DoubleML/multimodal_confounding huggingface dataset:
when i watched this crap, it reminded me of the the title of the movie FIRE, Which is where this garbage belongs, in a fire. I don't even know what to say the acting blew, the fire looked really fake, Andy the chicks are'nt exactly supermodels. And lastly i don't know what you people are complaining i own this damn movie, yeah happy birthday to me Well i guess it could be worse i could be watching left behind 2. And to make things worse i have the whole set on DVD fire,volcano,earthquake,avalanche. All i'm missing is the awesome tornado movie which i hear sucks balls.

Well until my next crap movie peace

Sentiment: negative
'Bland' is probably the word I'd use to try and start describing this film. I only watched it because it had a good rating on here and i was SO let down.

Basically the film is about racism in a post 9/11 America and the director went at it with a sledge hammer! There was no subtlety in the film at all and it felt as though they were trying to achieve a kind of Magnolia feel to the film - which is never a good idea as that film was three hours of tedium and confusion only for it to start raining frogs at the end...

All in all a HUGE disappointment.

Sentiment: negative
This film must have been quietly released on some other side of the world, perhaps even in English. Hopefully nobody understood a word, not there's anything to understand in this movie anyways! Haahaa! Call me a nut, but I think this is one of the best movies ever. Why would I come to that conclusion?? Because it's my national pasttime to sabotage horrible films and this one begs for it every other minute! Once I became a fan of Myster Science Theater 3000, I had no doubt in my mind they'd find it somewhere and use it. Sure enough! The version they acquired was entitled "Cave Dwellers" using some strange intro footage not even from the film itself (apparently, they were ashamed to use footage from their OWN film!). I can't say I recommend buying this film. Rather, I highly recommend getting the MST3K version. Sure to find it most anywhere MST3K DVD's are sold, don't miss out!

Sentiment: positive
The film starts out great, with a mock instruction film about the habits of Swedish housewives. After that we get a detailed reconstruction of post-war Scandinavia with lots of amazing cars, electronic equipment and interior design; a minimal jazz score, nice cinematography and stylish titling. Also there's some funny Scandinivian rivalry like in Von Triers 'Riget'.

Sadly, after the set up, "Kitchen stories" collapses like the Twin Towers on 9/11.Actors who try to portray the emotion 'jealousy" by just staring in front of them. Corny dialog filled with stale gay symbolism in the vain of: "I don't like white swans, I prefer bears and wolves... u ever tasted bear meat?" The music becomes cheesier than Yann Tiersen at his worst.

It's a pity the director put all the effort in this great set-up, just to screw it up after-wards.

Sentiment: negative
I first saw Enchanted April about five years ago. I loved it so much that my husband surprised me with a copy the following Christmas. It's about two women who decide to rent a castle in Italy for the month of April, leaving their humdrum lives behind them. They are very sad women at the outset of the film, and you can't help but root them on as they plan this get-away with two other women they invite along to share the expenses. This is perhaps the most feel good movie I have ever seen. It' pure and simple, with no car chases, no animosities and no deaths. It was made with care and in very good taste. You cannot help but smile all through it -- except when you're crying happy tears!

Sentiment: positive
Look at the all the positive user comments of this movie, then check to see how often each one posts user comments. They post once. It seems companies are probably paying for services which post junk pro-movie comments on IMDb.

This movie was awful. The plot was stupid. The acting was poor. The jokes weren't even funny. The movie included minor nudity from what looked like porn actresses but none of the other characters.

It was clear from the first 15 minutes that movie wasn't funny. There was some slapstick here and there but most of humor was supposed to be derived from the characters talking behind each other's back and spreading rumors. This isn't even done well. Every joke is obvious and you see it coming.

The movie is worthy of fast forwarding or better yet not watching.

I regret watching this movie and if I could charge the studio and distributor for 1.5 hrs they stole from me I would.

Sentiment: negative
I loved All Dogs go to Heaven so much that I went to see the sequel in the theater, and I can't remember being more disappointed by a movie. The story stank worse than an over-aged sack of manure. I mean, come on! How could Carface possibly imagine being able to get revenge on an animal so much bigger than him, no matter how angry he was. Plus depicting Satan as a CAT?!?! How cliché can you get? So much for the story. Is it any wonder that Don Bluth, Burt Reynolds, Melba Moore, and Vic Tayback wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole? The animation was absolutely wretched. The colors were all washed out, and I can't count how many times I was able to see through objects that were supposed to be solid. It had to be the worst animation I've ever seen! I usually like animated movies, but not this BOMB!

