DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
"Flavia, la monaca muslmana" aka. "Flavia the Heretic" of 1974 is a truly disturbing and uncompromising piece of Italian Exploitation cinema that, to a certain extent, follows a somewhat feminist premise (though the level of sleaze and brutality would probably disgust the majority of feminists). Set mostly in a convent, and with a nun as the eponymous central protagonist (great performance by the wonderful Florinda Bolkan), "Flavia the Heretic" may be referred to as a 'Nunsploitation' film. However, this film differs quite drastically from the typical Nunsploitation flicks from the time, as it doesn't so much focus on the nunsploitation elements such as lesbianism, sadistic lesbian punishments, etc. Personally, I saw more similarities to the Hexploitation flicks of the time, such as "Mark of The Devil", (even though this one doesn't treat the topic of witch-hunts), which focus on the brutal execution of Christian fundamentalism in the middle ages and early modern period.

Italy around 1600: After witnessing her despotic father behead a wounded Muslim soldier, young Flavia is forced to become a nun in a convent. When her father condemns a fellow nun to a torturous death for a small misdemeanor years later, Falvia's disgust with male violence against women turns into hatred against the despotic church, and she joins a band of Arabic scavengers...

One thing is for sure, "Flavia the Heretic" is not for the faint-hearted, and neither is it for those who want happy endings. Director Gianfranco Mingozzi obviously tried to make his film as realistic and disturbing as possible, especially in its nasty scenes. The many torture- and execution-scenes are extremely disturbing, with skinnings, spikings and other gruesome scenes in explicit detail, the most shocking scene probably being the torture of the young nun quite in the beginning of the film. The violence here is never superfluous, however. After all, this gruesome methods actually were reality in the time the film is set in. The film is very well-made, with realistic costumes, fantastic settings an elegant cinematography and a great score by Nicola Piovani. The stunningly beautiful and great Florinda Bolkan has proved her talent in many great Italian cult-productions (including Lucio Fulci's Giallo-masterpiece "Non Si Sevizia Un Paperino" of 1972). She delivers another great, charismatic performance here, and I couldn't imagine another actress fitting as well in the role as she does. The film has some minor inconsistencies (E.g. why does the rigid church let bizarre cult-followers into convents in the first place). However, it is overall amazing how realistic this film is. "Flavia the Heretic" should definitely not be missed by my fellow fans of Italian Exploitation Cinema. This is a great Exploitation flick overall, though it definitely is a deeply depressing one and therefore should be watched in the right mood. Highly recommended to fans of disturbing exploitation cinema. 7.5/10

Sentiment: positive
just watched it on sky TV missed the first half an hour. i did wonder if it was a true story so watched it to the end. there was no brief at the end to say what happened to everyone. it did remind me of speed but at the end of the day i don't suppose it was released at the cinema as we did see the following error. the goof that we saw was that they remove the bonnet (hood) and then later on there are two shots of the car with the police car in front trying to slow it down when the bonnet is back on. it did have me on the edge of my seat especially when i thought the baby was going to hit the bridge and of course when the bridge wasn't going to be lowered and then it was. I'm afraid i did burst into tears so it wasn't that bad!!!!

Sentiment: positive
This typical teenagers movie is one of the best, beside the story is good, the music is well accompany the movie all along. 

Although i do not enjoy classic movie unless it is classic and better written script, this one is exceptional. Maybe the hair style and language should be change a bit, in the 80's i believe offensive language is still rarely heard.



Sentiment: positive
Let's summarize how dumb this movie is with two details : Arnold to Antichrist : "Let's see who is meanest" said with a straight face. And you can tell they were not trying to be funny.

How do you think Arnold will battle the evil of all evils?

Blessed Water, A crucifix, a priest..nooo! with a bazooka, yes not even Satan expected it they're so clever.

After an engaging beginning (which reminds you of Devil's Advocate) it goes nowhere. Somebody get me those two hours of my life back. Don't ever watch it, rent it, lest buy it.



Sentiment: negative
As long as you keep in mind that the production of this movie was a copyright ploy, and not intended as a serious release, it is actually surprising how not absolutely horrible it is. I even liked the theme music.

And if ever a flick cried out for a treatment by Joel (or Mike) and the MST3K Bots, this is it! Watch this with a bunch of smart-ass wise-crackers, and you're in for a good time. Have a brew, butter up some large pretzels, and enjoy.

Of course, obtaining a copy requires buying a bootleg or downloading it as shareware, but if you're here on the IMDb, then you're most likely savvy enough to do so. Good luck.

And look for my favorite part....where Dr. Doom informs the FF that they have 12 hours to comply with his wishes....and he actually gestures the number "12" with his finger while doing so....it's like "Evil Sesame Street"....hoo boy.

...and of course Mrs. Storm declaring "Just look at you....the Fanstastic Four" is just so heartwarming....you'll laugh, you'll cry.....

So if you love schlocky Sci-Fi, this one's Fantastic For you!

