie masquerading as some thinking film on violence. Dustin Hoffman and his new British bride move to a small English town and encounter endless harassment from the local drunks who do nothing but hang at the pub all day and make trouble. Don't these men have a job? Anyway, Dustin takes all he can take and by the end of the film he holds up in his house and fights off each one of the drunk attackers by such gruesome means as boiling whiskey poured over someone, feet being blown off by a shotgun and someones head getting caught in a bear trap. Funny that someone would have a need for such a large bear trap in a small British town except maybe put a mans head in it.

Sam Peckinpah who made the "Wild Bunch" which also covered the topic of blood letting violence in which no one was spared. But it was done with style, and you believed it. Straw Dogs is not believable. First of all the location is wrong and does not work. Why place it in England? I would think maybe in some inner city location or a small town in the American South in the 1930's or something. Second it is not in my view ever really explained clearly why these men are so quick to violence except maybe they got drunk and felt a need to kill Hoffman and rape his wife.

Sam Peckinpah missed the mark on this one.

Sentiment: negative
Schoolies is a pointless exercise... Go to Gold Coast, get drunk and have sex. Worthwhile ambitions maybe but not highly intellectual. The plot is a simple as a few sentences assigned to each character and nobody is helped by the cliches doled out here.

Something that would help is the casting. Everybody looks too old. These characters are supposedly innocents embarking out on their own in faltering steps to adulthood yet they all look way too old to be believable in the role.



Sentiment: negative
This is a generally nice film, with good story, great actors and great songs. The cinematography was unfortunately bad. One of the film's weakest points is the annoying chain of sequences copied from Pretty Woman. Why? Does it hurt to attempt some originality, Abbas? Mustan? Anyone?

The film is about a newly married couple, Raj and Priya (Salman - Rani). Priya cannot conceive after an accident she had during the previous pregnancy, and they finally decide to use a surrogate mother, who will carry their child. They pick Madhubala, a vulgar prostitute played by Preity Zinta. The film is not really realistic, I mean, isn't it easier to adopt? And even if they pick a girl, does it mean the man has to sleep with her? Have you heard of insemination? Anyway, I guess if the writers had heard of all this, the film wouldn't have been made, so the concept is apparently intentional.

Salman acts very well. It's nice to see him playing a serious character. But his character suffers from unnecessary and cheap dialogues about his great love to his wife and how hard he finds it to sleep with another woman. Come on, it's cheesy and unrealistic. Rani is just about OK; she is generally effective and does try to do something with the role but gets completely overshadowed by Preity Zinta.

The film belongs to Preity, who steals the show in a big way with her flawless performance. She makes the transformation from a loud prostitute to a sensitive woman easily and naturally. She lives the film, emotes and makes you love her and admire her at the same time, partly because of her role, partly because of her magnetic and positive personality. This is one of her career-best performances. There is no doubt she is more talented than her industry contemporaries. She just should do more such roles.

The film's ending only highlights what I said above. It is tear-jerking, exciting and very well-acted. Watch it for Preity.

7/10 for the film! 10/10 - for Preity!

Sentiment: positive
This film is slow. This film is cheap. This film makes Friday the 13th look like a Best Picture nominee. The acting is crap. The special effects are crap. No one dies for like 40 minutes and all the people do is act badly. The only thing that saves it is it's ability to make you laugh at all the stupidity going on. The funniest part is watching the heroine "fight off" the attacker. She supposed to be trained but she fights like a 70 year old. They spend pointless scenes on people who don't die and no scenes on people who do die to the point where you don't even know why they are dieing. I love slashers but this is just crap.

Sentiment: negative
First, I must point out that the role Wendell Corey played was exceptional. Usually, Corey was relegated to supporting roles but here he is what helps carry this very limp film. Without him and the character he played, the film would have been a lot worse--hardly meriting a 2 or 3.

So why did I hate the rest of the film so much? Well, one of my pet peeves is when characters act "too stupid to live". You can't base major plot points on the assumption that your major characters are completely stupid (unless having a brain injury is part of the plot, of course). But this is exactly what happens in this film. Wendell Corey is a crazed man who has murdered three innocent people and they know his next target is Joseph Cotten's wife. So what do they do? Yep, they provide really inadequate police protection and a plan that makes no sense at all (no marksman and guys with shotguns that are so far away they probably WON'T stop this madman). And if this isn't bad enough, the marked woman inexplicably runs away from her hiding place and walks right into the WORST possible place she could be! Is anyone THAT stupid?!?! Arrrggghhhh---I hate when movies have such dumb characters. In fact, I found myself rooting for Corey since I felt the idiots deserved to die for their behaviors! In addition to these clichéd characters, there was also a bit player who fainted. Sure, seeing your husband shot MIGHT cause someone to faint, however in real life this is a rare occurrence--people rarely faint unless there is a medical reason. So, combining this with the above character problems is a real nightmare for people who are looking for realism--something Film Noir movies MUST have.