Sentiment: negative
If the scale went negative I would be happier. Seeing Sushmita Sen was nice, and Nisha Kothari has a bright future but the producer and the director ruined any and all enjoyment in this story. The choice of angles, choice of lighting and well everything distracted from trying to remember what is the story. Oh, if the songs and dances haven't caused you to rip your ears off your head, first. The film could have been made twice at 1.25 hours, and been pretty good, kinda like "Seven Samurai" but the director and writer didn't go that direction, even if the "townsfolk" finally find their backbone and want to help. This movie fails on so many levels: editing, writing, photography angles, style, lighting, script - name any aspect of this film - it was BAD - probably the food from the caterer was bad too. I have never in 6 years of watching Indian (Bollywood) movies seen something this badly made.

Sentiment: negative
Being a D.B. Sweeney fan, I've been on the lookout for this movie for quite some time. I recently rented the video and found it very enjoyable. It had some really hilarious scenes. The dysfunctional lives of some of the characters was unsettling, but I think the movie also showed that it's possible to keep your life on track or get it back on track if it's been derailed.

Sentiment: positive
A note to all of you budding film writers: Study this film. If your dialog reads like the dialog in this film, please shred your script and try again.

I didn't have high expectations, but was intrigued by the description indicating there was a mystery at the Christmas Ornament Factory. The Mystery is resolved very early and the film becomes a straight romance. I almost stopped watching it at 5 minutes, 10 minutes, and at the first break. My spouse , who is the Hallmark & Lifetime fan, gave up at the first break. 

Forest River is a company town - the main business is Aikens Ornaments, who make all manner of holiday decorations.The patriarch of the company has recently passed away, so the companies future might be in question. We soon meet Noelle, who would rather be on Wall Street than Main Street, and the mysterious Justin, who gets a date with Noelle after a large snowman she is inflating crashes into Justins car. Once we meet Alison Aikens, doing due diligence for the Board, we have our story setup.

If you can't nail all the story arcs by the first commercial break, you haven't seen enough of this kind of Holiday film. Maybe that's a good thing.

Sentiment: negative
Having read the reviews for this film, I understandably started watching it with a great deal of doubt in my mind that it would actually be any good. However, this is one of the best films i have seen in a long time. The majority of reviews that i had read, said that the complicated plot made it too hard to follow. And whilst some parts do leave you confused, the ending ties up so many loose ends that you feel like kicking yourself because you've missed so much. It's not like "Lock, Stock..." or "Snatch", in the sense that it isn't that funny (in fact, it's pretty dark), and it is a lot more intelligent, in the way that you see parts of scenes from different viewpoints (and, in one of the best scenes of the film, Jason Statham spends five minutes in a lift having an argument with himself). The way in which it is similar to the two films i just mentioned, is that it is full of memorable characters, specifically Statham, who gives a fantastic performance as the lead, and Ray Liotta, who spends most of the film in Speedos, but gives a great performance none the less. If you've got time, and have time afterwards to think about the film, and even watch it again, you really start to see all the symbolism and hints that are laid out through the film. I think it's fantastic, and that Guy Ritchie is a director on top of his game.

Sentiment: positive
This is better than the early Cronenberg horror films, but nothing more than your basic what-is-real story. The videogame theme has been told before too. Nothing original is left except the weird Cronenberg atmosphere (which is not that strong here) with the amusing sexual references and Shore's dark score. The story never grabs your full attention. It just flows forward event after event with boring pace. Rating 4/10.

Sentiment: negative
I couldn't. I was bored, not just because the acting was terrible and the tragic story was simply a b-movie whose plot was all about the cannibalism, but the fact I was watching a subtitle foreign film, which doesn't bother me at all, but was STILL dubbed.

The "special effects" were awful. As the back of the plane splits off, you can see the model is hollow as it "breaks away" in the phony snow. Most of the movie takes place on a sound stage that clearly is not real and almost looks like a play, as the "sounds" of snow blowing all over are heard but not actually scene.

"But how what will they eat? They have no food" one military person (It's never clear what this guy does or why he's in charge) says, which I'm sure no one ever said in reality or even thought about food, since they were concerned if the people were alive, not how they'd eat. It was simply a stupid line written to point out that, yes, they will have to eat the dead bodies to survive.

When they finally decide to eat the bodies, one man finds one shirtless body, who despite being in the snow for however long, is not remotely frozen, in fact, his flesh is very flexible and fresh. He cuts the fresh meat off his back, that again, is not frozen or even cold it appears, and this scene goes on for five minutes. That's where I had to stop. The remake "Alive" was a far superior film about trying to survive in a horrible situation that I'm sure the real survivors praised whereas I can't imagine any of them had anything nice to say about this version. It was simply about eating dead bodies and everything else was secondary. Avoid.

Sentiment: negative
I quite enjoyed this movie for two reasons. The first is that it gives an insight into the world of loyalism in northern ireland, which is very rarely treated in movies, most of which tell us about the republican struggle. The second reason is the performances of the actors. I thought they gave very honest and convincing portrayals of a very seedy underworld that not many people hear about outside my native shores.

All in all, it is an entertaining ganster movie with stellar performances from a who's who in northern irish actors cast. It wont move the earth, although it may slightly open some peoples eyes to the murky world of loyalist paramilitaries.