Sentiment: negative
Satya was excellent.... Company was just as good but more polished, probably owing to the money earned from previous movies. Ab Tak Chappan however is even more entertaining. The dialogue is gritty, crude and at times hilarious. Nana Pataker shines yet again in a role that only he can fulfill with authority but the supporting cast are very talented. Direction is tight and the story evolves at a satisfying pace with a very dramtic climax. As a depiction of reality it may be over-dramatised but at the end of the day it's a movie so the balance is spot-on. I've ordered my DVD and can't wait to see it again at home. As a lover of these type of gangster flicks, this is very gratifying and comes highly recommended for the refreshingly "non-Yash Raj" Bollywood gangster flick lovers out there.

Sentiment: positive
Every once in a while in the wonderful world of horror,diamonds are crafted, and one becomes completely awestruck by its sheer brilliance. This is no less than a diamond!! This is a film brimful of eeriness,chilling anticipation, and dark atmosphere, and I think it's safe to say, one of my favourite horror films of all time! And of course it contains probably the single most, flat out scary sequence in the whole of history of horror! Every time I see the film, and it gets up to the point where you know the inevitably will happen, I try to remember exactly when I will be frightened out of my wits, but it never fails to happen; I never get it right, and I find myself as terrorized as the first time I saw it!! Now, it must be said, to scare a jaded horror fan like that, that is nothing short of pure perfection. Unlike the Americans, the Brits know their subtleties, they take pride in the art of acting, they do not need any special effect in order to convey atmosphere, they rely on the power of the potent story, and the creepiness(in this case)of suggestion and anticipation. Every single element is impeccable, from the set pieces, the acting, the story, to the menacing atmosphere. Pauline Moran surely could make the devil whimper, that's for sure!! As an end note, if you for some demented reason don't like this piece of insanity, then you honestly don't know what horror is all about, and frankly do not deserve to know it either. Thank you!

Sentiment: positive
Read on and take note - you could save 88 minutes of your life (was that all!).

Unremittingly bleak, this film sets out to produce (I'm guessing) a modern small town American Christmas fable in the Capra style. If fails....completely and absolutely fails. I've been trying to think of one good thing about it and can't. Let me mention some of the highlights ...

People don't die, they get to spend eternity as immigrant workers in Santa's factory. Angels are actually ex-cowboys who sit in trees. Santa can bring people back from the dead (if you send him a nice letter). 

And the plot.. I won't spoil it for you but there has to be some light in films if only to contrast with the darkness but there isn't any. Even the photography is bleak - snow shown at the end of a freeze, everywhere looking cold, damp and miserable. 

As you might guess, the film has a happy (schmaltzy) ending. What a relief !

Sentiment: negative
I really like Ryan Reynolds and Hope Davis and I actually had high hopes watching this last night on DVD. Mainly as I try to avoid reviews until I watch something myself and form my own opinion Big mistake! My 2 /10 is for the first segment which in fairness is actually quite decent and if they had made the movie about the characters in section 1 alone it may have risen above the 5/10 mark.Once it moved into TV 'reality show' territory it stank to high heaven. Ryan Reynolds captured the essence of an actor on the edge wonderfully but as a gay TV writer and famous games creator / devoted family man he was definitely less effective. From the blurb on the box I expected a flashback thriller along the lines of 'Memento' - unfortunately this is nowhere near that standard of movie.

Sentiment: negative
Brainy, cross-dressing little boy finds success on the Spelling Bee circuit despite an unconventional and dysfunctional upbringing. Shirley MacLaine directed and stars as the child's grandmother, and it is always fascinating to see long-time actors getting their chance at directing a film, the material that they're drawn to and the actors they choose to work with. Here, the only person well-cast in "Bruno" is MacLaine. The child actors seem to have been picked for their twinkle and cuteness, and squishy-hearted MacLaine holds their close-ups for excruciatingly long periods; nothing about these cherubs seems natural, not the lines that fall without consciousness out of their mouths or the interaction they have with adults or even each other. As the boy's disgruntled father, poor Gary Sinise hovers around the edges, in mock shame, always with a pained look on his face. Towards the end of the film, MacLaine turns the whole thing into a passel of hugging scenes, and even concludes with the kid hugging the Pope in Rome! Another ungodly treatise from a talented actress-turned-director who, much like Sally Field and her film "Beautiful", cannot seem to stop winking at and nudging the audience. Shirley uses ethnicity for shtick, and childhood innocence as a punchline. The children in this cast roll their eyes, crack wise with mature comments, use big words--but when one mealy-mouthed boy calls our pint-sized hero "gay", MacLaine's granny instructs him to go over and punch the kid out (in front the media!). How's that for progression? * from ****

Sentiment: negative
Drifting around on bootlegs, sometimes thought an urban comic book legend, the first FF movie is pretty much as bad as everyone fears. I guess Marvel Comics now pretends it doesn't exist, what with the 2005 version out in theaters earlier this year. But it's out there, a reminder and the last of the first wave of bad, low budget Marvel super-hero adaptations (Captain America, Punisher, most of the TV movies). 'Low budget' is too easy a description for this FF pic. Due to basically no funds, showing the powers of the super foursome was limited to very quick shots (Mr.Fantastic), quasi-animation (Torch), and fades (Invisible Girl-the easiest to do). The Thing suit was not bad and probably half the budget; the face part was especially almost convincing. The acting? Alex Hyde-White as Reed is pretty good; the other 3 are OK, tho Jay as Johnny acts like a spaz at times to sort of show off his 'fiery' temper. The dialog is comic-book style, and it's the supporting cast which ends up floundering trying to make it work. Dr.Doom is way over melodramatic and unintentionally comical, and his two main henchmen are a case study of how not to act or write dialog.

