DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
Effort aside (This isn't a review about good intentions, its about the final product), this film is poorly written, overacted, and poorly directed. The story obviously had potential, but that story is nowhere present in this film.

Clara Barton was a human being. She had passions, desires, love, pain, embarrassment, weakness, and self doubt just like the rest of us. You would never know that from this film of the lead actress's performance. In fact apply that to every character in the film, but in Barton's case: Every sentence is a speech. An epic over the top speech as though from an inhuman robot. In fact the only scene that plays well in one in the board meeting, and I realized thats because she's making a speech! Every idea she has is unbelievable in its context and she comes up with ideas that sound like they take a lifetime of soul searching right on the spot. For example, when she sees a wounded man, she'll start pontificating about the needs of the battlefield and to protect soldiers and putting up white flags, etc. As played in the film, there's no WAY she could come up with such a detailed well thought out idea in seconds.

IN conclusion, this film robs Clara Barton of her struggles. It robs her of her humanity, and it inherently cheapens all she did because the script is written in clichés. The writer doesn't know Clara Barton, and seems to have based his script on an encyclopedia Britannica article. (yes they had those back then) But hey, nice Technicolor! (who cares)

Sentiment: negative
Okay, so Ghoulies 4 is kind of bad. And it doesn't really even have the ghoulies in it. And the acting is bad. The storyline is stupid. But I forget to mention how funny this film is. It is so campy, and so ridiculous it is too fun not to enjoy. There are only 2 ghoulies in the movie, and they don't really seem to be in relation with the Ghoulies in the other film. But they are pretty funny. And funny thing, that Jonathon Graves returns for this one. If you saw the first, he was a character in that. In my opinion, this is better than the first. There are some classic scenes and some classic lines, one which is in a grocery store. "Attention K-Mart Shoppers!" Watch this if you enjoy bad movies. It's so bad it is good. And did I mention Barbara Alyn Woods is hot?

Sentiment: positive
YOU BELONG TO ME (1941) is a example of the 'ScrewBall Comedy' which started in the mid 1930s and ended postwar (WWII). Some of these films maintained their status. Others have earned undeserved praise when originally were critical and box office flops. Like BRINGING UP BABY (1938) or MR. & MRS. SMITH (1941). Then there is this one which value just keeps sinking.

Why can be rooted in the screenplay/story. It strains credibility from the get go, betraying a superior cast. BARBARA STANWYCK is married to millionaire HENRY FONDA who is insanely jealous. He would be content to sit back with his million$ and love her, she wishes to maintain her profession as a Doctor. She wants him to become in what her eyes is a useful member of society. This conflict is supposed to amuse us. It cannot be salvaged by either the principals or the supporting cast.

The faults in this scenario can clearly be laid at the feet of DALTON TRUMBO. HENRY FONDAs' character is written in such broad strokes that any viewer has a instant dislike for him. BARBARA STANWYCK just has nothing to do but react to each idiotic situation of jealousy. TRUMBO must have been spending to much time outside the studio being a "useful idiot" then being on the job. COLUMBIA obviously did not get their moneys worth from him, maybe ROBERT RISKIN should taken over.

Sentiment: negative
The "math" aspect to this is merely a gimmick to try to set this TV show apart from the millions of other cop shows. The only redeeming aspect to this show is Rob Morrow, although his career must have been (undeservedly) waning after Northern Exposure if he signed up for this schlock.

The lame-ness of the "math" aspect to the show is encapsulated in one episode co-starring Lou Diamond Phillips (which just confirms that this show is the last refuge of the damned.) In order to catch a fugitive, the "mathematician" uses some theory about "bubbles". So, he gives this long explanation that, if we have seen the suspect in places A, B and C, then we can use "bubble theory" to calculate where he might be. He does this all on a chalkboard, or maybe with a stick in the dirt (I cant remember).

Anyway, when you look at the finished product, he basically took three spots, and picked a point right in the middle and said "Ok, mathematically, here's where we are most likely to find the fugitive." At which point, one other character points out "Oh, that point also happens to be the cabin where the guy used to live." Is that math? Its not even connect-the-f**k**g-dots!!! This show reminds me of the math major I used to work with in banking who had a mathematical analysis he could do to "support" points that every one else had already agreed on through either less-complex analysis or basic common sense.

It just goes to show -- When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I can't wait til they stick the NUMB3RS team on OSAMA... They'll use calculus, call an airstrike in the middle of the mountains, and hit Osama and not even scratch the five children he uses as human shields... cuz hey... its all about the numbers.

Totally ludicrous TV show.

Sentiment: negative
Don't get me wrong, I love Stephen King! And this is a pretty good movie over all. The rabid Cujo is very scary and the movie is suspenseful. But after the first few minutes that poor Donna and her little son Tad were held captive in their Pinto by the rabid St. Bernard, I began to wonder why she didn't do something to help herself.