Sentiment: positive
Horrendous! I'm a teenager and I don't mind teen movies but this is horrible! Aaron Carter plays this popstar named JD McQueen and to keep his grades up or something, he works together with the 'nerd', Jane whateverherlastnameis. But the 'mean girls' are too predictable and such The clothing most of the girls wear in the movie isn't realistic. How would any of those girls get away with wearing no bra, tube tops and shirts that expose the belly? IN HIGH SCHOOL? At my school, we'd be sent home for something like that.

And one part of the movie where JD texts Jane, she says 'Sleep tight? He must think i'm an idiot! I didn't know texting was so stressful!' How is texting stressful? And how obsessed Jane is with JD and how he 'falls' in love with her is very stupid. The dialogue is cheesy and stupid, the acting's terrible. the music is somewhat enjoyable and the plot is little to none.

For tweeny-boppers who still love Aaron Carter, you'll enjoy it. If you're a casual watcher like me, this is NOT the movie for you

Sentiment: negative
I loved this movie when it first came out(but i was just 12 years old then - and I had forgotten this film existed until one day I found a used copy for sale at a gas station. I bought it and I couldn't wait to watch this film that had I loved as a kid, and then as I saw this film again many years later,it hit me.... Why in the world did I like this film as a Kid, watching it again as an adult I realized that this film is terrible. The saddest part about this film is that they had everything in place to make the greatest western ever and they blew it!!! the costumes are perfect,good actors, there are 2 music scores the orchestrail score is wonderful, and keeps with the classic spirit of the old timey Lone Ranger alive, the second score is a series of songs by country music artest like Merle Haggerd, and The Statler Brothers and those songs like "The Man in the Mask" are so bad that they are funny. This movies Strongest point is that it had a Briliant Storyline, and one of the best Western plots ever, and for a while its fun to watch as John Reid is nursed back to health,after he and his fellow Rangers are ambushed.Its fun to see him grow into his new life and Identity as the Lone Ranger,as he concels his identity, and goes on a revenge run to get the gang responsible for killing his brother and all his fellow rangers to whom he rode with. But unfortunatly,as good as the storyline is, its all ruined by Merle Haggard Narrating everything as you are watching it happen(for the love of God why did they do that?) between Merle Haggard's Narration and The Statler Brothers singing corny(stupid) songs like "Ride little cowboy" being playing in the backgound make this movie impossible to take serious. I would Love to see a really good producer take this same script and story and re-do this film right,because at the heart of this silly film is a great western.---I would descibe this film as a beautiful woman dress in the ugliest clothing. I give it 4 stars out of 10 --if your 12 years old, and dont know better, then you might love it.

Sentiment: negative
I had a heck of a good time viewing this picture, and was splendidly surprised at its more erudite features. First off, the film is undeniably cheaply-made with its cardboard sets, limited settings, and creative scientific props. The acting ranges from very poor(the two strippers), barely professional(Herb Evers as the leading man), gothic overstatement(Leslie Daniels as the assistant Kurt)to first-rate with Virginia Leith in the title role as the headless victim alive against her will for the benefit of science and her fiancee's lustful passions. The scripting though is very good and the dialogue is fantastic for a movie of this ilk. Issues abound about what role science and medicine have in our lives and what their boundaries should be. This film is a thinking film in many ways. However, don't be too fooled by its real intent. It is a sleazy story about a man obsessed with his aptitude in medical science who wishes to fuse together his dead girlfriend's head with the perfect body, thereby creating the perfect woman for a man with the best of both body and soul. One other very bright aspect of the film is the sax music which resonates strongly every time the doctor scours town for female beauties.

Sentiment: positive
Rebar is an astronaut who goes on the world's first space mission to Saturn, but of course this being a horror movie things turn ugly and he returns to earth as the only survivor. Stricken with some bizarre condition that causes him to slowly melt and lose his mind unless he regularly consumes human flesh, he kills what apparently is the only nurse in the hospital and escapes to the neighboring town to stalk more victims.

I liked the premise and the monster and gore effects are actually pretty good, but the space scenes are just pasted together out of stock NASA footage and the hospital looks curiously like a warehouse. A very weak script, little character development and overall poor acting keep this one from rising above being anything other than a mediocre slasher flick with the novelty of having a living candle as the killer, and more or less only has its gore effects to hold your interest.

4 out of 10, strictly for the most die-hard monster movie fans.

Sentiment: negative
The reviewer from Poland must be a feminist, for she finds "Young Catherine" to be a great film and historically accurate. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a practicing Russian historian for many, many years I took exception with YC at almost every turn, and in particular the politically correct depiction of her as the boss who single-handed moved Russia into a direction of dominance. The truth? She was only brought to St.Petersburg to be a wife and mother, and found she had to "bond" with the dvoriane, the boyars, and the military just to survive. So long as she did not challenge them she was able/ permitted to indulge her cultural wishes (filling up the Hermitage with art treasures, etc.). There are so many proofs that she was not "great," but in this area of post-modern revisionism proof is not very popular. YC is only a costume drama, a bit of fluff from Ted Turner that, like "Peter the Great" in 1986, is one more example of how badly Russia is portrayed in the West.