The plot? Not too good. It was quite faithful to the origin story of the FF (more so than the later big budget version), and even though the non-budget, again, restricted showing, for example, the actual crash landing, it kept the essential ingredients of how they discovered their powers in an isolated area - it's the best part of the picture, tho you have to wait a full half-hour for it. I also found the music odd in places; when the 4 are bathed in those cosmic rays, a kind of church choir is heard, as if it's a religious experience. The rest of it, however, is hopeless. Even with no budget, the story could have done without the Jeweler character (resembling the Mole Man villain of the books); it spends way too much time with him and his underground gang, as well as the blind Alicia. These sections are a waste of celluloid and very boring. The climactic struggle with Doom & his men starts fine, but degenerates into an awful mess as the Torch races a laser beam (cool animation but belonging in a cartoon). Fans can have a laugh at the bad FF FX and witless storyline, if they don't get depressed & outraged first.

Sentiment: negative
If you were born around the time this movie was finished, and had a liberal/open minded household that I had, I'm sure during the early 80's you'd be first introduced to walking in on your parents watching dirty movies or extreme dirty movies. You know, not 100% pornographic but rather an alchemical mixture of actual drama and pornography, or that you'd sneak into their collection and pop in the plastic rectangle representation of such a film in a big dookie machine called a VHS. You had to be very quiet and ninja like but still having minor heart failure when huge pop noises were made when pressing the tablet-like buttons out of fear of being discovered. Whatever the case, such films were sent into the back of your mind, waiting and waiting to be reunited with such visual "art". Needless to say, this movie fits into the aforementioned description to a "T". Many people will comment on the extreme sexual nature of the film but perhaps due to me being desensitized, I am more disturbed by the subtleties. Was the creator speaking to us on deeper levels of human carnality and or what could be considered a true abomination, interracial relations, bed frame masturbation, voyeurism, or could it be desperation for social status to the point of murder, pedophilia/homosexuality, or the repressed sexual nature of social elitist females in 18th century France? Who can say, but despite Mr. Borowcyzk's taste for vivid, raw sexuality being the "norm" for his works, I'd say that indeed this movie does speak to the viewer on a deeper level concerning bestial carnality. Once I have learned this, the story became much more interesting beyond the giddiness of shock value and there fore, it is well worth checking out.

Sentiment: positive
As I watched one of Orson Welles' last contributions to Hollywood as a filmmaker, I knew I was watching a great movie unfold, though at times I did not know why. The story in The Lady from Shanghai has the prime elements of a film-noir: average-Joe lead, femme fatale, conspicuous supporting characters, and a comprehensible if somewhat convoluted plot structure. It is an entertaining ride, and it's filled to the brim with Welles' unique gifts as a director, but there are scenes that tend to just not work, or don't feel complete in what was Welles' full vision (the latter is unfortunately too true- executive producer Harry Cohn and the Columbia execs are to blame for that).

Welles co-stars with his then wife, the profoundly gorgeous Rita Hayworth, as Mike O'Hara, an Irish worker who can and does get angry at the right people. Hayworth is Mrs. Bannister, married to Mr. Bannister (Everett Sloane, who played Mr. Bernstein in Citizen Kane), who is accompanied by a friend Mr. Grisby (Glenn Anders, who has great control in his eyes). They want to go sailing on their yacht and take O'Hara along for the ride, and at first he's reluctant, but agrees since he's falling for the married Mrs. As their journey unfolds, O'Hara finds that Bannister and Grisby are not pleasant to be around, and more so with Grisby, who at first seems out of his gourd. Yet as the plot unfolds, O'Hara is drawn into a scam that Grisby is planning for insurance money, with results that I dare not reveal (although they have been discussed over and over by others).

Whatever liabilities pop up here and there in the mystery part of the story (and those few noticeable moments where shots were studio dictated), the performances and the look of the film are what remains striking after over fifty-five years. Though he doesn't have the terrific Greg Tolland (Kane's DP) at his side, dependable Charles Lawton Jr. assists Welles in creating an atmosphere that is both elegant and stark, covered in shadows, deep focus, low angles, the works. A particular accomplishment is the fun-house mirror scene, which is merely a highlight among others. Welles himself is always dependable as an actor- even if his accent isn't anything special- and Hayworth herself makes a scene a little more lush, despite her path in the story. 

The Lady from Shanghai is worth checking out, especially for Welles, Hayworth, or film-noir buffs (fans of the Coen brothers might find this fascinating as well). It may just take a little while, repeat viewings (as was for Touch of Evil), for the underlying motives in the plot to sink in.

Sentiment: positive
If you didn't enjoy this movie, either your dead, or you hate Adam Sandler or Don Cheadle.