She could have stuck her foot out the door and pushed the car backwards (I mean, it was a Pinto for Pete's sake and they were on a downhill incline) and rolled to safety, but then it would have been a very short movie. When she got the car started, did she pop it into reverse and hope that she could get at least get part way down the driveway? No, she tries to make a three point turn in a car with a bad alternator. She did manage to get out of the car and look around for 45 seconds or so at one point to try and get to a baseball bat that was lying on the ground nearby--what a waste of time! I mean, if you're going to make a run for the bat, do it and at least you'll have something to hit the dog with. But, forget the bat. Were there no tools in the car, like a tire iron or something? I didn't see her looking in the spare tire well of the car. Really, why wait until you're bitten and weak from dehydration and your son is having seizures before you make a stand against the animal?

At the end of the movie she was battered and torn, but by God she was still wearing high heels!

Sentiment: negative
I'd honestly give this movie a solid 7.5, but I clicked 10 to try to offset the 5 pages of imbecilic, unjustified 1-star reviews. This is an interesting story, all of the acting is good to very good (even Ms. Diaz, who is totally out of her usual grinning-bimbo role here, yet plays it well.) The sets are perfect and the cinematography is consistently appropriately creepy. It's a fine morality play and there is *no* reason to explain the origin of the god/supernatural being/alien/whatever that's "running the show," so I'm glad the movie doesn't try. It's really irrelevant to the story, which is relatively long but quite compelling and summed up quite satisfyingly in the ending. 

Before you decide this movie is terrible (or really, anything under a ~7.5) read some of the dozens of 1-star "hated it" reviews that are rife with misspellings, lack of punctuation and capitalization, and juvenile criticisms. Maybe the trailer was misleading or something -- I didn't see it -- but some of these reviewers were apparently expecting Terminator 4 or Saw 5 (one reviewer actually compared this movie to Saw! How utterly inappropriate and unrelated!) 

Seriously, most of these reviews read like you-tube comments -- according to these "critics" this movie is too confusing yet too predictable, not enough action yet there's too much going on, too smart yet too dumb, explains too much yet leaves too much unexplained... oh -- and it's apparently a "waist (sic) of time." Do consider the quality and source of the reviews before taking them to heart. I'm afraid these 1-star kids failed to understand the phrase "altruism coefficient" and were therefore utterly incapable of understanding the movie's premise (despite adamantly claiming that they "get it" right before explaining how confusing it was!) If you know what those two words mean you will have no trouble understanding (and enjoying) this movie.

I really wish there were a reviewer reputation system here so I could be sure to ignore the rating of everyone who gave this movie 1 star forever.

See it for yourself and enjoy the fine presentation of an interesting couple taking an interesting moral "test" and facing the consequences. It's a good time, in my opinion.

Sentiment: positive
Cecil B. DeMille directed a series of domestic comedy-dramas in the late teens and early 20s. He found his perfect leading lady for these provocative pieces in Gloria Swanson. In Don't Change Your Husband, Swanson plays a bored housewife whose wealthy businessman husband (Elliott Dexter) pays more attention to work than to her. She is chased by a handsome roue (Lew Cody) until she relents and divorces the boring husband for the new lover.

Things soon become familiar and Swanson discovers the new husband is as neglectful as the first. To make matters worse she discovers Cody has a woman on the side (Julia Faye). After several confrontations and convenient meetings, things are resolved.

This was a smash hit in 1919 and helped make Gloria Swanson a major star. Although she was only 20 when she filmed this she is very good as the maybe foolish wife. She looks great and wears some stunning gowns.

There is one memorable scene that is 100% DeMille in which Cody is luring Swanson with promises of wealth, pleasure, and love. As he coos to her she imagines the scenes. Pleasure is a fantastic scene of Swanson in a spidery hammock swinging out over a pool while people dance around. Wealth is a scene in which Swanson is gowned like a Babylonian queen as servants bring her chests of jewels, which shes tosses aside. Love is a scene in which she is a wood nymph making love in a forest glade with a Pan-like character (Ted Shawn). Pure hokum but very entertaining, and Swanson looks great.

Dexter is very good as the bland husband who shaves off his moustache and starts to work out in order to win his wife back. Cody is also good as the fake charmer who is a liar and cheat. Faye is funny as the bitchy other woman--named Toodles no less--who gets hers. Sylvia Ashton plays Mrs. Huckney. Ted Shawn was married to Ruth St. Denis and together they were groundbreaking and influential modern dancers (of the Denishawn School).

Swanson impresses me more every time I see her. She seems to have been such a natural actress and yet there is a way that the camera captures her expressive face that is just mesmerizing. She's a joy to watch.

Very entertaining film with lots of color tints in varying scenes to keep things lively. And a lot of the furnishings are back in style 86 years later.

Sentiment: positive
Fata Morgana is, by far, one of the weirdest and most perplexing art films I have ever seen. I hesitate to call it a documentary because, while is does have elements of documentation of it's images, the images themselves are so unusual, so hallucinogenic, so unclear, that I wonder whether it was really worth telling this story just so that these images can exist. The film basically is the tale of the earth and the creation of the earth shot from the perspective of an outsider, be it alien or something otherwise indescribable, all taking place in the Sahara desert. The title of the picture relates to the illusion or reflection of images, both real and hallucinated, that people in the desert often witness. These are also known as mirages.