Sentiment: negative
Went to watch this movie expecting a 'nothing really much' action flick, still got very disappointed. The opening scene promised a little action with a tinge of comedy. It keeps you hooked for the first half coz till then you are expecting that now its time for the action to kick in. Well, nothing of that sort happens. The movie drags and the ending just thumps you down to a point that you get annoyed.Wonder what was the director thinking. Made no sense watsoever. The movie lacked in all aspects, had no real storyline and it seemed very hollow, even if "Rambo" was in it, I don't think he could have helped the rating at all. There is simply no logic to the movie. A perfect way to waste your time and money. By far the most irritating movie i have ever seen and i am sure there will b others who'll have the same viewpoint after enduring it. Definitely not for people who have a little movie sense left in them.

Sentiment: negative
Spanish films are into a, if not Golden, definitely a Silver Age. Piédras is another example of a movie that takes people and their conflicts seriously. Although the feelings are strong or nearly at life or death-level, they still aren't really melodramatic. This could happen.

There are different stories here, which become connected. One is about the retarded girl, who doesn't dare to pass the street to the next block. One is about the middle-aged woman who finds the lover of her life in a foot fetischist. Another is about the girl with drug problems who's lover leaves her. Still another one is about the madame of a brothel who (almost) finds true love.

Definitely worth seeing. It's in Spain the moviemakers take women seriously.

Sentiment: positive
Proof, if ever proof were needed, that Hammer should have left their vampires firmly in the Victorian age. After all, vampirism is all about repressed sexuality, so the concept is irrelevant in 1972's London, with its thirty-something thesps pretending to be randy teenagers.

Remember, by this time, Hammer was floundering badly. The public had tired of the drawing room horror of the 1950s and 60s, so the studio was trying everything to bring them back, including ample nudity (LUST FOR A VAMPIRE, et al) and updating their characters - neither of which apparently worked as Hammer was pretty much resting in it grave just two years later. Shame ...

But I still have a great fondness for the classic Hammer period from 1957-1965.

Sentiment: negative
This TV film tells the story of extrovert Frannie suddenly returning to Silk Hope to visit friends and family, but unaware of her mother's death. Her sister runs the family home, but is intending to sell it and move away with her new husband. Frannie strongly objects to the idea, and vows to keep the family heirloom as it were, by getting a job and maintaining responsibility.

In comes handsome Ruben and the two soon fall in love (as you do), and it's from this point that I sort of lost interest....

There is more to Farrah Fawcett than just the blonde hair and looks, she can portray a character extremely convincingly when she puts her mind to it - and it is certainly proved here as well as some of her previous efforts like Extremities and Small Sacrificies - a great performance from the legendary Charlie's Angel.

Silk Hope is the type of film that never shies away from its cheap and cheerful TV image, and you know there was a limit to the budget, but it's not the worst film ever made. The positive aspects are there; you just have to find them.

Sentiment: negative
The subject is certainly compelling: a group of people take their love of gaming one step further by creating a fake medieval world full of warriors, kings, princes and castles. Wargaming is an interesting phenomena that delves into our collective need to "escape" from reality and the sometimes mundaneness of our existence -- something almost everyone can relate to. The characters are the predictable mix of Lord of the Rings nerds and Star Trek enthusiasts. That's enough to get most people to watch. However, very quickly the film turns into an insider's view of wargaming with an almost stereotypical thumbing of the nose to viewers who "don't get it". The filmmakers seem to take the subject of wargaming, and this particular one, waaaaay too seriously rather than once in awhile recognizing the humor and fun in making a film about adults drssing up in medieval gear and pounding each other with foam swords. It's pretty hard for anyone who doesn't sit on their computer for 7-10 hours a day playing games or desiging the latest star destroyer to understand what the characters are talking about and why we should even care. However, the filmmakers themselves seem not to care choosing to focus solely on the subject of the game itself rather than building a strong narrative with a clear story that anyone can understand. Moreover, the characters themselves are not that compelling and you quickly become bored of them: a big no-no when you're trying to keep people's attention for 90 minutes.

Sentiment: negative
So bad, it's entertaining, especially during cocktail hour, and believe me, you'll need a beer, a drink, or whatever to get through this turkey. Where do they get the financial backing for such paint-by-the-numbers "horror" flicks? The fun in this movie is predicting which characters will get eaten and in what order, and trashing the so-called "uniforms" the "military" jokers wear. The raptors, by the way, are not the same raptors we met in "Jurassic Park," but a cousin species. (Sorry, no spoilers here. You'll have to watch it to find out for yourself) Don't expect the plot to make sense, simple as it is, just go along for the ride. You could make it a game... take another drink each time you hear a certain sound... or better yet, every time someone gets crunched by a "raptor." With a little luck, you won't even remember having seen this "C-grade" made-for-TV movie!