All these serious problems are even more infuriating since Wendell Corey's character is amazingly well-written and conceived. It was his chance to shine as an actor--too bad the rest of the movie was so limp that Corey and the basic plot idea are sunk. This is one film that could really use a remake--but this time without brainless characters.

Sentiment: negative
I love musicals, all of them, from joyous Oklahoma, to Poignant Porgy and Bess, to the touching romantic "Damn Yankees." And I know most of the songs, sometimes singing them spontaneously, with a crowd or humming them alone.

In a "real" musical, as differentiated from this vaudeville show, every song is painstakingly crafted to fit the exact moment. It is an expression of sadness, regret, love, joy or exaltation--a natural extension where mere words fail. So, in Guys and Dolls, "My Time of Day" describes the adventurous life of Sky Masterson as it is about to be compromised by the most unlikely woman. Every song in this brilliant exemplar of the genre sets a mood, or develops a character, creating a phantasmagoria of place, turned absolutely believable by the self disclosing evocations of song.

For this lover of the Broadway Musical, and their adaptations to the screen during the last half of the 20th century, Mama Mia is somewhere between satire and a cruel fun house distortion of the genre. There, the songs of these musicals advanced the often elaborate, often delightful, plot lines. While here, the songs, simply picked up from a collection, only interfered with the shaky premise of the film.

Perhaps most of those viewers who are making this film into a monumental success simply have no exposure to the art form of 20th century Musicals. They have no idea of the magic performed by writer and lyricist that can turn a dance hall floozy into someone whom we know and love, as achieved in "Sweet Charity."

Let me offer an apology for the arrogance of this review. Perhaps, another day, another mood, I could have gotten into it, and not have been so critical in this review.

But I can't help but imagining what Richard Roger, Oscar Hammerstein, Cole Porter, Irving Berlin and so many others could have done even with with this silly premise. I think about it, while the memories of seeing this film is fresh, and I can not help but to mourn the great loss.

Sentiment: negative
Hey, it's only TV. Sure, it's STAR TREK, the most beloved bla bla, and this is a great one, but it's all relative. What it boils down to is a guy in elf ears grooving with a swatch of pizza-colored shag rug.

There's a kind of THIRD MAN noirishness to the tunnel hunt, and it's creepier than many episodes of what is after all one of the better TV shows. The suspense is actually suspenseful. The peril really feels perilous. As a little kid I think I cried when Spock told me that this hideous creature was as sad, scared and horrified as the people it was eating. This was one of my early lessons in empathy, a lesson reinforced by the EMPATH episode which was, if less thrilling, even more melancholy.

What bothered me when I was five was that this thing, which looks like meat and tomato barf, somehow actually consists more or less of rock. Now that kind of choice might seem visionary, a hippie designer's idea of through-the-looking-glass one-universism, but it might also just smack of the drug era.

Sentiment: positive
A party-hardy frat boy's sister is brutally murdered by a street gang, sending the young man into a sudden psychotic rampage. He and his buddies massacre half the city to bring his sister back to life.

SAVAGE STREETS was released a year after this film, and was more entertaining. Linnea Quigley, who has a costarring role in this film as the sexy (and briefly nude) girlfriend of one of the guys, also starred in SAVAGE STREETS.

This film is subpar, though it delivers enough escapist entertainment and gratuitous nudity to please its intended audience (me).

MPAA: Rated R for strong violence, nudity, language, and some sexuality.

Sentiment: negative
I can't really criticize this film. It is literally the first film I ever remember seeing and lead to a lifelong love of science fiction and horror films and prehistoric animals. Fortunately, seeing it again years later, it held up fairly well. Rod Cameron plays a big game hunter whose last safari was wiped out by mammoths. No one believes him, including his best friend, played by Cesar Romero, whose brother was among those killed. And Rod Cameron was the only survivor. The film was shot in India and has some good scenery. The acting is on a high level. I don't believe Rod Cameron, Cesar Romero and Marie Winsor ever turned in a bad performance. The mammoths, when they finally arrive are fairly effective. The ending also has an unusual twist, particularly for a 1950's science fiction film. Definitely worth seeing.