The film opens with a plane landing followed by the plane landing again and then again and again and again and again and again and again. With each plane landing shot, the actual architecture of both the location it is landing at and the plane itself begin to slowly dissolve into one another and grow less and less real and more and more reflective imagery. The imagery in this film only grows more intense and more unusual as the picture continues. The narration of the film tells of the creation of the universe as alarming sexual images of sand and landscape move past the camera. The shots go further and further into the desert and Herzog films whatever he sees and finds. The strangest reflections of the world are on display in the distance while Herzog meets some of the most pure and photogenic collections of outsiders that you are ever likely to see. When the Leonard Cohen soundtrack kicks in, you can be sure that you are in the world of a mad man who is in love with the universe.

I cannot say too much more about this film without ruining anything, but I will say that it is a sobering experience and there's really nothing like it. I love seeing films that are just in classes of their own. This film certainly is a good example of how Herzog loves to intermingle narrative storytelling and documentary film-making into an interchangeable form. Fata Morgana unfortunately does overstay it's welcome just a bit, but by the time it nears it's end the images will most likely be burned into your mind forever. Definitely a must-see for those who are obsessed with the nature and the origin of the universe.

Sentiment: positive
Just two comments....SEVEN years apart? Hardly evidence of the film's relentless pulling-power! As has been mentioned, the low-budget telemovie status of 13 GANTRY ROW is a mitigating factor in its limited appeal. Having said that however the thing is not without merit - either as entertainment or as a fright outing per se.

True, the plot at its most basic is a re-working of THE AMITYVILLE HORROR - only without much horror. More a case of intrigue! Gibney might have made a more worthwhile impression if she had played Halifax -investigating a couple of seemingly unconnected murders with the "house" as the main suspect. The script is better than average and the production overall of a high standard. It just fails to engage the viewer particularly at key moments.

Having picked the DVD up for a mere $3.95 last week at my regular video store, I cannot begrudge the expenditure. $10.95 would be an acceptable price for the film. Just don't expect fireworks!

Sentiment: positive
The tunes are the best aspect of this television film which has admittedly better-than-average production values, but very surface and slightly altered biography. Dramatizes Richard's discovery of "We've Only Just Begun" and Karen's marriage troubles admirably (the "Superstar" montage was a nice touch), yet notably leaves out the disagreement with Neil Sedaka, the contribution of Tony Peluso's guitar solos, etc. Gibb is sweet in her Karen persona, but it doesn't include the tomboyish and gutsier sides of the real Carpenter's personality. Anderson is in fine form as the creative and take-charge Richard, and Fletcher makes her mark as the loving but overbearing Agnes. The most haunting moment of the original broadcast is the use of "Goodbye to Love" in the background of a commercial displaying an anorexia hotline.

Sentiment: positive
Well, basically, the movie blows! It's Blair Witch meets Sean Penn's ill conceived fantasy about going to Iraq to show the world what the "War on Terror" is really about. The script sounds like it was written by 8th grader (no offense to 8th graders); the two main actors over-act the entire film; they used the wrong kind of camera and the wrong type of film(not that i know anything about those things--but it just didn't look like real documentaries I've watched), and worst of all Christian Johnson took a great idea and made it suck. It reminded me of the time I tried to draw a picture of my dog and ended up with a really bad stick figure looking thing that looked more like a giant turd. I'd rather watch the Blair Witch VIII, than sit through that again.

Sentiment: negative
OK. Finally, a horror film that's done well. As soon as I heard the music, I knew that some effort had been made in creating what I consider to be an almost masterpiece of good ol'horror. Zombies, whores, booze, grave snatching and a lot more. A great cast, well acted, well directed, well written---there was hardly a flaw. Even the American actors with Irish/English accents really pulled it off. I thought that the actor Larry Fessenden looked familiar to me. It was that missing tooth. Finally I realized that this guy was the lead in "Habit" a film about vampires in NYC. I thought he was excellent in that role. Now I'm wondering if he's an American or not. His accent was so convincing in "I Sell," that I thought he had to have grown up in the emerald isle, not in the US. Well apparently he's a born and raised New Yorker. A great actor--really made the role his own in this movie. Nothing beats a horror flick set in early 19th century Europe (like the old Hammer flicks.) I encourage anyone that wants to have a great time to watch this well crafted movie.

Sentiment: positive
The movie seemed to appeal me because of the new type of Pokemon Celebi. But the plot was out of course and didn't have as an interest as the other movies. It was a waste of money and time. The same corny humor and cliche bad guys. The movie was of no use to make if you wanted to make Pokemon famous. The movie should better not associated with animes such as Dragonballz, Digimon, or Yu-Gi-Oh. The drawing and settings are of no level rising to the standards of original anime. It is a shame even to talk about this movie. I bet Pokemon fans will be disappointed with the outcome of the movie and give up on Pokemon. Digimon is more of an anime and doesn't fall anywhere close to Pokemon.It's second movie is coming out late 2002.