Sentiment: negative
I've been a classic horror fan my entire life. Many nights stretched until the early hours of the morning watching the Universal films on "Horror Incorporated" and "Creature Feature Night". Sadly, I viewed this film in the early evening and yet it still almost put me to sleep.

I don't think I've ever seen a "horror" picture where everything was so matter of fact. Dr. Edelmann doesn't seem to believe in the supernatural, yet before long he's medically treating Dracula and watching Larry Talbot change into the Wolfman while hardly blinking an eye. He and Talbot discover the Frankenstein monster like it's an everyday occurrence. Edelmann is all fired up to bring the monster back to life, but after Talbot, Miliza and Nina protest he's like "Aww, you're right. No big deal". After realizing Dracula's treachery, he opens the Count's coffin to sunlight and POOF!, he's gone, just like that.

The only person who didn't appear to just be phoning in her lines was Jane Adams as Nina. Her reward is getting bounced off the hump in her back into a pit by the Frankenstein Monster at the end of the film...and no one even tries to rescue her! She, Dr. Edelmann and the Monster all perish, while Talbot and Miliza casually leave the castle.

Definitely the low point for Universal during it's classic horror years.

Sentiment: negative
Sometime I fail to understand what do the directors think when they make a movie... I had had a trauma after watching Welcome (2007) and thought that they wont do it again. But after loads of amazing promos, Tashan finally ended as heart attack.

Such amazing 3 songs in promo - Dil Haara, Chhaliya and Tashan Mein..... and what u get in the movie? Zero story, predictable plot, plenty of Akshay Kumar stunts and nothing interesting apart from watching Kareena after her major weight loss...!!!

Music-wise another major disaster... in the music album, they have spent time on giving pathetic small dialogs of these 4 jokers and they haven't thought of giving the background song of the scenes when Akshay Kumar is doing stunts...! that song is such nice, quite comparable to Tashan Mein and that is not taken in the music album!!! :-( If you plan to watch this movie, i would say, watch it to listen to that background song which goes something like ...'Bachchan Bachchan Pandey...'

Overall very disappointed even with the way Bhaiyyaji has made attempt to speak bad English!

Go away man, i need to puke!

Sentiment: negative
As i watched "Wirey Spindell" i couldnt but laugh at what was taking place on screen. Wirey sure got a lot of play from both boys and women but i was confused as to why the actor that played Wirey in H.S. was 10 years old. Then the actor changed age to like 20 to play Wirey when he was a senior in HS...but whatever, i thought it was funny.

Sentiment: positive
An entertaining kung fu film, with acting, plot and fight scenes a cut above the average chop socky. All of the cast are likeable characters and skilled martial artists. Alexander Fu-Sheng's proto-Jackie Chan comedy antics are fun to watch, and his austere companion shows particularly impressive skills. For me, the film's only glaring flaw is the size of the cast -- at times, things get a little confused as the film chops and changes between various subplots, and some of the characters are not as fully fleshed-out as one might wish.

But a kung fu film should be judged first and foremost on the quality of the action, and Shaolin Temple definitely delivers on that count. The film climaxes with a high-bodycount battle that allows each character to show off his skills against a worthy opponent.

Overall, Shaolin Temple is an enjoyable low-budget kung fu movie. Not up to the quality of a good Jet Li film, but definitely worth a look for fans of the genre. My rating: 8/10.

Misc notes: The 1987 Warner Home Video release I saw was (predictably) poorly dubbed, and lacked full cast & crew credits.

Sentiment: positive
Seriously any film with John Malkovich is usually very good. And this includes Clint Eastwood, Rene Russo, John Mahoney (Frasier), Dylan McDermott (The Practice), and many more great actors.

Clint is getting old now but thanks he is also an awesome director (in his own right).

We are used to Wolfgang "water films" like Das Boot, Poseidon and Perfect Storm - this was really different but just as sublimely directed.

The premise of the assassin is as serious as it comes, the film is well paced, some of the violence is a bit... But altogether recommended (but not for kids).

Sentiment: positive
Didn't Mystic Pizza win the Oscar for that year? This movie never had a chance, due to the casting, but perhaps by now people can see why I felt that way upon leaving the theater. Only "Wargames" left me feeling similarly disturbed after leaving the theater, with the feeling I was getting a glimpse of our future. History has shown that this is exactly what happened.