Sentiment: positive
Sometimes, things should just not be made. And while the set-up seemed good enough, it proceeds to only make the audience gasp in horror. But the problem is, its not another Saw film. Its just so bad you wish you were receiving punishment from Jason Voorhees.

I lost track of how many sports movies and spoofs it incorporated into the film. And generally, it flopped in its attempts. True, telling his team they should fail every subject to be true players was somewhat funny at first, but that grew tiring to watch. That and the joke about "Radio" and "IPod".

Overall, I can't stand to watch this film again. Even Trantasia is worth more than this. "D-"

Sentiment: negative
A lot about USA The Movie can be summed up in its title. It draws parallels between the attitudes of this country in the face of war and a kind of Hollywood-like falseness that glorifies things that shouldn't be glorified. I'm not sure I agree with the filmmaker's take on recent events (although, truthfully, I can't always tell exactly where he stands) but I admire the unusual and artistic way of getting the point across. Audio tracks of speeches, radio interviews, poetry etc. play as large a role here as visuals. Most of the time the visuals of the story are accompanied by these audio elements to good effect. I'm kind of a radio buff so it was satisfying to hear the way that radio was integrated into the pace of the movie. In fact, most of the dialog takes place over the story rather than having characters talk to one another. That's not to say that there aren't "characters" (real people), but except for "Jim" the protagonist ( a kind of '60's drop out with an erratic state of mind) the others come and go pretty quickly. A few make a very powerful impression, especially a guru-like taxi driver who seems to be the voice of wisdom itself. When he breaks out into a spontaneous song of prayer while driving Jim to the subway, it is a very powerful moment. On the cover of the DVD is the quote "The danger is clear" which is taken from President Bush's speech that paved the way to our incursion into Iraq. In retrospect, hearing that speech at a climactic moment in the film brought home how we are living in a historically charged moment which will always be remembered.

Sentiment: positive
I guess this goes to prove that Joe Don Baker will do anything for a buck. The concept of the film wasn't very good to start with. This movie has so many bad things about it I don't know where to start. The acting is horrible. The cinematography is marginal at best. The soundtrack was pretty bad. The score is terrible. There's a reason why this movie ended up on Mystery Science Theater 3000. I voted before I wrote this and I cannot believe that 9 people actually thought this "film" is excellent. They must have liked the two go-go dancers. Final justice would be if they locked this stinker in the film vault outside Wichita and never let anyone see it again! A 1 out of 10 rating is far better than this deserves.

Sentiment: negative
I was ready for a Crouching Tiger style movie and all I got was the worst movie i've seen in years. It was almost as bad as Baron Von Munchhuasen. Dead script. Dead acting. Dead everything. 

Granted there was some good fight scenes but the positive side ends there. If this movie arrives in your house run screming to a phone and dial 911 and say, "Please help there is a movie in my house meant to force people to commit suicide"

Sentiment: negative
If you want just about everything you want to know about WWII from multiple perspectives, this DVD delivers, you WILL learn new things guaranteed, so much so that you won't need any other documentary's on the subject. Get this, watch it, learn from it. Good for school use as well. As a bonus, watch this with Tora tora tora, saving private ryan, patton, band of brothers, a bridge too far, the longest day and other WWII epics along with this to make your knowledge of WWII even more complete. Sir Laurence Oliver's voice adds to the overall atmosphere of each episode in this 26 part series. Seriously you won't find a better WWII documentary set on the subject. PERFECT 10!!!

Sentiment: positive
MINOR SPOILERS!

Well i just sat up late and watched this film, mainly because i enjoyed and rated some of Singleton's earlier work like "Boyz n the hood". However, i have to say this was a major disappointment and is everything i hate about contrived, clichéd, so-called "message" movies. 

The acting is mainly poor,(pop stars and models do NOT necessarily make good actors...take note), the situations hard to swallow, (rape victim becomes overnight lesbian?...please!), but worst of all it reinforces every screwed up stereotype you can think of. By the second half of the film it has become cartoon like in its characterisation, making you lose any shred of empathy you may have had for its one-dimensional players.