An Excellent cast, all of who gave good performances. This movie proved that Adam Sandler is good actor, despite what critics say. Adam Sandler is becoming a very well respected actor. It all started with his performance in Big Daddy, then he did a couple bad movies, then he broke through with terrific performance in 50 First Dates, The Longest Yard, then Click, and now Reign Over Me.

Back to the movie. Adam Sandler plays a man who has lost everything. The closest thing to family he has are a mother-in-law and father-in-law. After his old college roommate (Cheadle) ran into him, he seems to turn his life around. I will say no more, because I do not want to ruin the movie, but I strongly recommend this movie. One of the best movies of 2007.

Sentiment: positive
If you're into alternate realities, contemplating what's real and what's just a fantasy, this is an edge-of-your-seat thriller that'll keep you guessing and really make you think. Try to get a copy of it and see for yourself! I watched it at an L.A. film festival recently and it was by far the best one in the group that I saw. It helped that it was actually about something, unlike the others that were screened. It's very well directed and the production value is top notch. I would compare it to Jacob's Ladder in that it keeps you guessing as to what the true reality is of the world that we're in. You should definitely try to hunt this film down and if it's screening at any festivals near you, try to check it out.

Sentiment: positive
I remember watching this movie over and over again when I was a kid. I loved it. Whilst I haven't watched it recently, I am sure I would enjoy it just the same today. Its a very light funny movie guaranteed to make anyone laugh. The situations with each one of the characters were so funny and imaginative! I particularly liked the one with the girl traveling with her mother's ashes (who ends up picking them up on the highway after the explosion) , the robbers and the nuns. This nice humour style is much missed these days. Also, this movie proved that actor Paul Keenan (Dynasty/Days of our Lives) was off to a great start. I recommend it to anyone lucky enough to find it in their local video shop.

Sentiment: positive
Okay, truthfully, I saw the previews for this movie and thought to myself, what are the producers thinking? Hutton, Jolie, and DUCHOVNY? How could the monotoned actor possibly compete with Jolie's natural power on the screen? But surprisingly, the two had the kind of chemistry that showed intense caring without a kiss. Even David's humor matched up to Jolie's spark and fire. As for Hutton, he played the psycho very well, contrasting with David's calm delivery of life threatening situations. Overall, I was very impressed with the writing and character development. I gave it 8 stars.

Sentiment: positive
Not a good one. -Not at all.

This installment revolves around a descent of the original murderer inside the Amityville home who must face his past to rid himself of the nightmarish terror of Amityville itself.

It's basically nothing. My bet is that this film was made for some extra fast-cash to buy a boat or something... because this one's just ridiculous... Thankfully, it doesn't kill or ruin the series, but it just has no effect on the series at all.

I'd have to say that just the fact that it is constantly referenced to the old, infamous house is probably the only thing that makes this one slightly more bearable than "The Amityville Curse".

Sentiment: negative
Even for a tired movie model as the nature vs. man cycle that prevailed so predominantly in the 1970s, ants falls miserably short of being even somewhat effective(though entertaining for reasons it was not intending). It is sooooo preposterous. Apparently these ants that are bulldozed near an inn have been eating poisonous waste for decades and have now adapted by emitting poisonous bites - hundreds of these bites being fatal. Watching actors of some notoriety clumsily fall amidst tiny black specks is painfully funny in a not-so-good-but very-bad way. So many scenes just look ludicrous: a boy trying to fall in a dumpster whilst being attacked, Suzanne Sommers crying out in horror while lounging in bed, Robert Foxworth and Lynda George breathing through pieces of wallpaper, Bernie Casey faking a gam leg, and the list goes on and on. The peril shown ranges from ants crawling from a drain to black lines of ants all over the walls. The cast for the film is not bad on paper, but none of these actors seem to believe in the material. Poor Myrna Loy has to sit in a wheelchair through this horror. I hope she found a good use for the money, for it is obvious that was the ONLY reason a woman of her pedigree would be in this nonsense. Although it is quite a bad film, it is watchable - once for me, and does have many of those seventies bad film qualities - start-studded actors embarrassing themselves, that made-for-TV feel, and the dreaded creatures of nature reeking vengeance on man. This time man must push his hand into a pile of ants to be affected. Really quite dreadful.

Sentiment: negative
I'm an admirer of Hal Hartley's films, especially 1997's "Henry Fool." "Fay Grim" is a sequel to that film, and has a similar style and sense of humor. The plot, however, is completely different. Fay Grim (played brilliantly by the iconic Parker Posey) tries to track down her missing husband's notebooks, and finds herself amid conspiracies and espionage. The supporting cast (most of the folks from the first film as well as Jeff Goldblum, Saffron Burrows, and a much-welcomed return from 90s indie-darling Elina Lowensohn) is excellent and the film has lots of surprises. The director claims this is part of a "Star Wars"-like trilogy, serving as the "Empire Strikes Back" of the series If this is true, I can't wait to see the third installment! I just hope I don't have to wait 10 more years for it.

Sentiment: positive
I only watched this because it starred Josie Lawrence, who I knew

from Whose Line is it Anyway?, the wacky British improvisational

comedy show. I was very pleasantly surprised by this heartwarming and magical gem. It is uplifting, touching, and

romantic without being sappy or sentimental. The characters are

all real people, with real foibles, fears and needs. See it.!