Sentiment: negative
This was a great movie with a good cast, all of them hitting on all cylinders. And when Dianne Keaton is at her best, well, it just doesn't get any better than that. But Tom Everett Scott, always underrated, was even better. He should be a star. 

My only complaint is with one aspect of the screenplay. None of the characters ever acknowledged that the dead daughter wasn't always a good person. And neither was her mother, played by Keaton. At one point she breaks a promise she made to one character not to reveal that he had been sleeping around. 

One of the other commentators said the movie had a "political agenda". That is a baffling thing to say. There was no politics at all in this movie.

Sentiment: positive
The funniest performance was by Shalom Harlow, as Matt Dillon's supermodel girlfriend. She was more interesting to me than all the lead actors. This movie got it all wrong; even the most dependable actress of the century, Joan Cusask, was not able to rise about the ridiculousness of the plot. I did enjoy hearing "Macho Man" by the Village People over the closing credits. The rest of the movie might have been tolerable if it were to rise to that level of energy.

Sentiment: positive
There is a scene in Dan in Real Life where the family is competing to see which sex can finish the crossword puzzle first. The answer to one of the clues is Murphy's Law: anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. This is exactly the case for Dan Burns (Steve Carell, the Office) a columnist for the local newspaper. Dan is an expert at giving advice for everyday life, yet he comes to realize that things aren't so picture perfect in his own. Dan in Real Life is amazing at capturing these ironies of everyday life and is successful at embracing the comedy, tragedy, and beauty of them all. Besides that this movie is pretty damn hilarious.

The death of his wife forces Dan to raise his three daughters all on his own... each daughter in their own pivotal stages in life: the first one anxious to try out her drivers license, the middle one well into her teenage angst phase, and the youngest one drifting away from early childhood. Things take a turn for Dan when he goes to Rhode Island for a family reunion and stumbles across an intriguing woman in a bookstore.

Her name is Marie (Juliette Binoche, Chocolat) and she is looking for a book to help her avoid awkward situations... which is precisely whats in store when they get thrown into the Burns Family household.

If you've seen Steve Carell in The Office or Little Miss Sunshine, you'd know that he is incomparable with comedic timing and a tremendously dynamic actor as well. Steve Carell is awesome at capturing all the emotions that come with family life: the frustration and sincere compassion. The family as well as the house itself provides a warm environment for the movie that contrasts the inner turmoil that builds throughout the movie and finally bursts out in a pretty suspenseful climax. The movie only falls short in some of the predictable outcomes, yet at the same time life is made up of both irony and predictability: which is an irony within itself.

Dan in Real Life is definitely worth seeing, for the sole enjoyment of watching all the funny subtleties we often miss in everyday life, and I'll most likely enjoy it a second time, or even a third. Just "put it on my tab."

Sentiment: positive
Evan Almighty continues the mainstream Bruce Almighty franchise, this time with newsman turned freshman Congressman from Buffalo, Evan Baxter (Steve Carell), at it's center. A wholly innocuous (and not even really self-doubting) man, God (Morgan Freeman) decides to enforce some sort of quest upon Baxter, in order to illustrate the importance of... reciprocal kindness, so that Baxter can "change the world" (aka, pay it forward).

Think of Evan Almighty as a wholesome derivative of 'Distinguished Gentlemen.' Baxter is not a con, but his colleague, Congressman Long (John Goodman) wants his unquestioned support on a bill that essentially, is harmful to the environment. And well-meaning Baxter, knowing the importance of networking and visibility, is willing to support him. 

In addition, with the new job comes more responsibility, and Baxter is in a sense, vilified, for not spending enough time with his family. 

So God, decides to give Evan Baxter some guidance by forcing him to become the modern day Noah. His orders: build an ark. Except, while it may be mildly humorous to see Baxter's transformation to the "weirdo with a beard-o," there doesn't seem to be much point to this whole thing which becomes abundantly clearer when the climax of the film fizzles. (SPOILERS: if none of the population is killed by the "flood", then what was the point of summoning the animals... or at least the ones that obviously weren't from suburban Virginia? or, more importantly, if all Baxter had to realize was that Long's projects faltered in their quality, then why did he have to build an ark?).

So, although a comedy like this needn't be a hysterical laugh-riot, it was certainly one made far less enjoyable as it was crammed with far too many homilies (and not all from Morgan Freeman) and action that seemed intended for a film of more epic events.

Sentiment: negative
Compared to this, Tarkovsky is a speed freak.

Compared to this, Bela Tarr is MTV.

Compared to this, the movie "Russian Ark" is a roller-coaster ride.

I've just described 3 of the sllllowwwwwesssstttt experiences I've ever known, and this one tops them all. But that's not saying it's bad. On the contrary, I really liked it. But it was a chore.

I won't describe the plot, because you can easily find that elsewhere. Suffice it to say that the plot is INSANE. It's one of the most creative and bizarre ideas since "Becoming John Malkovich". I believe the interesting plot is the main reason I kept from nodding off (also, the humour was nice. That's something we rarely see in slow, artsy films).