Not once is any valid point made about the inherent causes of racism and cultural, sexual and political ignorance. As a result it merely ends up sensationalising the results of these problems. It's message is contradictory, resulting in a sense of confusion and a general lack of plot cohesion. As for the films conclusion i found it predictable, embarrassing, exploitative and mildly offensive. For a film called "Higher Learning" i have to say all i learned is to avoid seeing this ever again.

If you want a true comment on some of the themes that this film completely fails to elaborate upon then go hire "American History X"....unless you were just watching it for Tyra Banks then go hire a life.

Sentiment: negative
This show had a promising start as sort of the opposite of 'Oceans 11' but has developed into a shallow display of T & A. Actually, according to my little brother thats the only good part of the show. 

The first season was by far the best, it was new and interesting things just went downhill after that. The only redeeming point of this show is JamesCaan, The other actors are lack-luster. The characters lack depth and they seem to be incredibly selfish nd generally un-likable people. 

To quote a friend "Las Vegas is like Baywaych in a Casino" In my opinion thats way to generous, Baywatch was way better, and much more realistic.

Sentiment: negative
Only watched this to see Joe Morton in an early role and honestly wished I hadn't bothered, he can and has since, done much better than this crap. Cannot understand why anyone finds this kind of stupidity funny but each to his own; it is an absolute mess and not funny in the least. No wait, ONE line only was funny, where Mr Kent (Joe) and his family are having dinner with this nut job as he's been invited for dinner (Lord alone knows why). Pest to Mr Kent: You know what it's like dog, you've been there Mrs Kent: Not lately, Joe's expression was funny but that's it one line does not make a great comedy and this tat is so far away from being funny it should be consigned to the nearest trash cart, it's only good enough for that. Joe Morton - glad to see you don't appear in rubbish like this anymore; you are far superior and a great great actor.

Sentiment: negative
Lets first start this review with the fact that I SIGNED UP JUST TO WRITE THE REVIEW AND WARN PEOPLE TO SAVE Their MONEY!!

This was one of the worst pieces of trash i have seen since The Hulk. The storyline was the most predictable garbage you could possibly come up with. If you are expecting 24 but on the big screen, flush that expectation down the toilet immediately along with the money you would use for a ticket.. You may get more enjoyment that way. The acting was terrible, the plot was completely unrealistic, (along with the so called "twist" in the end. I must say this.. The ending did surprise me. I am not referring to the plot twist that surprised me, but instead the effortless manner that they put together what could be considered the ONLY scene of somewhat decent action in the entire movie. They rushed the ending so quickly that I didn't even realize that it was over until I saw the credits rolling and at that point i considered burning the reel of film if I could just figure out how to get into that screening room.

Casting was awful for a few reasons. First of all, they must have accidentally switched the character assignments, because Michael Douglas played the roll that CLEARLY Keifer Sutherland should have been playing. While Douglas was sneaking around agents, tapping phone lines, hacking into systems and taking out people who are chasing after him, Sutherland plays the less capable agent who is always in a bad mood even when things aren't going that badly for him. He plays a very bland agent, nothing like his Jack Bauer type roll us 24 fans love.

I can just about promise you that this movie will disappoint in all areas. It can be best compared to a remake of the "The Fugitive" / "In The Line of Fire" but written by people with mental disabilities

Sentiment: negative
Very slow, dull, enigmatic film. MAybe the kind of film Jean-Luc Godard would have made had he been Italian. Certainly conveys how tedious, repetitious, joyless and empty a person's life can be, but I don't usually go to the cinema to find that out! The plot (such as it is) doesn't convince. Why a gorgeous hotel receptionist (an exception to the dullness of the film) would be the slightest bit interested in a moody, chain-smoking, silent loner who speaks in 'deep' aphorisms baffles me. Very difficult to feel any sympathy with the main character. One feels like shaking him by the throat and telling him to 'snap out of it!'. His brother is a much more human character. The ending is inconclusive and puzzling. Everyone in the cinema (when I saw the film) went out muttering about how they nearly fell asleep. Of course, it shouldn't have to be a Hollywood Bruce Willis-style 'shhot-em-up' and 'crash-bang' fiesta, but a little bit of energy and action would have made it a lot more thrilling. One of the best Italian films ever?! Pleease...An art-house, curiosity at best.

Sentiment: negative
Boring, long, pretentious, repetitive, self-involved  this move felt like a bad date. Worse, the tedious art-school direction -- with a heavy-handed use of the whirling shot that gets so overdone it almost made me throw up - is constantly screaming to be noticed. Add the thinnest of plots and virtually no dialogue, and the film begins to feel like a four hour epic about 30 minutes in. It gets worse: instead of dialogue there are poorly written voice-overs AND quotes and songs that comment all too obviously on the characters. Really loud opera music too. Blame it all on the director.