The casting is a pop-culture Cuisinart of the 1980s: you get Arnold as Ben Richards, the framed fugitive offered a chance to "run" for his freedom on the game show with the same title as the movie; Richard Dawson as Damon Killian, treating his role as if he were the host of Family Feud with the contestants using real guns; Jesse Ventura as "Captain Freedom" and co-wrestler Professor Tanaka as "Subzero," both "stalkers" who kill the "running men." Even Mick Fleetwood (Mic) and Dweezil Zappa (Stevie) show up, while the "dancers of the future" are none other than the Laker Girls. This movie SCREAMS "80s." The plot is a good excuse for the action: Ben Richards is determined to prove his innocence, but agrees to be the Running Man when he is told that his buddies would be set free; instead, they join him as "contestants." Maria Conchita Alonzo as Amber Mendez is the standard by which one can properly judge Salma Hayek in the 1990s.

The production value on the film was a bit poor, the lines were cheesy, and (at the time), the plot seemed a bit far-fetched. I remember thinking when I was leaving the theater that we were definitely heading in the direction of the film, but who could have seen how far we'd go there and how fast? If The Running Man were listed in TV Guide, most people would assume it were just another reality show pushing the envelope today. The government influences on the media have only gotten worse, and the dumbed-down American public of the future that surrenders all of its freedoms for "national security" is downright chilling. Ben Richards is played brilliantly by Arnold as one of the few remaining holdouts against a government tyranny that the rest of America is all too willing to accept in return for good television and some parting gifts for the audience.

The movie was way over the top, maybe even off the cliff for its time, but as with Back to the Future III, the "ravine" it appeared to be sinking itself into in 1987 was replaced by completed tracks in 2006 and beyond, and this movie will sail into the future as one of the more prophetic films of our time. It is tragic that, as with Wargames, the academy did not give this brilliant screenplay the recognition it deserved. "Serious" actors acting seriously while being so pretentious that you want to throw up may win more Oscars, but that doesn't make them better films than their "common man" counterparts, such as this one.

An absolute must-see.

Sentiment: positive
I don't really know why but I watched this with quite a sense of anticipation. Unfortunatly it was misplaced. Firstly this is not horror, it doesn't scare and (unless it was even worse than I gave it credit for - which is possible) doesn't try to. It's a trashy comedy and the fact I smiled once means I gave it a 2 not a 1. This film ripps of Gremlins in a truly special way, I can't claim to have ever seen a film which devotes its self more. Very, Very bad - avoid.

Sentiment: negative
CIA analyst Douglas Freeman (Gyllenhaal) gets to see his first secret location interrogation when Anwar (Metwally) is accused of having contact with a known terrorist bomb maker. Anwar's wife (Witherspoon) is frantic regarding the whereabouts of her husband .

Don't you just hate it when the title of a movie sends you to a dictionary? I must have an old edition as this Rendition is not a musical piece. No, it's the government's way of legally taking a resident or citizen somewhere to interrogate him and possibly use some torture to get the desired information. 

While watching this movie I was reminded of a similar story line in the Crossing Jordan TV show (now off the air), and I expect we will see even more of these story lines. It's inevitable. The events of 911 are the catalysts. 

This is a tough one to watch because we don't like to see people tortured and our government not telling the truth about things. We like the idea that no matter what happens or happened that we can go somewhere to find answers, but when that door is closed to us, we are truly lost and without hope as Anwar's wife was. 

Performances by all were first class and it's possible we may see more of Igai Naor (I have no idea how to pronounce it) because he resembles and can act like Telly Savalas. No kidding. 

Violence: Yes, Sex: No, Nudity: No, Language: Yes

Sentiment: positive
This movie, no correction, this THING, this abysmal abomination from the burning pits of hell should have been killed before it even left the writer's head. I could not possibly come up with enough adjectives to describe this movie. But let's try anyway. Horrible, bad, nauseating, tasteless, crap, vomit inducing, gut wrenchingly bad, hideous, nasty, putrid, there just aren't enough words in the English language! The "plot" involves a serial killer who becomes a snow man. Don't ask how, not important. The killer snowman runs about killing people. How, you may ask, can a snowman kill someone? In tasteless ways that make you want to remove your eyes if only so you don't have to endure that Styrofoam snowman anymore. In ways that make you want to fill your ears with hot wax so you do not have to endure his snow puns anymore. Don't watch this movie! Destroy it on sight! For the sake of your very soul don't watch it!

Sentiment: negative
I fell in love with Emily Watson in Breaking the Waves, then grew even more fascinated by her range and adeptness in Hilary and Jackie. Now comes this stunning portrayal of a rich girl who spurns breeding and convention in favor of mothering the tortured soul of the child of a man clearly in need of mothering. Her eyes are the mirror to his soul --and what gentle and beautiful eyes they are.

Those who take things literally will find Marleen Gorris' poetic and allegorical direction quite frustrating. Romantics who are willing to go with the amazing kinetic energy is this filmed allegorical poem will be well rewarded.