Here we see a bizarre reversal of the norm. Most movies have little plot & little substance; yet they fill 90 mins with a lot of eyecatching images to keep us enthralled. But "The Hole" has 100% plot/theme without much to please the eyes. In that respect, I suppose it's a truly intellectual experience, much like reading a painfully verbose novel like Thackaray's "Vanity Fair" (which I've NEVER been able to finish!).

If you have a tremendous attention span, I think you'll really like this film. Despite its molassessy pace, it's highly creative and imaginative. It's like Jean-Pierre Jeunet on quaaludes and with a drab, dusty camera lens. Best of luck.

Sentiment: positive
I've also been looking to find this movie for quite some time, and how great it would be to find it on DVD...

I saw this movie when I was about 6 years old, in the Netherlands. And I was very impressed by it. It was shown before Walt Disney's JUNGLE BOOK! 

What I remember of this movie is fragmented. I remember that an Indian boy was friends with an eagle. This impressed me very much. For some reason he was thrown out of his village (did not grasp the reason for this). When other boys threw stones at him, he climbed a rock and jumped off. At that time he turned into an eagle and flew away with his eagle friend. As an eagle he was still wearing his turquoise necklace. 

CB

Sentiment: positive
His music, especially what we hear of it here, is very slow. From around the time of Bach's death composers had been working out ways of making music progress at a slower and slower pace: over a century later, Wagner and then Mahler wrote pieces that are about as slow as it is possible for music to get. -Of course, one can cheat by writing a 4/4 march and then specifying a tempo of, say, semiquaver = 1, but that tempo wouldn't be the correct tempo. Wagner and Mahler wrote music that is PROPERLY played at a snail's pace. Given that the slowness in no sense sounds too slow "snail's pace" is the wrong expression. A critic wrote of a famous Wagner conductor, "He doesn't beat time, he beats eternity." For all I know this was meant as a compliment.

I get the feeling that around the early 1970s directors worked out how to make the slowest possible films: there's "Death in Venice", and there's "Solyaris". I much prefer the former. For one thing, "Solyaris" steps over the line, or some line, and becomes soporific; "Death in Venice" is gripping from beginning to end. Not much happens, but it all happens in the right sequence, at the right pace, with photography you can get lost in

Another way of cheating with music, by the way, is to write something that doesn't really have a tempo at all. Such music sounds slow, but is really just unmusical, just as many films feel slow because they lack rhythm and form. "Death in Venice" isn't one of them. Beautiful in every respect, it will remind you of the timelessness and contextlessness of quality. You need no theoretical knowledge to respond to Visconti's mastery, as you do to respond to a lesser director's incompetence. It's a great work.

Sentiment: positive
Let me start out by saying i will try not to put too many spoilers in this. Normally I enjoy Robin Williams movies, however this gem was not one of them. It was billed as a suspenseful thriller. The night listener was anything but. To be blunt there were 6 people in the theater opening day, 2 walked out, for good reason. The movie was in my opinion poorly written and directed. The acting was alright but again there wasn't anything to work with. The movie is about A storyteller who reads a good book by a dying kid. However *insert spooky here* no one can verify the kids existence. So Williams goes to Wisconsin to try and find the author, however all he gets is a headache and excuses from the boys caretaker. There thats it, thats all. You wait for about an hour and a half and movie ends. It had as many thrills and chills as a dentist office visit. The homosexual undertones, or overtones had really nothing to do with the story, and the movie had a little profanity but it seemed to be thrown in there for absolutely no reason and made little sense. In conclusion i really can't write a decent review on this film because there was nothing to it, it was as captivating as watching paint dry. I gave it a 2 because the acting for what it was worth was alright and it wasn't directed by Uwe Boll.

Sentiment: negative
This can't be Mandy Schaffer's last film. Somebody, do something! :-(

Argh.

What little life this one might have had, the directing finished off. Don't blame the cast; they did OK. Even the winemaker's younger brother was pretty well done, and he didn't even get into the movie until halfway through. And please, please put Mandy in some more movies! She's too beautiful to bury her career at such a young age. Ya' breakin' my haht, heah....

Two specific criticisms, in case anyone cares (apparently nobody liked this movie very much). First, the way Traci kept popping up at just the right melodramatic moment, in order to see whatever she was supposed to see, and never got seen in return, was very annoying. Hollywood: please stop giving villains perfect timing luck which runs out exactly when the climax arrives. It's dumb. Write better scripts so you won't have to use that lame plot device any more. If your script isn't good enough to stand up without that, then don't produce it.

Second, Carmen wouldn't have fallen for that fake injury trick that Traci pulled. She already had Traci fingered. More bad writing/directing there.

I could trash this movie further but mercy forbids it. Actually I didn't hate it as much as the others seem to have. It just didn't have much of a reason for being made, unless it was purely a vehicle to show off the lovely Mandy. Oh, and to whoever didn't think she was sexy... the character wasn't very well written, but how can you say she wasn't sexy?!? One or the other of us needs glasses, and I don't think it's me.