Sentiment: positive
It's the nature of businesses to try to capitalize on others' success. Here we have a movie taking elements from the earlier 'Dracula' (1931) and 'Frankenstein' (1931) -- in a Germanic town the village leaders believe that vampires (in the shape of bats) have been the cause of recent deaths of bloodless victims. Even though shot at Universal (and at the Bronson caves!) it's a Poverty Row feature; it's not fair to compare it with those earlier, more expensively made and superior films.

From the familiar and exciting, chilling music of the main titles (which must have been by Mischa Bakalienikoff), through the talky but well done opening sequence, we anticipate the arrival of Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray and Dwight Frye to give us a good 30s mystery film. Unfortunately, it doesn't happen. That's the disappointment.

We get little more than the formulaic elements of such films but with slow pacing, low budget, not enough of Dwight Frye, the overdone presence of Maude Eburne (Aunt Gussie), and the premise for Lionel Atwill (Dr. von Niemann) to require human blood or how he exhibits mind control over his servant Emil (Robert Frazier) never made very clear.

Do not watch the technicolor 'Dr. X' (1932) -- which also stars Lionel Atwill and Fay Wray but as father and daughter -- before watching this the way I did; it's an Oscar winner by comparison. So watch this one first. Structurally, 'The Vampire Bat' still isn't that good. It plods along with too much talking or unnecessary comic relief, without focusing strongly on the vampiric villainy.

Besides 'Dr. X' and 'Mystery of the Wax Museum' (both 1932 and co starring Fay Wray), Lionel Atwill's most famous appearances are as the one armed gendarme in 'Son of Frankenstein' (1939) and as Moriarity in 'Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon' (1943). Dwight Frye steals all his manic scenes in 'Dracula' (1931). As the 'young lovers,' Melvin Douglas and Fay Wray have a nice kissing scene, but that's about it. He can be seen in 'The Old Dark House' (1932), and Fay gets dragged around by Joel McCrea in 'The Most Dangerous Game' (1930). Then there's her 1933 classic 'screamer.' Too bad more time, money and rewrites weren't available for this film to better showcase the talents and chemistry of Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray and Dwight Frye. Sadly, then, this drearily disappointing film only gets a 4.

Sentiment: negative
The big names in film tried to do their part for the war effort, and Charlie Chaplin was no exception. This patriotic and propagandist picture is part of his contribution, although the war was nearly over by the time of its release. The tramp goes to war, humorously accomplishes acts of heroism and kicks the Kaiser in the bum. It's a very funny film, although I don't think it nearly one of his best. It's with 'A Dog's Life' as his better output for First National before he made his early masterpiece 'The Kid.' They are his first three-reelers, which contain sustained, more elaborate gags than he could usually orchestrate in his two-reel shorts at Mutual.

It can be difficult to balance a pro-war message with slapstick antics and scenes of burlesque on the front, but one wouldn't think so watching 'Shoulder Arms.' It's also preferable in many respects to a "more serious," dramatic work with a similar message, such as Griffith's 'Hearts of the World.' Chaplin had become a true virtuoso of screen comedy by this time; he makes it look effortless. He knew very well by now that a film with fewer gags--with more elaboration, refinement and careful timing--could be better than any knockabout, Keystone-type farce with a dozen pratfalls a minute. The sequence where Chaplin is disguised as a tree is a pertinent example. Even with wars raging, Chaplin can lift the spirits of millions.

Sentiment: positive
Saw it as many times as I could before it left the scene. A delightful and entertaining film with some of my very favorite stars. Only wish I could find it again! Would certainly buy/view it if I could. Please, somebody, bring it back. Fred MacMurray was perfect in his role as a patriot during World War II, and his leading ladies, Joan Leslie, and especially June Haver were beautiful and charming. It was a musical, but also romantic, funny, and clever. This was my favorite movie starring June Haver, although I always liked her. Her dazzling smile lit up the screen, and her beauty and talent were an asset to any film. The supporting cast lent credit to their individual roles. A well-balanced and light-hearted film; only wish we had more like it!

Sentiment: positive
Sure, this flick set in Eastern Europe is filled with sexy, but it absolutely has nothing to do with the Nicholas Cage flick "8mm" An ambassador's daughter and her fiancée mix it up with a local woman in a threesome that ends up being taped. The tape is used for blackmail and the stakes get higher and higher as the couple try to work it out themselves instead of going to authorities.

The sex comes and goes -- and would be the only reason for renting it, I suppose if you like this sorta thing -- and is quite gratuitous towards the middle when we cruise along the porn scene looking for the "other woman." I definitely question how it got into Blockbuster even with a Youth Restricted Sticker considering how just a hint over the edge of soft core it is. (Oh that's right, it's the double standard. Actual art-house flicks like "The Dreamers" and "Y Tu Mama Tambien" get castrated R versions, but Straight To DVD crap like this get the UNRATED banner proudly attached. Whatever.) 

The acting is horrible, the plot is mind numbingly unoriginal, but really the worst offense is the idea that this is a sequel to 8mm. I'd give the flick a D for a grade and be nice, but considering they tried to trick me, it gets the F it frankly deserves.