Sentiment: positive
This review is based on the dubbed Shock-o-Rama video released on an undeserving world in 2002. How bad is it? It's awful, which is what a '1' represents on the IMDb scale--but it's much worse than that. It's nice to imagine that an original German-language print might improve matters--the comedic English-language dubbing isn't funny at all--but truthfully, this is one of the worst amateur films of any genre you're likely to see. The zombies in the film are as slow and clumsy as ever, and they don't seem to have the ability to speak or think about anything beyond their next meal. However, they're also intelligent enough to operate chainsaws and malicious enough to know that western taboos about genitalia will no doubt enliven their dinner table conversation. George Romero's Land of the Dead posited a zombie nation that retained a shred of social coherence; here, zombies are nothing more than an empty canvas for the perverse imaginings of director Andreas Schnaas. Utterly without redeeming social value, and even worse, entirely lacking as entertainment, Zombie '90 is a bad joke on anyone who wastes money on it.

Sentiment: negative
The Greek locale for parts of the movie were very beautiful and the photography get all my votes and that's about the extent of my raves for this movie. I found that all the characters were narcissistic archetypes found so often in the American culture and were shallow and uninteresting. Susan Sarandon and Gena Rowlands are easy to look at but I found their characters very narcissistic and unlikeable for many other reasons. When Gena Rowlands sings at a party it made me wonder how this woman could think of herself as a competent star of the stage. I was tempted to hit the MUTE button until she finished singing. Molly Ringwald was herself and Raul Julia's character was so lecherous he was downright creepy. The movie was much too long for my liking and I could not sit through it again even at the point of a gun.

Sentiment: negative
I found West Point to be an agreeable film, although I doubt that I would watch it again. The performances were convincing, with William Haines as yet another obnoxiously amusing young man that has his come-uppance by film's end. It's hard to believe that stardom beckoned Joan Crawford less than a year after this film was made, as she looks rather awkward at times. 

I would apply the comment made by another concerning Ramon Novarro's "Huddle" (1932) to this film as well. There is a great film waiting to be made here, but there is something lacking. The backdrop and integration of the Corps was well utilized, but I was less involved than I thought that I would be. Perhaps Haines' character went too far, or got away with too much. His "repentance" did not seem genuine enough; and what kind of message did it send for him to run every play in the last minutes of the Army-Navy game? Where's "the Corps" in that? Might as well have taken out the other ten men and let him do it all himself. Also, I doubt very much that William Bakewell's weak, puny character would ever have a real-life counterpart at West Point.

All this aside, the film is sometimes very moving and inspiring. It is a fine look into the daily practices of an honorable institution. Thank goodness that tradition still means something at West Point too, unlike the vapid "traditions" of Ivy League schools, only half-heartedly engaged in these days.

As to the score: it was appropriately martial. But, there was a distinct over-use of snare drums. Using them for knocks on the door, scene transitions, et ALU as well as in well over half the scenes got to be rather tedious. It rather lessened the viewing experience. I was ready to say "I GET THE POINT ALREADY." 

With that, enjoy the film, but don't expect too much emotional involvement.

Sentiment: positive
what can i say, this film is amazing. it has its flaws like every film does for example wobbly headstones in a graveyard, a clearly visible slide board during the penguins death scene, Max Shreck losing his heavy coat in a split second between shots during the image consultancy scene, batman losing his black eye makeup all of a sudden between shots so he can reveal Bruce Wayne to Catwoman, dialogue being recorded but is played back and spoken differently than when it was spoken in the first place and lastly Catwoman all of a sudden knows how to use a bull whip without any training whatsoever. these flaws are minor compared to some you would see in for example batman forever where the riddler can obviously be seen waiting for his cue or val Kilmer's hair changing between shots.

what makes this film so deserving of an 8/10 is the great acting because the performances are absolutely amazing. Michael Keaton reprises his role as Batman and has a lot more to do in this film. He looks more comfortable in the role the second time around and is on par with the villains performances. Danny Devito is the perfect penguin. I really like the conversion of the penguin into the grotesque penguin man instead of the non threatening character from the comics or TV show because now the character has more depth and has a far more interesting story that generates from the basic need of family and to feel accepted and wanted. this gives us an evil character who we feel sympathy for because he was rejected for being what he is which is not his fault. Michelle Pfeiffer is excellent as Catwoman. she is sleet and sexy and she is also a villain we can feel sorry for because of the way she is victimised. Christopher Walken is a great secondary villain and is so interesting a character even though he is not even in the batman universe.

the soundtrack is far better than the first and Danny Elfman gets more of a chance to show off his musical talents this time around. The sets are amazing. They are detailed, eye catching, sinister, Gothic , unique, dark and so many other adjectives can describe how amazing they look. the costumes and make up are great and obviously a lot of work went into making them and all the work pays off because the Batsuit is better, the cat suit is amazing to look at and the penguin make up and effects are so convincing.The animatronic penguins look really realistic and are played to good effect. The script is really good and the Storyline in my opinion is a plausible one. overall, because of all these factors this film deserves an 8/10 and stands as my favourite of all the batman films

Sentiment: positive
Slow, Slow, Slow... There is no mystery or excitement in this film. If you don't figure out who the "mole" is in the first ten minutes you must be brain dead. The secret service must have been too, because it took them the whole film to put it together. There are no compelling characters in the movie (not film). The pace of the movie is slow there is no tension. The hired killer is an excellent shot unless he is aiming at Michael Douglas than all he seems to be able to hit is large panes of glass. The funniest scene in the movie is when the presidents wife says the code word at the anticlimactic ending. It is laugh out loud ridiculous. At least six people got up and left the movie early. I would have joined them if I were not sitting in the middle of the row. I would not recommend this film to anyone.