MORE MANDY. (Not to be confused with "Moore, Mandy" -- although I'd like to see her again too. ;-)

P.S. Did I mention I hope Mandy makes me more movies? <:-D

Sentiment: negative
This movie is about a fictional soap opera. It is very fast and funny. To say anything else would ruin the movie. There are several plots and sub plots in the movie. This movie has ensemble cast with today's hottest stars. They all gives over the top performances. This movie is favorite of mine from the year 1991. Soapdish is perfect for fans of either daytime soap opera /or prime time soap opera!!!If you watch soap go check this movie it's hilarious!!!

Sentiment: positive
If you're a fan of Gothic horror, then you're definitely absolutely guaranteed to LOVE this wondrous Italian 60's film "Castle of Blood". We're really talking about creepily creaking doors, eerie portraits that appear to be moving, spontaneously dying candles although there's no wind and smoke coming from underneath heavy wooden chamber doors. Speaking in terms of atmosphere and style, this masterful piece of Gothic film-making is one of the best out there; just one tiny league below landmarks such as "Black Sunday", "The Three Faces of Fear" and "Curse of the Crying Woman". The prominent directors duo Sergio Corbucci ("The Great Silence", "Django") and Antonio Margheriti ("Cannibal Apocalypse", "Killer Fish") are successful in all areas, including a powerful plot (one that is genuinely nightmare inducing), ultra-sinister scenery and filming locations, stylish black and white photography, spine-chilling music and a brilliant gathering of talented performers. Barbara Steele, starlet of the aforementioned "Black Sunday" and Italian goth-muse number one, shines brightly again as a spiritually tormented character and she's literally surrounded by excellent co-players. One of them, Silvano Tranquilli, even gives away a fairly credential depiction of author Edgar Allan Poe. The story involves him and another wealthy visitor of a countryside tavern challenging a brutal young journalist to accept a morbid wager. If he  Alan Foster  would survive spending one night in the infamous Blackwood Castle, he receives the astonishing reward of $10 and a newspaper interview with Poe. Needless to say the ordeal is much more dangerous than it sounds, even for somebody like Alan Foster who's a firm non-believer in ghosts and vampires. The night starts out great for him, as he even meets up with the stunningly beautiful woman of his dreams, but gradually he learns that Blackwood Castle is a hellish place where the ghosts of the previously deceased visitors are trapped for all eternity. I don't know about you, but this is seriously one of my favorite horror movie premises of all time. Co-director Antonio Margheriti clearly was proud of this film as well, because he remade it himself a couple of years later as "Web of the Spider". That movie had a handful of trumps, like for example the casting of no less than Klaus Kinski in the role of Edgar Allan Poe, but in general this original is vastly superior. "Castle of Blood" literally oozes with atmosphere and maintains a thoroughly unsettling ambiance throughout. This truly is one of the rare films that can make the hair on your arms and back of the neck rise with fear if you watch it in the right circumstances. Watch it late at night, preferably alone and in a candle lit room, and you'll get an idea about the true definition of horror.

Sentiment: positive
I really tried to like this movie but in the end it just didn't work for me. I have seen most of Kitamura's output and have found it to be very variable. Alive, like all of his films has an interesting plot, some nifty sequences and a fair amount of creativity. However, these qualities are in painfully short supply in Alive. The plot is cool if not all that original and could have made for a pretty ace film. Unfortunately, the pacing is painfully slow and the film takes an age to get going, before reaching fairly predictable places. The action is just about passable, with the final fight pretty cool, and the earlier one about OK. The earlier one is also marred by overspeedy camera-work, making for less coherency. There are some neat visual effects and some interesting ideas floating around in the dialogue but the film still drags badly. The characters are neither well fleshed out nor well acted and the setting and general color scheme is drab and boring. The film is not completely terrible and has some points of interest, perhaps judicious use of the fast forward button could improve it. With about twenty minutes taken off the run time this could be a pretty decent sci fi thriller. But the full length film is dull. Only recommended to very patient and determined Kitumura fans.

Sentiment: negative
Once upon a time Theresa Russell made a few halfway decent movies, so I keep hoping that one of her efforts from the past decade or two will merit a rating of at least 6 or 7 (out of 10). However, DARK WORLD is just the latest in a string of disappointments. The first 90 minutes are very hard to watch. The lines are delivered by the lead actors as if they are being read at a first rehearsal or even a casting session (in which the actors are doing it for the sake of their agents, but do not really want the parts for which they are perfunctorily reading). The sets and props seem "off" somehow (what kind of a police department would allow a detective to have a whole living room wall shelved full of case file holders?). The screen is constantly cluttered with meaningless time and datelines, which appear with no rhyme or reason. Now, if the scriptwriter were standing here after the lights go up from a film fest screening, they no doubt would crow about how all these shortcomings are REALLY clever clues to the plot turning topsy-turvy in this misfire's final five minutes. Well, for those audience members whose only other movie experiences are TV: THE MOVIE and SURFER, DUDE; they might be bamboozled into nodding their heads in agreement. But it is hard to believe that ANYONE who has seen 10 or more movies in their life--and is not a close friend or relative of a DARK WORLD cast or crew member--could fall for such a lame canard. Despite what the d.v.d. box might lead you to believe, this movie has about as much resemblance to SUNSET BOULEVARD (dead narrator device) or Hitchcock (schizophrenic protagonist device) as a drained Jim Beam bottle refilled with urine has to booze!