Sentiment: negative
I am looking at all the good reviews about this film and I start thinking to myself... Am I going crazy..? Can't I see the beauty from a film like this..? Am I just dumb enough to NOT understand the message this film is trying to point out? I don't know.. maybe one of those lizards entered in my head and ate all my brains as well. The film idea was going nowhere... I was sure it would have a foggy end, and of course... it did! Nothing exceptional... Not even the landscapes (I hopped that being placed in a mountain village at least the landscapes would be nice.. but no). Just a lame story about a crazy teacher, and of course her crazy students... now all grown up, each of them.. with his/her own fixed ideas. And boy some of those ideas were stupid.. like the lizard story for example. At a moment I thought I was watching x files.. with the lizard entering in the ear and all. No.. from my point of view this movie is a waste of time (not to say money if U pay for the ticket) The only part that I did like was the acting of the young blue eye "german" kid... He played very well and convincing for his age... The rest... nothing! I read the previous review and I think the script writer and the director were both on drugs when they came up with those ideas. Well considering that there are a lot of people that enjoyed this film... I think to myself again.. Maybe I am the crazy one. Advice.. Don't waste your time with this!

Sentiment: negative
This DVD is missing its calling as a Heineken coaster.... This is a great example of why no one should ever go see a sequel with a different director/writer than the original. Two hours of this turkey left me begging for Exorcist 2 reruns. 

NO legitimate laughs. NOT ONE decent scare. The script was just a mess and I felt bad for the actors who had to perform it (they must have had sick relatives at home or monster coke habits or something).

The original was a makeup effects landmark. So naturally, the producers of the sequel thought it would be a great idea to to scrap makeup FX and do CG werewolves instead. These CG werewolves had me laughing a lot harder than any of the "comedy". It was just a total miss. If ya want a night's entertainment, go rent the original again. Or go take a film class and make your own horror film. You're bound to do better than these fools did.

Sentiment: negative
I have seen 'The Sea Within' today and I loved it. The actors of the movie are wonderful (specially Javier Bardem, of course), but I thought that Belén Rueda would have a better role. Lola Dueñas, Clara Segura and, specially, Mabel Rivera perform excellent interpretations. And I cannot forget Celso Bugallo and Joan Dalmau (brother and father of the protagonist).

There are two technical aspects I loved very much: Aguirresarobe's photography and the score by Amenábar himself. I liked the song, 'Negra sombra' ('Dark Shadow'), by Luz Casal with music of Carlos Núñez.

In short, I think that the Spanish Academy should choose 'The Sea Within' in order to compete in the Oscar Awards. I liked other Spanish productions, such as Almodóvar's 'Bad Education', but Amenábar's film is much better than them. 'The Sea Within' deserves all the awards.

Sentiment: positive
I stole this movie when I was a freshmen in college. I've tried to watch it three times, the second two because friends wanted to see it. "Sweet, Adam Sandler, I've never heard of this movie, but since he's so funny its gotta be funny." Wrong! I can't make myself watch this pile of crap after the dream boxing match/insult war, where burning the guy with a good zinger causes your opponent physical pain. You would think that terrible comedy hurting you is ridiculous, but after watching this you'll know its true. This movie isn't worth the price I paid for it. I've watched a ton of Steven segal movies, and I've even watched Crossroads twice... but I still couldn't watch this.

Sentiment: negative
It really is a great film (after being able to ignore Blake Edwards Pink Panther references which he appears to be obsessed with and are hugely unfunny). Julie is, as usual, wonderful - singing and acting brilliantly. I remember seeing it at the Odeon Cinema in the Haymarket, London on its release. However Julie's non-appearance at the UK premiere of STAR! was most unfortunate and (apparently!) due to filming the aerial shots for Darling Lili over Ireland. A reasonable excuse if she had appeared in any of these aerial shots but she did not. Two box office flops in a row ruined her film career for quite a few years. But Darling Lili,just like STAR!, deserves much more public appreciation.

Sentiment: positive
Christopher Nolan's first film is a 'no budget' black and white film about a unemployed writer who begins following strangers, which in turn leads to robbery and also violence. It is very good.

Like in his later film 'Memento' he doesn't present the story in a linear way. Instead it jumps around somewhat so you end up really sucked in trying to piece it all together and early, apparently random, shots take on significance as the film progresses. This style also means the twists are much more effective.

Definitely worth seeing if you get the chance (especially if you like his later work and/or Film Noir)

Sentiment: positive
HORRENDOUS! Avoid like the plague. I would rate this in the top 10 worst movies ever. Special effects, acting, mood, sound, etc. appear to be done by day care students...wait, I have seen programs better than this. Opens like a soft porn show with a blurred nude female doing a shower scene then goes bad from there. Good nude scenes, but that is it. Sound and light problems were persistent throughout the movie. At times I would swear I could hear the roaring of the camera motors. YIKES! I would like to see another movie on this story, but done by different people. This batch of actors and crew need more acting and movie making lessons. Voted 1 out of 10.