Sentiment: negative
If you keep rigid historical perspective out of it, this film is actually quite entertaining. It's got action, adventure and romance, and one of the premiere casting match-ups of the era with Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland in the lead roles. As evident on this board, the picture doesn't pass muster with purists who look for one hundred percent accuracy in their story telling. To get beyond that, one need only put aside the history book, and enjoy the story as if it were a work of fiction. I know, I know, that's hard to do when you consider Custer's Last Stand at the Little Big Horn and it's prominence in the history of post Civil War America. So I guess there's an unresolved quandary with the picture, no matter how you look at it.

There's a lot to take in here though for the picture's two hour plus run time. Custer's arrival at West Point is probably the first head scratcher, riding up as he does in full military regalia. The practical joke by Sharp (Arthur Kennedy) putting him up in the Major's headquarters probably should have gotten them both in trouble.

Ironically, a lot of scenes in this military film play for comedy, as in Custer's first meeting with Libby Bacon, and subsequent encounters that include tea reader Callie (Hattie McDaniel). I hadn't noticed it before in other films, but McDaniel reminded me an awful lot of another favorite character actor of mine from the Forties, Mantan Moreland. So much so that in one scene it looked like it might have been Moreland hamming it up in a dress. With that in mind, the owl scene was a hoot too.

As for Flynn, it's interesting to note that a year earlier, he portrayed J.E.B. Stuart opposite Ronald Reagan's depiction of General Custer in "Santa Fe Trail", both vying for the attention of none other than Olivia de Havilland. In that film, Reagan put none of the arrogance and flamboyance into the character of Custer that history remembers, while in Flynn's portrayal here it's more than evident. But it doesn't come close to that of Richard Mulligan's take on the military hero in 1970's "Little Big Man". Let's just say that one was a bit over the top.

The better take away the picture had for me was the manner in which Custer persevered to maintain his good name and not gamble it away on a risky business venture. That and his loyalty to the men he led in battle along with the discipline he developed over the course of the story. Most poignant was that final confrontation with arch rival Sharp just before riding into the Little Big Horn, in which he declared that hell or glory was entirely dependent on one's point of view. Earlier, a similar remark might have given us the best insight of all into Custer's character, when he stated - "You take glory with you when it's your time to go".

Sentiment: positive
This film revolves around an Arabian leader (Amir) who dies and wants to live on. So a Dr. Lloyd Trenton is being paid to transplant Amirs brain into a "willing" participant. But in the Doctors basement his dwarf assistant Dorro (Angelo Rossitto) drains young girls blood for the doctors purposes. So meanwhile Doctor Llyod pays a man to kill the people who assisted Amir into the country (Which is Reed Hadley, Grant Williams, and various unknown bodyguards.). Grant is the only survivor when his car crashes off the road. While this has happened the doctors other assistant Gor is sent out to get a body for amir and hurts him so badly Dr.Llyod cant operate. Meanwhile, Grant finds Amirs "girlfriend" Regina Carrol and tells her his story. Grant sees the man who drove him off the road and Dorro kills him. Then since Gor failed to get a body D.r Llyod puts Amirs brain into Gors disfigured body. Then Grant and Regina go to the Doctors lab an

------------------------SPOILERS------------------------- find out his secret. Soon Amir (Gor) are prancing around killing people and in the muddle of what I think is plot Dr.Llyod has a brain-ray gun which hurts Amir on command. It turns out Dr.Lloyd wants a country in which all scientists can work without law. So then Regina dies. and at the end Amirs new body (I think) say that it shall be a new country blah blah.

I still don't get the ending but overall this was a very enjoyable piece of smelly cheese.This film features Grant Williams in his second to last film roll. I recommend it for any fan of Al Adamson or if you like Brains.

Sentiment: positive
I've got 10 plus year old computer games with better special effects! Plot is choppy and very predictable. Most of the actors seem like extras with no experience! Everyone has Scottish accents. It's like watching a crew of 'Scotties' from Star Trek without the personality or charm. Needless scenes of people putting up tents! Tents with all of the supposedly high tech equipment! Actors looking like they were not sure the camera was on them. Nothing to make you care if these people survive or not! Looks like it was made in someone's backyard and garage using low end equipment! Nothing seems original or even slightly entertaining. Do not waste your time!

Sentiment: negative