Sentiment: negative
I would like to say that I absolutely loved Campfire Tales! To me, it was one of the original horror flicks with a twisted ending. As if the contents of the movie weren't scary or weird enough, you have the ending. It's a very awesome movie and I'm so happy that it's being released on DVD on August 30th.I will not hesitate to get my copy on that day.I don't think the movie received all the credit or recognition it should have, because all these other movies came out shortly after and was acknowledge, but if it weren't for my brother telling me about the movie, I wouldn't have known. Which stinks because in my opinion it's far better than any "Scream", "I know what you did Last Summer", or any other horror for that time. So I hope that you are able to see the movie yourself and at least be able to see the difference. I loved it, and being a horror movie junkie, Campfire Tales was like dessert for me!

Sentiment: positive
I first saw this movie as a younger child. My sister had told me about it and I thought it would be more of a kid's movie. However it remains to also be an incredible movie. True that the subject behind the movie is ruff but also true this movie will never stop touching your heart.

I was only 6 when I first saw it and just yesterday, 7 years later, I saw it again. For the first time in a long time. Even after I knew how it ended, I knew that I had seen it a billion, bizillion times I wept like a teeny weeny little baby. When I saw it a few years back I finally got the idea and the seriousness of the film. So I stoped watching it for a while. But yesterday I didn't change the channel, I watched it. By the end I was astonished at how much it still made me laugh, cry, think, and above all, believe in mericals again. I haven't belived in a long time and this movie got me out of my shell and opened up my heart. This movie wasn't just impacting. I was also so impressed with the actors. Especially Bobby. So if you are wanting to see this movie for the first time I suggest seeing it alone. With tissues. And being ready to discover your young, sweet, innocent side and the side that still has hope. This movie touched my soul when I was only 6, and even in this time of trying to figure out who I am this movie helped me realize both what I don't and still do want to be in life.

Sentiment: positive
The Finnish version of Robert Altman's "Short Cuts", set in the small rural town of Äänekoski. The episodes present a kaleidoscope of the eternal events, problems and emotions of human life: joy and love, deception and disillusionment, hopelessness and death. I was particularly impressed by two episodes. The first is the story of the young waitress, who tries to stir up a romance for his co-workers: she radiates an overwhelming joy of love and life. The other episode presents and old man dying in a hospital and his wife trying to help him die with dignity. Particularly striking is the way the old couple have to fight their way against the humiliating practices of the hospital and their loneliness contrasted with the "routines" of the hospital crew (despite the signs of occasional empathy). Compared with Altman's classic, this movie is perhaps less professional, but it is definitely a great piece of art.

Sentiment: positive
Oh, the sixties. There were some interesting films. I was more of a movie goer then. I now enjoy renting movies and relaxing in my home rather than going to the theater. I also saw this short film, " The Legend of the Boy and the Eagle". I have been searching for this film for years. It was truly inspiring. Surprisingly, I was finally able to gather more information from your site. Thank You........ I'm surprised to find out that this short film was an opening for a Disney picture. I too did not remember the Disney film. I did not even remember that it was an opening film for Disney. I truly wish they would show this on TV sometime. I wonder if Disey holds the rights to this film? Is it available on DVD? This is a must see for all generations!!!

Sentiment: positive
This film is undoubtedly one of the greatest landmarks in history of cinema. By seeing this film,we can only retrospectively notice that world cinema in 1950s had such a purely humanistic dramaturgy,such a strong and adequate use of sound-image montage,and almost religious admiration of ethical choices in human life. Cinema was then not only one form of arts. It was much higher than ordinary life and it gave many people hope to live after the tragic war. It is said, that even Picasso was moved and cried that such a work of art can appear only once in 100 years! Audience that time was also different. I read that after seeing Kurosawa's "Ikiru(Live)" in its first release, young couple quietly told each other,"It is a good film, isn't it?". I think,contemporary cinema, though technically developed and opened some new narrative perspective, has lost the most important---reliance of audience.Cienma was once really the most popular art from and, unlike modern fine arts and contemporary music,gave millions of people hope and ideals. In this point of view,"Letyat zhuravli" must be in the pantheon of classics of all the time, as "City light","Ikiru" and "La Strada".

Sentiment: positive
Wow. At first I thought who writes these things! How hard is that choice between a man who offers you and your children wealth, respectability and security as opposed to a husband who offers you only oppression, abuse, degradation and poverty. However our choices are not always as clear cut cut as one would think. Indeed the wealthy gentleman was all a woman could aspire to and yet... the pull of her husband, her sexual desire for him was almost overwhelming. What to do, what to do?? As a viewer you became as confused and misdirected as she was. Anyway what I really came on this site to gush about was my admiration of the voice of the Engish, I thought, although it is actually the voice of an Irish singer in the film. Looking him up I find he is Glen Hansard, whom I had never heard of before that day. What a find. I am so grateful. Wow, what a voice! What a day! Thank you BIFF!