Sentiment: negative
i found this movie to be mostly a P.O.S.it was low budget,but that isn't the problem.the problem is,the movie is just lame.it doesn't really make a lot of sense.yes,it does explain why things happened,but that's not what i mean.there was just no reason for it all.the movie also moved very slow.the last ice age was quicker than this.also, i think they went overboard a bit in the kills.i don't mean they were too gross,but the killer just seemed to spend too much time smashing his victim over the head,or stabbing his victim. maybe i'm being petty,but i just didn't like the movie.the whole thing seemed like a lower rate version of "When a Stranger Calls" and maybe that was the whole point.but so what.for me "When A Stranger Kills" is a 4/10*

Sentiment: negative
This was the eighth and final Columbia Whistler film and the only one without Richard Dix who had retired from movies and was to die the following year. It's still a competent thriller, the machine carried on without him perfectly, but  something was missing: Dix! The stories in the Whistler series were always interesting, sometimes brilliant, the screenplays often noir always atmospheric, but it wasn't only the Whistler himself that hung it all together on screen, Dix did too.

Young couple stepping out for a whole fortnight get the urge to marry in the pouring rain but are thwarted when the potential bride first disappears then is discovered to already be married before she apparently goes mad. Is the potential groom put off, even when the private dick he's hired to find her suddenly slugs him and lams, or is love blind? Who's twisting who is the question. Michael Duane in his penultimate film is OK if a bit of a wimp, lovely Lenore Aubert's finest moments came next film in Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein, and Richard Lane was wonderful as ever on loan from Boston Blackie. Also the only outing where the Whistler himself must have got wet from slouching about in the rain, unless he got sprayed with sea foam in Voice.

A lot happened in this last hour, well worth watching over and over again as usual to fans of the genre like me. The Whistler radio series begun in 1942 carried on until 1955 clocking up nearly 700 half hour shows, nearly all of which are available on mp3 and based upon what I've heard so far nearly all of which are well worth listening to as well.

Sentiment: positive
There is a phrase by the experimental filmmaker Nathaniel Dorsky, who says some films are structured like a camera mounted on the head of a dog who goes down an alley, sniffing everything along the way.

That's how this movie is. The structure is "Kurosawa started out as a baby, then he became a kid, then a young man, then a movie director, then he started making 'masterpieces', then he grew old, The End." The word 'masterpiece' is used a lot in this film to describe Kurosawa's output, without explaining *what* makes his films so good/great. Just because the off-screen narrator reading a script says that a film is a masterpiece, are we supposed to kiss his rear-end and accept that a certain movie is one of the great works of art of the 20th century? And one more point. The voice of Paul Scofield is used as the voice of Kurosawa, when excerpts from the director's memoirs are being read off screen. He brings pear-shaped Shakespearean tones to the text...but why him?? If you were making a documentary about Billie Holiday, would you use Dame Judi Densch as her voice????

Sentiment: negative
It was interesting to see how accurate the writing was on the geek buzz words, yet very naive on the corporate world. The Justice Department would catch more of the big corp giants if they did such naive things to win. The real corporate world is much more subtle and interesting, yet every bit as sinister. I seriously doubt ANY corp would actually kill someone directly; even the mod is more indirect these days. In the real world, they do kill people with nicotine, pollution, additives, poisons, etc. This movie must have been developed by some garage geeks, I think, and the studios didn't know the difference. They just wanted something to capitalize on the Microsoft antitrust case in the news.

Sentiment: negative
Wowwwwww, about an hour ago I finally finished watching this terrible movie!!! I wanted to turn it off within the first like 10 minutes but I figured I'd give it a chance because it just hadddd to get better. Or at least have some redeeming qualities, like I figured at the very least it would be a make you think type movie, or like really intelligent, or very well filmed or something...Needless to say, that was not the case and I wasted about an hour and a half of my life. Im not even going to get into why its terrible because its a waste of my time to explain that this "may contain spoilers"...IMDb, you should calm down on the spoilers thing and pay more attention to making sure that the people who rate the movies and comment are not paid to write good reviews or involved somehow in the movie or anything else like that. I thought it would be humorous after this terrible film to come see hoe bad the rating would be and I was very very shocked to see the fairly high ratings...all the ratings with about 7-10 stars clearly must be about some COMPLETELY DIFFERENT movie... Im still a big IMDb fan, but seriously rethink this rating process because this movie should be rated no higher than maaaybbbeee like a 3.

Sentiment: negative
This film had all the ingredients of a good adventure movie, but it revealed incompetence at almost every level.

The presence of Roger Moore in the cast list is usually a sign that the movie is not going to be anything more than mediocre, because Moore always has lead roles and he can't act. But this movie also had Ian Holm and Lee Marvin in it, and was based on a Wilbur smith book, so I thought I'd give it a chance when I saw the DVD for sale in the bargain bin...

It was a mistake. The opening scene appeared to start in the middle of a reel, with sound suddenly appearing as if the first second of the soundtrack had been truncated. The scene showed a dreadnought at sea with a German crew. This bad editing was a sign of things to come, but the scene with the dreadnought was interesting enough to keep me watching. The special effects were good, and the crew wore the proper uniforms and spoke in German, indicating that the director at least paid attention to historical detail. I was surprised. 