The actors are all quite good. The lead actor Miguel Angel Hoppe is particularly suited for film stardom. He and the other actors have some tender erotic moments. Even these start to get boring after 5 minutes however, and one wonders if the director is auditioning for a Bel Ami porn job. The stunning college campus architecture as a location in Mexico City is inspiring. How come universities in the US are so bland (SFSU, UC, etc.)? But wait for the DVD on this film. You'll want to use the fast scan button  a lot.

Sentiment: negative
"In 1927 a young man, alone in a single engine aeroplane, flew non-stop from Roosevelt Field in New York across the entire North Atlantic Ocean to Le Bourget Field in Paris, a distance of three thousand six hundred and ten miles. In this triumph of mind, body and spirit, Charles A. Lindbergh influenced the lives of everyone on earth--for in the 33 hours and thirty minutes of his flight the air age became a reality. This is the story of that flight".

Billy Wilder adapts from Charles A. Lindbergh's Pulitzer Prize winning novel of the same name, in what is re-creation of Lindbergh's historical 1927 solo flight. Boosted by a considerably strong lead performance from James Stewart {himself a pilot} as Lindberg, and containing an intelligent screenplay from Wilder and Wendell Mayes, Spirit Of St. Louis is a sincerely well told story.

In what at times threatens to become a monotonous film, Wilder keeps it ticking over by using flashbacks to Lindbergh's life. After the nicely told build up to the event, such as the peril being realised as Nungesser and Coli go missing {never to be found} whilst attempting the same trip in reverse, we learn stuff like how he come to buy his first plane and his work with the flying circus. This is all relative to understanding the man and his obvious passion for flying. This also helps to give us a complete picture of Lindbergh, thus putting us with him in his isolated cockpit as he undertakes this dangerous journey. Battling isolation {his only company is a fly} and chronic tiredness, it's here where Stewart perfectly portrays Lindbergh's devotion to the task. Aided by a terrific score from Franz Waxman and Academy Award nominated effects by Louis Lichtenfield, Wilder's movie turns out to be an engaging human interest story that got a thoroughly professional production. 7/10

Sentiment: positive
The ending of this movie made absolutely NO SENSE. What a waste of 2 perfectly good hours. If you can explain it to me...PLEASE DO. I don't usually consider myself unable to "get" a movie, but this was a classic example for me, so either I'm slower than I think, or this was a REALLY bad movie.

Sentiment: negative
Words can't describe how bad this movie is. I can't explain it by writing only. You have too see it for yourself to get at grip of how horrible a movie really can be. Not that I recommend you to do that. There are so many clichés, mistakes (and all other negative things you can imagine) here that will just make you cry. To start with the technical first, there are a LOT of mistakes regarding the airplane. I won't list them here, but just mention the coloring of the plane. They didn't even manage to show an airliner in the colors of a fictional airline, but instead used a 747 painted in the original Boeing livery. Very bad. The plot is stupid and has been done many times before, only much, much better. There are so many ridiculous moments here that i lost count of it really early. Also, I was on the bad guys' side all the time in the movie, because the good guys were so stupid. "Executive Decision" should without a doubt be you're choice over this one, even the "Turbulence"-movies are better. In fact, every other movie in the world is better than this one.

Sentiment: negative
LE CERCLE ROUGE is a very good film, though it does suffer a bit since there have already been similar films. In all too many ways, the movie is reminiscent of previous heist films such as RIFIFI and GRAND SLAM and many others. So, while director Melville and the actors did great jobs, it all seems like a case of Déjà vu. Because of this, I had a hard time giving this excellent film a higher score.

The one unusual aspect of the film is how the crooks get together. Instead of the usual means, Vogel escapes from prison and just happens to meet up with Corey, a career criminal just released from prison! Both are a good match but having them both work in parallel for much of the film until they meet was a clever touch. Apart from that, as expected much of the movie concerns the meticulous details in planning and executing the crime. I also appreciated how the film showed the crooks in such a cold and detached manner--something relatively common in French crime films but rare among American films until recent years.

Overall, extremely well-crafted and worth seeing...if you don't mind that it seems a tad repetitive, you'll see some fine acting, direction and a lot of great tension.

Sentiment: positive