Sentiment: positive
I like the concept of CSI, but the show is spoiled by some seriously wooden acting. The Medical Examiner has the best lines and delivers them in an arch, offhand manner that livens up the story. Unfortunately he has little screen time.

Also, why does Jorja Fox always look and act so utterly unhappy? I know that forensic investigation is a very serious business, but the characters, for the most part, seem to confuse seriousness with humorlessness and a complete lack of personality. I can't imagine dating either Sarah Sidle or Catherine Willows; what would you talk to either one about? I'm waiting for the episode when, at the end of a shift, Catherine picks up a remote control, points it at Grissom, shuts him down, and wheels him into a closet until the next day.

Sentiment: negative
This is a perfectly watchable adventurous movie to watch, with a great cast and a good story, based on true events.

It's interesting to note that the story of the movie is based on true events. It's above all for most part an adventurous story, with all of the usual ingredients you would expect from an adventurous movies set in an Arabic world. So, lots of sword fighting, good old fashioned honor, religion and a rich proud country. But the movie is also filled with humor, to make the movie a light and pleasant one to watch.

The constant cutting back and forth between the Morocco plot involving Sean Connery and Candice Berger and the American plot line involving Theodore Roosevelt (Brian Keith) wasn't the best possible approach in my opinion. The two things have totally different paces, totally different characters, it are just totally different worlds! Of course both story lines are connected and focuses on the same thing but the contrast between the two worlds is just too big to let it work out. It doesn't at all times make the movie feel connected and a bit disjointed. The American plot line is most of the time more political while the Morrocan plot line is purely adventurous and action filled. In the end you could perhaps even wonder what the whole point or Roosevelt in this movie was. Seem that John Milius is just a big admirer of him. Often the American plot line would take away most of the pace out of the far more interesting and more action filled fast paced Morrocan plot line. After all, John Milius always has been at his best as an action director.

It isn't until halve way through that the movie fully gets on steam. The most- and largest scaled action of the movie then kicks in. Especially the large scale end battle does not disappoint. I wish the entire movie was like this. That way this movie would had also been a better known one, no doubt.

The movie has a great Jerry Goldsmith musical score, that is perhaps way better known than the actual movie itself. The movie is also a good looking one with great production design and nice looking action and battle sequences in it. Appereantly the movie only costs $4,000,000 to make but that is really hard to believe, considering the settings and size of the movie. I mean John Milius his best known movie "Conan the Barbarian" cost about $20,000,000 to make but was a far more campy looking one and was less impressive on its scale.

Quite funny to see an Arabic speak with a big fat Scottish accent but hey, it's Sean Connery so you just simply tend to accept this. He suits his role well. So does Candice Bergen. It's always hard for a female character to come across as believable and work out in a movie such as this one but she manages. Also John Huston plays a great role in this movie!

A perfectly fine watchable movie!

7/10

Sentiment: positive
Good show.

The basic background is that humanity is at a crossroads. There is a set of moral dilemmas that are being faced. Mankind has made a number of technological breakthroughs, but is mankind mature enough to deal with the its new toys? There is moral decadence in a virtual world. There are religious fanatics who are willing to kill to get attention. I predict (based on the BSG background) that there will be an issue with Cylons and slavery. In addition to this, there are all the other problems that we humans bring upon ourselves.

This show is not BSG -- at least not as far as mankind being on the run from a ruthless problem that was ultimately of their own making. There are not a lot of shoot-em-up or space-based special effects either - at least not in the first few episodes I have seen so far.

What it does have are very good stories, characters, and themes. It also has good performances from the actors. They can make a culture which is similar to modern-day society, but alien at the same time be completely believable. Like BSG, this show is about humanity - our strengths, weaknesses, potential, and flaws. It may seem a little odd that a human society on a different set of worlds has neckties, antique cars, and chicken. But those things are really more to create a semi-familiar background than anything else. Anyone who gets stuck on those details is really missing the point. Whether you are from a mafia-style culture or an affluent and high-tech culture, humans and human nature aren't that different 150,000 years ago in a high-tech past than what we see in the world today. Wonder if the writers are trying to tell us something.

Sentiment: positive
After hearing that some of the people behind the low-budget flicks "Terror in Rock'n'Roll Önsjön" and "It came from outer space... and stuff" were involved in making this movie, I decided to buy it unseen on DVD. I wish I hadn't. The other movies were funny, tongue-in-cheek and kinda stupid. While Kraftverk 3714 is devoid of any humor at all. And it is so god-awful that I'm getting angry just thinking about it. The worst actors possible, the worst script possible, the worst special effects available. And the most unsexy sex scene ever. Uhhh. And the whole thing goes on for 2 hours and 45 minutes. Please, do not ever make another movie.

Sentiment: negative