So I kept watching, and then Moore appeared and my supicions were confirmed. Bad acting, clichéd lines, clichéd cinematography and cheap humour...but worst of all, there is a disastrous attempt to blend the light-hearted feel of the film with serious drama and tragedy. It just does not work.

The film ends as suddenly and as badly as it started  in the middle of a reel.

Sentiment: negative
Fun, entertaining movie about WWII German spy (Julie Andrews!) falling in love with American pilot (Rock Hudson), while trying to get secrets from him. For some reason this was attacked by critics and shunned by the public in 1970--I can't see why. It's beautifully shot, has wonderful costumes and interiors, and exciting aerial dogfights. Also it has Andrews doing a strip-tease (strictly PG material) and singing a beautiful song--"Whistling in the Dark". The movie does have problems. Andrews and Hudson did not get along during the shooting of this--and it shows. Their love scenes lack spark and they have zero sexual chemistry. Still, they turn in OK performances. The film is a little long (even in the 105 min director's cut I saw) and gets way too dark and serious at the end. Still, worth catching. Try seeing the directors cut...the other one runs half an hour longer!

Sentiment: positive
I can't believe we don't have that 70's show anymore. I have all 8 seasons of that 70's show!! I absolutely Love It!! I lay in the bed every night and watch several episodes before I go to sleep. At the end of a long busy day it's nice to kick back and have a great laugh before you go to sleep. I was so sad they took the show off air... at least we still have the re-runs!! I am hoping and praying they will come back with at least a reunion...Like maybe when Donna finishes college and we finally get to see her and Eric get married!!!! Wouldn't that be awesome!!! It would be even better if they would continue it for several years!!

Sentiment: positive
I have tried watching this show on several different occasions and each time found it to be utterly pale of humor.

The reason, to mention one thing, is that it is solely based on ridiculing anything the Republicans have done. In short it is basically Democratic party political opinions touted as humor.

All Mr. Stewart does is wisecrack about anything the Republicans have done and the audience wets themselves in gales of forced laughter.

My guess is that the left is so devoid of any real substance that they have to define themselves in terms of how much they all hate Republicans.

-LD

_____________________________

my faith: http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/jbc33/

Sentiment: negative
This movie was the worst movie ever made on the planet, I like BARNEY more than this movie. The graphics suck, half the movie is animated, the deaths suck, and over all, I was ready to SUE the people that made this movie!PLEASE DO NOT WASTE HOURS OF YOUR LIFE WATCHING THIS MOVIE. The only good part was when the movie ******* ended! This movie is 50 percent Jurassic park, .1 percent Sabretooth, and 49.9 percent DUMB! Please do not waste your time watching this movie, you will regret it.You want to know why this movie sucks? Well, the cover sucked, the graphics sucked, the blood looked ( I mean is) ketchup, the people tried to blow themselves up, the college students think there all that and can stand up to the animal. I mean, there was a 5 ft. tiger running straight at a woman, she throws a spear at it from 100 ft away! WAIT TILL YOU CAN Actually HIT IT! The acting was horrible too. Jurrasic Park is actually a good movie, and this just had to go and ruin it.

Sentiment: negative
I think this piece of garbage is the best proof that good ideas can be destroyed, why all the American animators thinks that the kids this days wants stupid GI JOE versions of good stories??? the Looney Tunes are some of the most beloved characters in history, but they weren't created to be Xtreme, i mean come on!!! Tiny Toons was a great example of how an old idea can be updated without loosing it's original charm, but this piece of garbage is just an example of stupid corporate decisions that only wants to create a cheap idiotic show that kids will love because hey!!! kids loves superheroes right??? the whole show is only a waste of time in which we see the new versions of the Looney Tunes but this time in superhero form, this doesn't sound too bad but the problem is that this show tries too hard to copy series like batman the animated series, or the new justice league, the result??? bad copies of flash (the road runner) or superman (who else??? bugs bunny) the problem is that Looney Tunes weren't meant to be dramatic, the were supposed to be funny!!!! as i said before this series sucks, and many people wonders why anime is taking all over the world??? this show tries to be dramatic and action packed, but that's something that few series and anime are able to do, if you want to see a good upgrade of an old show watch Tiny Toons, that's an example that it's possible to bring back to life old characters, but with a good story and respecting the original roots. too bad that show is already dead, another corporate wise decision i suppose.

Sentiment: negative
When I started to watch this movie on VH-1 I cringed. The MTV movies were all bad so I wasnt expecting much. But this movie was really good. I liked it a lot. And it even had a twist at the end. See this movie because it shows that Made For TV movies that are good exist.

Sentiment: positive
This is the essence of the early eighties! The malls, the credit card machines, the food, the punk hair color, the soundtrack... I am in love with this movie. This sweet, intelligent Romeo & Juliet teen flick is instantly addictive.

Martha Coolidge is one of my favorite directors. She really employs her actors, like John Hughes and Steven Soderberg, so check out -Joy of Sex- and -Real Genius-. The soundtracks for -Valley Girl- are great. If you can find a copy of the film, buy it! It's out of print and very hard to come by.

Sentiment: positive